Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Music instruments in the church?
- Thread starter reba
- Start date
stovebolts
Member
I'm curious, since I have not experience in formal debate, how is a winner determined?
And what does Paul say about those who would use Scripture to lead people astray by teaching something the Bible does not teach?
Isn't that pretty much what Stovebolts and Billy did - Left it up to the voters to decide?
Not that I had last seen. I thought they were just going to continue debating. But that kind of misses the point. In a formal debate, at a university for example, the audience often gets to vote in some fashion or another so the debaters get a sense of whose position won the day. Here it is essentially a debate where no one wins and no one loses. There is no sense of what the truth of the matter is, which should rather be the whole point.
stovebolts
Member
Please don't sidestep my question by asking another question.
jasonc
Member
Ernest T. Bass
Member
The issue is has God authorized the use IM for NT Christians or is using IM man's own initiative thereby offering a 'strange fire to God' (Lev 10:1)?
IM (along with celebrating Christmas and Easter as another example) would all fall under the category of offering a strange fire to God since God never authorized it.
Organ would be my fave instrument in the Church. Sends chills down my spine, for certain hymns.
Most guitar hymns don't cut it for me. Lyrics are weak imo to those old traditional hymns.
"These two loves to us impart
Divine love
In a human heart"
We don't get lyrics like that anymore.
Most guitar hymns don't cut it for me. Lyrics are weak imo to those old traditional hymns.
"These two loves to us impart
Divine love
In a human heart"
We don't get lyrics like that anymore.
stovebolts
Member
I’m curious how you relate these two. I’m also very interested in the depth of your understanding of the death of Aarons sons and what caused their fire to be foreign.
while I’m at it, do you see anything in the law that authorized musical instruments? When and how did musical instruments enter into the temple service, and was it authorized when it was introduced? How did God respond?
surely you have studied these things.
stovebolts
Member
My wife is leading worship on the 20th and again on the 27th. Here are our songs. I Play bass.
This is my favorite. We stream live on Facebook too.
Is she a professional singer? awesome...sounds a bit like the Dixie chicks...ain't no grave
You are a real muso stove Bolts!
Music keeps me going. It's a lifesaver. It can be the language of love.
Music keeps me going. It's a lifesaver. It can be the language of love.
Ernest T. Bass
Member
The fire offered was not authorized by God, Lev 10:1.
There were things done under the OT law that God was long suffering about, as polygamy, but no longer, Acts 17:30. I know of nowhere God authorized the Jews to use IM in worship to Him but God was long suffering towards it.
Amos 6:1-6 I see God shows His disdain for the use of IM.
Adam Clarke on Amos 6:5:
"I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read, and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion, and that they are sinful. If there was a wo to them who invented instruments of music, as did David under the law, is there no wo, no curse to them who invent them, and introduce them into the worship of God in the Christian Church?"
Furthermore on Amos 6:5:
Why Mention David?
If corruption in Israel exhausts the thrust of Amos’ censure, why mention David?
The rebuke could have been adequately rendered without any allusion to the Lord’s illustrious ancestor. To suggest that Israel’s apostates were appealing to David cannot be substantiated for certain.
Grammatical Considerations
The common theory that the rebels of Amos’ day were being contrasted with king David’s practice does not conform to the grammar.
The prophet does not say that David was applauded in what he did and that the rebels of Israel acted in the opposite fashion.
In some sense, the latter rebels are said to be like David. In some sense, what they did was the equivalent of what David did.
This would not suggest that David was involved in the type of dissoluteness in which Israel reveled, but that in one particular, they were alike. They each invented for themselves instruments of music.
The term “invented” signifies to “devise” (Prov. 6:18). It is kindred to a term meaning to “think” (i.e., that which proceeds from one’s mind; cf. Neh. 6:2).
It appears to say that what David did was to devise instruments to enhance his own pleasure in the worship of God and that in motive, corrupt Israel followed in kind.
The idea that the comparison was merely ironical is not based on anything in the text. It is a matter of interpretation, grounded upon a presupposition already in the commentator’s mind.
It may be valid, but it is speculation, not exegesis.
Instruments of David, not Jehovah
The expression “instruments of David” is found three times in the Old Testament.
