But that's not all it says. You are cherry-picking the way your side cherry-picks the verses—out of context. It's distortion, deformation, cariacture. The context of what I wrote has to to with the subject matter, namely insturmental music, not choirs.
In shofrt, you re-read only a portion of what I wrote. Not surprising.
Untruncated, uncensored, un-dysinformational, this is what I wrote: "Why, speaking of traditions, Presbyterian churches did not allow any kind of instrumental music for a long time. [do you see it now?] I bet you, most Presbyterians never even think about their choirs as unnecessary, man-made tradition added to Protestant rituals."
But you don't see the "instrumental music" part, you only see what you want to see. Present-day Presbytaerian choirs have insturmental music.
why do you think ANY music is a man made addition, whether it be instruments, or voices?
First, because the original Church did not have insturmental music. Second, because the early Presbyterians knew that and tried to keep it that way. For that reason there was a specific ban on insturmental music in early Presbyterian assemblies.
It only shows that at least even the early Protestants were closer to the Church than they are today.
Two separate sentences, two separate messages.
What makes you think that the church did not have musical instruments? If you feel this way, why did they do it that way?