RHCC’s SATURDAY EVENING COMMUNION SERVICE WITH INSTRUMENTAL PRAISE
I. Introduction
These comments concern the above as a proposal presented in the Bible classes taught by Rick Atchley on Sunday mornings of December 3rd, 10th, and 17th, 2006. I have listened to the website recordings of these three classes, and will use for reference the Real Player time designations during the playing of those recordings, for example {I c. 0:30} designates the first class, at 30 seconds into the first minute. Each recording was introduced by another member of the congregation, taking about two to three minutes.
There are references in the material to the togetherness of the RHCC in this project, as at {I c. 0:30}. I take the movement as of the whole congregation. Thus these comments refer to “the material” or to “RHCC” as the source of what is commented upon. Each one must study for himself, as he must answer for himself. The effort comes from the group, whether for good or for bad, as in Hosea 4:9 – “like people, like priest;” as in Jeremiah 6:13 (cp. 8:10) – “from the least of them even to the greatest of them every one, ... prophet even unto the priest,” and as in Jeremiah 23:34 – “the prophet, and the priest, and the people”.
The disposition to be fair and open is a frequent theme in the material {e.g. I c. 3:00}. Intending to be honest is not necessarily intending to be harsh {I c. 39:00}, for one has an obligation to try to help people to see truth by confronting error {II c. 4:46 & 49:15}. When one is shown that he is in error, he must be ready for censure, and anxious to correct such. I feel this is my disposition.
I see the RHCC movement as a contradiction, although not necessarily intentional, of the principles of the setting up of the kingdom through the apostles in furthering the cause of Christ. It follows that it is likewise a contradiction of the efforts toward restoration of the nineteenth century, and of our efforts today to be the people of God and Christ.
In this the movement, in its material, is contrary to the Authority of Christ in the Bible, to the Bible in its teaching, and to the Church as to its nature. These are the ABC’s as I see the matter, and I shall look at these after noting the phrasing and framing of issues. I shall then consider “Arguments”, before my “Conclusion.” But phrasing is important to keep the issue clear, as it helps to focus attention upon the real issue so as to avoid wasting time on matters not relevant.
II. PHRASING OR FRAMING – SEMANTICS
The way questions and options are framed or phrased is a concern set forth in the material. {I c. 11:25} “I believe too often dialogue about tough issues is diminished because the debate is couched in such a way as to force people to choose between two poorly framed options. ... I think this is one reason why rarely do we have healthy political dialogue in our system, because the way we phrase the questions prohibits healthy communication.” With this awareness we need to also recognize our human nature, and the difficulty we have in being aware of our own failures in this matter. We need to try to be clear and forthright.
It has been suggested somewhere that a proposition well stated is half argued. Irrelevant matters take up considerable time. We need to be careful not to confuse apples with oranges, mentioning with commanding, and commandments of suffering with commandments of approval. I hope to make clear my view on this.
I want to note some of what appears to me to ignore this in the material. For instance, in the presentation of the young person at Abilene mentioned in the first session at about 13:20 – 14:00, his position is set forth as follows. It is said that he asks, “Do you believe there are Christians outside the church of Christ? Or do you believe baptism is essential?” The material’s understanding is that “He believes either only the church of Christ contains all the Christians of the world, or you don’t believe in baptism.” I don’t get this.
The young fellow’s question indicates that he felt that one could not believe in the necessity of baptism, and accept as Christian those who do not accept the necessity of baptism but argue against it. The two options, given in the material as his belief, is not what he intended. Possibly RHCC intended ‘He believes that either you believe that only the church of Christ contains all the Christians of the world, or you don’t believe in baptism.’ He knew what he believed, and it was neither an either/or nor a both/and. It was No to his first and Yes to his second question.
The material repeats the claim that churches of Christ are a part of the kingdom. These instances are noted also under “Authority”. But this is another instance of a problem in phrasing. There is no explanation of distinguishing between kingdom subjects of Old or New Testaments, of those in heaven or on earth. The importance of the context is evident in “to set the context” for Acts 15 in session one. The use of “fellowship” in referring to churches of Christ seems to me to countenance divisions to which Paul objected (1 Cor. 1:10-13).