Notice how the phrase “song of Jehovah” is distinguished from the “instruments of David” in the Chronicles text.
The musical instruments are never said to be “instruments of Jehovah” in an isolated context. The only time a text even comes close to that, David is injected into the scene.
As Keil commented:
Conclusion
When all has been said and the controversy is still left murky, the issue actually is a non-issue.
The real question is not whether David introduced the instruments on his own initiative or at the bidding of God. Either way, the matter is of no relevance to the Christian.
The task that lies with those who wish to employ the instrument in Christian worship today along with other carnal items (e.g., incense burning — cf. Heb. 9:10) is to find New Testament authority for the practice. And that does not exist.
This is why some recent advocates of instrumental worship have argued that authority is not even needed. They claim how we worship is entirely unregulated and, thus, of our own will (cf. Col. 2:23).
It is a matter of historical record that musical instruments were not used in worship associated with Christianity for at least several centuries after the church began.
The renowned Bingham wrote:
Even the supreme authority in popular Catholic literature notes:
Of course, for many people today, neither authority nor the record of history is an issue of consequence. These folks are the authority unto themselves.
Amos, David and Instruments of Music
Does Amos 6:5 censure David's introduction of instrumental music in worship?
www.christiancourier.com
As noted above what took place under the OT law is a non-issue for NT CHristians, the OT law has no authority on NT Christianity. Authorization for using IM must be found within the NT. Paul condemns going back to the OT to try and find justification fro some thing, Rom 7:1-6.
stovebolts
Member
Yeah, that version is 8 minutes long. I'm not much of a musician. My wife got me the Bass for Christmas so I haven't been playing long but nobody seems to notice! My wife has been singing all of her life and has an amazing voice. It's nice she is now able to lead worship and share her gift with the congregation.
stovebolts
Member
So you really don't know why their fire was considered foreign? Do you even know what authorized fire is? What were the "rules' for offering fire, and what 'rules did they break'?
In my OT theology class, it was drilled into me that good exegesis will lay the foundation for good redaction resulting in solid theology.
Again, how do you redact this event to forbidding musical instruments?
Ernest T. Bass
Member
It was called 'strange' for it was not authorized by God.
Lev 10:1 "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not."
Where has God authorized (Col 3:17) the NT Christian to use IM in worship? Or to celebrate Easter/Christmas as religious holidays?
"Which he had not commanded them ..." This is the true key to understanding the sin of Nadab and Abihu. Whatever they did here, it was totally upon their own PRESUMPTUOUS initiative, unsupported by any word whatever from the Lord. The many speculations about what their sin actually was are idle. All that they did here was SINFUL. Their taking of censers, unbidden, their putting incense upon censers carried by themselves, instead of sprinkling it upon the proper altar, their intrusion into the sanctuary in the circumstances and at the time of these events, their taking coals of fire from some place other than from the brazen altar where God had commanded the coals to be taken - all of these things were exceedingly sinful. Why? God had not authorized or commanded a single one of the things that they did.
Can people today commit this sin? Of course, it is impossible for people to commit exactly this sin in the form it appears here, but we must agree with Kellogg that, "As regards the inner nature and essence of this sin, no sin in all the ages has been more common."[1] What about the countless innovations and variations of Christian worship today? How many things there are which so-called Christian churches are doing "as worship of God," which are absolutely nothing else than the teachings and doctrines and practices invented by men and imposed upon the true worship! The frightful example of these unfortunate sons of Aaron serves as a grim warning in such matters."
Coffman Comm. (my emp)
stovebolts
Member
I have Coffman's commentary and they are not much more than his collection of others commentaries sprinkled with his own bias. I do not consider his commentary authorative.
That being said, he imposes sins on Aaron's sons they did not commit. You cannot find within the biblical texts any specific examples of the sins Coffman accuses them of. You need to understand that as sons of Aaron, they were authorized to perform all of the duties Aaron was authorized. This brings us back to offering strange fire. What is strange fire? BTW, Coffman was partially right on this part, but probably not where you think.
Aaron had four sons, what else does Scripture say about these two sons? What is their character?
Edited ....
Last edited: