Posted on 12/24/2002 4:49:47 PM PST by RMrattlesnake
I look to the whole of the New Testament. If you want to ignore the form of worship presented in Revelation, then you can. But the verse is there. There is no prohibition ANYWHERE in the bible against using musical instruments in worship, and the whole of the Old Testament and the Revelation of Christ in the New testament argue in favor of musical instruments in worship.
Again all of your arguments are from silence. The scriptures do not back up your dogma. Indeed, the scriptures argue against it.
I will leave you with a few more questions.
Did the Church that exsisted for decades with nothing for scripture except the Old Testament perform water baptisms for the remission of sin?
Did the Church that exsisted for decades with nothing for scripture except the Old Testament adhere to the Laws of Moses and the Prophets?
Indeed your insistence on keeping insturments out of worship smacks of the legalism you say we are no longer bound by.
The New Testament does not support your position. Period.
You are correct, there is no prohibition mentioned.
However, the bible gives many examples and patterns of how we are to worship and none include instruments.
Having said that, when the judgement day comes will the Lord say to a man "you have been a good servant but you played a guitar when you sung praises to my Father so you can not enter the Kingdom?" I will not pretend that I can speak for God, but as I see this issue of instrumental music in worship I'd rather not add to what has been revealed.
An example that I have heard used to illustrate the point of agruing from silence goes back to Noah and what was revealed to him for the construction of the ark.
Gen.6
[14] Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. [15] This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. [16] Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.
Very specific in his commandment to Noah. There is no specific prohibition to Noah against putting a flag pole to fly his family seal.
Now, the question is this:
Would Noah be disobeying God if he decided to add a flag pole?
Point taken. It certainly does smack of legalism.
Without a direct commandment or a necessary inference for the use of instruments in worship I feel fairly confident that my singing and making melody to the Lord with all my heart is sufficent and I rather not risk adding what I think is acceptable to what has been revealed.
Maybe instrumental music in worship is acceptable but we can't say for sure from what is revealed in the examples and patterns of the NT. So it is a risk I'd rather not take.
Does that make any sense?
do you realize how silly your arguments have become? This tells me that you have no support fro your position. NONE!
God said to Noah: "And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of....
God gave Noah the basic outline and the absolute requirements. The rest was up to the discretion of Noah. I can't help but notice that God didn't tell him to build ramps or stairs between the decks, did he? Don't you think he put some in? Now would Noah have been in violation of God's Commandments if he had built some ramps? And what about furniture? Would Noah have been in violation of God's commandments if he put a bed in the boat? Of course not. I'm sure God knew that Noah would do whatever was within his discretion to get the job done. Did he use nails? Was he told to use nails? NO! Was he told to use dowels? NO! Was he told how to cut the wood? NO! Was he told to use 2x4's or 4x4's? NO! Was he told whether or not to dry the wood before he cut it into lumber? NO! And did he put a flag pole on it? Who cares?
There were a lot of basic things that were necessary to build the ark that God did not even discuss with Noah. He basically told him to build it according to his outline and the methodolgy was entirely up to Noah.
The same can be said of worship. God tells us to worship him. He gives us the basic outline and quite frankly that basic outline is set forth in the Psalms in the Old Testament and that method included using all sorts of musical instruments in worship and praise. He does not tell us that with the New Covenatnt that we are to abandon the methods of worship that were traditionally a part of his Chosen People.
Here's a question. Has God authorized you to discuss religious matters on a computer? I don't think you will find any such commandment in the New Testament. If you want to be consistent, you will use the new testmaent method and get out your quill and grab a piece of lambskin or papyrii before you respond to this post. And you will write it in either greek, hebrew or Aramaic.
Go for it! Praise the Lord.
I just think you are missing out on the full expression of worship by keeping out the beautiful sounds of the various musical instruments that God has blessed us as human beings with the capacity to enjoy. I believe it is possible to worship God merely by listening to the instruments and if God has blessed someone with a talent to play beautiful music to Glorify God, then why should we exclude him or her from the worship service? What if someone is a mute, but can play the piano? Should he be barred from using his talents to praise the Lord?
Those talents should be used for the glory of God. To exclude these instruments from worship is to condemn them and those whom God has blessed with these talents to the secular world.
I refered to necessary inference in my last post and all the points you state would fall into that catagory. As for the flag pole example that would be an addition to the fashion, outline and requirements. Maybe not the best of examples. I will try to make a better one.
Again, the issue of adding to what has been revealed in example and pattern is one of the slippery slope.
If a person or a church takes the stand that if something is not specifically prohibited then it must be acceptable in worship then the door is wide open for all manner of error.
God Bless,
<><
Marlowe
Salient points are made about changing doctrine due to the new light of understanding (via new historical discoveries, better understanding of languages used, etc and so on). The church has done a fine job in many areas, but I am still left with an empty feeling about them.
The main reason being is that they have gutted the bible in a way which takes it from being the word of God and making the word of nobody really knows who (Examples of this abound, from the book of Revelation which they waffle on Authorship on, to saying that some of the psalms were originally used by others to praise baal and were borrowed word for word by the hebrews).
Now I am one who likes to examine and understand (hence my collection of old historical books which I use to get a better understanding of scripture from another perspective). And I can see doing parallel studies, analyzing language and comparing things. But it seems that there is no real bible in the catholic hierarchy that actually means anything - at least anything concrete. They talk on one hand about the gospels and how they are possible written by a group of people here, or maybe this was borrowed from there, etc and so on whittling away any credibility which the bible holds. And then they want you to believe the bible as they interpret it.
I am not opposed to critical analysis and I do a lot of it myself in trying to better understand the word. But I have taken the view that it is Holy and that the way we have been given it today is how God wanted us to have it - and he used his influence through the ages to bring it to us this way. To think otherwise is to say that the very words inspired by God have been commandered by man alone and shaped to fit his own needs.
I do not see how any catholic can quote the bible as one can readily look up those quotes in catholic dictionaries and other works and show that those same verses really mean nothing according to the church (in other words, God had nothing to do with the bible so quoting it is of little use).
Forgive this if it seems an 'attack' on catholics. We all get doctrine from somewhere, but it appears in my own personal studies over many years that the bible is not the word of God at all to catholics, and without that foundation what is there? There is a difference in trying to learn more about the bible, who wrote it, and how it all fits into history and trying to simply say the bible is just another book which happens to mention how some people recorded their experiences relating to events.
Perhaps I will rant some more later. I am not siding with fellow 'fundies', nor am I saying group A is 'better' then group 'B'. I am merely wondering honestly about the core of the various sects of christian faiths (of which I see being the bible) and asking 'What do catholics think of the bible?'.
I look forward to intelligent discussions on this matter, and hope flamers save their fireballs for the liberals ;)
Fact is Salvation comes from repents and beliving not from sprinkling water on babies forheads.
The catholic church does not follow the teachings of JESUS.
Screaming falsehoods won't make them true.
Have a Happy New Year. May you lose your bitterness in the coming year.
It is not a false hood, Jesus did not teach the thangs that the Catholic's teach. I am not being mean to catholics I am just stating facts. I love catholics that is why I want them to know the truth Jesus said the truth will set you free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.