I have a problem with the material’s presentation of the grace or works issue. Let’s look at it. {I 14:56} “Are we saved by grace or by works? Many think that’s a both/and question. God did part of the process of salvation but man was to do the rest and do it right, or he can’t be saved. I say you were saved either by the grace of God, or you’re not saved at all.” This seems to indicate that the issue is clear in this presentation. I think not. It seems to say that man does nothing to come to Christ.
The issue between grace and works is not in whether man has a part, but in the nature of that part. To indicate that man has no part, as the material does, is to deny the necessity of obedience to the gospel. The issue in grace or works has to do with merit. If it’s grace, merit is not required. If merit is required, it’s not grace. The work under consideration in Ephesians 2:9 involves merit. Any work that is not meritorious is not under consideration.
Man’s having a part is in harmony with obedience to the gospel, and salvation is not in the merit of what he does. The works in obedience are not the works of Ephesians 2:9, but those of James 2:24.
Semantics is an important concept. To apply either/or and both/and to situations must be done carefully. It must be clear what we are talking about. I will note this in connection with Acts 15 and “context.”
A. AUTHORITY, The Need for
The introductory material of the first two sessions {I 0:01 – 3:15} and {II 0:01 – 1:45} seems to appeal to the authority of Christ in the Bible more than does that in the third {III 0:01 – 3:01}. The third seems to favor change even by innovation, rather than the old paths.
2. There seems to be lack of relying upon the Bible as authority in the presentation of some ideas.
The following indicate a lack of appreciation for the authority of Christ in the Bible. In {I 49:20} “... now please understand churches of Christ are just a part of the kingdom of God, they’re not the entire kingdom of God, ...”; {III 46:34} “I know the kingdom of God is larger than churches of Christ”; and {III 51:04} “Would you hear me say one more time? The kingdom of God is larger than the churches of Christ, always has been, always will be.” Not giving Bible for this idea suggests that it is based somewhere else and lacks appreciation for the authority of God in the Bible.
It is “hear me say,” NOT “listen to God.” There is no rationale offered from scripture, no suggestion that this is gleaned from the oracles of God as required by I Peter 4:11. The indication is that man is the authority. {I 53:17} “Over 20 years ago Jon Jones stood in this pulpit and said ‘the kingdom of God is larger than the churches of Christ’ ...”
Another instance is the claim made twice {III 37:03 – 38:10} “Church history is our guide, it’s not our authority.” There is no support given from the Bible for this teaching.
These concern the church of the Bible, and will be noted under “Church”.
3. There are places where the Bible, as God’s teaching, seems to be appealed to as the authority, but not always with careful attention to just what it says. Some of these will be noted more fully under “Bible.” I mention them here since they impact this point.
RHCC recognizes this danger of not being careful with details in passages. {II c. 26:30} “Look at those passages again. Let them say what they say, and don’t make them say more than they say.”
In RHCC’s mention of the letter to the Galatians {I c. 25:08}, it is claimed that Paul wrote it before the events of Acts 15, despite the clear reference (Galatians 2:2, 1-10) to that time and topic of discussion in Acts 15, showing Galatians written after, not before.
The material claims the matter in Acts 15 was not carried to the whole church at Jerusalem {I c. 31:40}, despite the “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church,... (v. 22). The elders led the church in the matter, but the decision belonged to the group.
It is claimed that the earliest Christians observed the Lord’s Supper daily from Acts 2:42,46 {III c. 12:11}, noting the expression “they broke bread” as if it applied only to communion, while the Bible is clear that breaking bread does also apply to a common meal, and in verse 46 it does, as the acclaimed and renowned A. T. Robertson observes on the “breaking bread” and “did eat their meat” in his Word Pictures - “looks like the regular meals at home” and “clearly referring to the regular meals at home” (Vol. III, p. 39).
The material gives a purported description of the way in which the early Christians observed the Lord’s Supper {III c. 13:05} that finds no real foundation in the Scriptures. As the supposition of men, it is based, in part, upon a practice that bordered on heresy at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:17-34), and in part upon a practice of feasting mentioned in 2 Peter 2:13 and Jude 12.
Acts 20 is set forth as clearly showing that “they broke bread” is the New Testament expression for communion {III c. 12:11}. It is not noted that it also refers to common meals, which clarity is needed. The NIV rendering of Acts 20:11 is then approved {III c. 16:30} “Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left.” Then the pronoun is changed from “he” to “they” and RHCC gives {III c. 18:26} “And then they came back into the room and they broke bread together.” Our authority is the Bible, so we need to say what the Bible says, as will be noted under “Bible”.
It is claimed that the church at Troas observed the Lord’s Supper on Monday morning, as if it were taught in Acts 20 {III c. 18:26}. This claim is without authority, concerns Bible teaching, and so will be noted under “Bible”.
4. The material indicates reliance upon principles gleaned from sources other than the Scriptures. This reliance is where authority is needed.
From the above claims the material goes to {III c. 13:55} “Now church history makes it very clear, we’ve already seen it in Acts two they were doing this every day. But church history makes it very clear the early Christians tended to observe the Lord’s Supper much more often than churches today.” This is said to be from Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, and Chrysostom and “Now this is as late as four hundred years after Christ.” Variation is indicated from Basil and Augustine. This is argued as if we are not limited to the authority of Christ in the New Testament for what we practice, but that we can use practices from a period of apostasy.
There are other evidences of reliance upon culture and practices of other generations, and seemingly upon disciplines like sociology, philosophy, psychology, and theology. While there is much truth in these disciplines, they also have tenets opposed to the truth of the Bible. Our authority is the God of the Bible (Ps. 48:14; 31:3; 73:24), and this guide (Luke 1:79; John 16:13) differs from others (Prov. 11:3; Acts 8:31; I Tim. 5:14), for the others are fallible (Rom. 2:19).
In using something as a “guide” we need to be careful the sense in which we use it. If we use something for authority, our saying it is a guide and not authority, does not change what we are doing. God uses “guide” to denote authority, and otherwise (as Proverbs 11:3). The definitions of guide as “One who shows the way by leading, directing and advising”; “A device that acts to regulate or direct motion or operation”; and “To exert control or influence over” indicate an element of authority.
To rely upon history for a principle claimed to be authoritative in how we are to conduct ourselves, without showing authority from Scripture seems to be an appeal to authority other than Scripture.
{III c. 37:03} RHCC observes comments from Clement of Alexandria and says, “Church history is our guide, it’s not our authority” and {III c. 37:28} “Church history is our guide, it’s not our authority. You see our task is not to duplicate these earliest churches. Our task is to imitate their goal of being culturally relevant outposts for the kingdom of God.” It seems this is considered a God-given task and one for the young people, for “we cannot continue to ask our kids to hold on to a practice we’re not defending Biblically” {III c. 52:40}. Yet there is no Bible authority advanced.
5. God’s leading seems to come at times other than from the Bible. It seems to come somehow from within man in what is thought, “what we think God wants ... together to determine what we thought was God’s leading on the next era of our church.” {I 5:22 – 6:10}. It is hoped that this leading will be in harmony with the Bible, it seems in {I c. 3:10}. It is a moving from principles, not directly stated in the Bible, but gleaned “from” what is stated in the Bible {as at II c. 7:19} and “from faith communities in other places and in other times” {III c. 33:15}. The children are hoped to choose “what they think is the leading of God” as “the leading of God” above what is taught them by their preaching father {I c. 51:00}. It is evidently this thinking, that one is being so led, that is to be understood in “the Holy Spirit said to me in the middle of my sermon” {II c. 5:20}, and not actual instruction from the Spirit at the time, which hardly would take more than ten years to get good hold of. It would seem to be more like one’s feeling that the Spirit was allowed to say at Acts 15 {I 35:45} “Here is how that text applies ...” This surely concerns one’s own thinking about what the Spirit did in scripture.
Sometimes it is set forth as “we know,” as in {II c. 21:42} “We know that Jesus taught regularly in the temple in the presence of instrumental praise ... ” It should have been easy to give a reference, if such were the case. I just never considered that Jesus, being the Teacher, would handle teaching this way, teaching in the midst of such distraction. Which passages indicate the early disciples, worshipping in the temple {II c. 21:55} “in the presence of instrumental music”? This sets forth man’s idea as if it had the authority of Scripture.
Bear with me in looking at what seems to be RHCC’s view of the Bible.
B. BIBLE
As indicated above under “Authority” the material at places seems to respect the Bible as Christ’s authority, but does not carefully handle it, and in some teachings RHCC seems to feel no requirement for a “thus saith the Lord.” There seems to be a definite lack of conviction as to the sufficiency of the Bible. The Bible and its authority I feel are very much related. It is as RHCC says at {II c. 26:03}, we should not attribute to the Bible what it does not say. I feel compelled to compare carefully what it says, and what is attributed to it. There is a right way to handle and use God’s word (2 Tim. 2:15).
What is given just above in what comes to man’s mind being held as God’s leading, should also be considered here. Man’s thinking is not on a par with God’s word (Isaiah 55:8,9). Many references could be given (as Jeremiah 10:23; Matthew 15:9; etc.). We need to respect the Bible. Respect for the message of God always characterized men of God in the establishment of the church, and since, in those seeking to restore the early church, and in those today seeking to be the church of Christ. The idea of taking as authority what man’s being led to in his own thinking, seems to be behind using Jon Jones {I 53:17} for the insistence that churches of Christ are just a part of the kingdom, mentioned as my discussion on “Authority” began.
It is hoped that the material is not intended to treat lightly one’s waiting thirty years to check out what others claimed to be in the Bible as one might assume from {I c. 48:20} in the following. A very good man having a heavy dose of legalism, acknowledged, “I am ashamed that for thirty years I believed it was wrong because somebody told me it was in there.” Legalists are not usually known for such an attitude toward matters. Christians are commended for checking on whether the thing stated is so (Acts 17:11,12). Maybe the material intends simply to not treat the Bible with the respect I feel is due the Bible. Instead of going to the Bible to determine why the early church did not use instrumental music, the material seeks it elsewhere {III c. 34:07}.
Most of what is said under “Authority” as it relates to the Bible is of importance as it relates to the disposition of being careless with its details, and to look to other sources, as presented in the material. The sufficiency of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16) and the charge to rely upon the “oracles of God” in what we speak toward (1 Peter 4:11), and show the apostles together as to what is the doctrine of the apostles.
It seems at {I c. 25:08} RHCC may connect in someway Galatians 2:1 with Acts 12:25 and maybe to Acts 11:29,30. This would have to come from the claim that Paul gives in Galatians every trip he had made since conversion up to writing the letter. Paul doesn’t say this. He mentions only the trips to Jerusalem concerning dealing with the Apostles. The time of the carrying of relief to the famine in Judea that reached its peak about 45 AD, and to which they made a contribution earlier (Acts 11:27-30), does not comport with the time of Galatians 2:1, nor with its topic. While they did go by Jerusalem (Acts 12:25) there is no indication of contact with Apostles.
{I c. 31:25} The material leaves the congregation out of making the decision in Acts 15, where the “sentence” from James (vv. 19-21) led to “then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church” to act (vv. 22-25). The elders led their congregation (in harmony with the teaching of the Spirit and the apostles) to correct a matter that was connected to Jerusalem. Those are surely not careful who deny that the matter was carried before the multitude (v. 12) who “being assembled together with one accord” did what “seemed good” to them (v. 25). It seemed the Jerusalem practice was to work together in their matters (Acts 6:3,5, 1-7; 15:12,22,25), with apostles or elders leading.
On Acts 15 {I c. 35:20 – 36:20} “They didn’t come to the Bible saying I already know what I believe, now I’m going to find the Bible to support what I already believe,” as a description of the Jerusalem group’s actually going to the Bible as the last step, turning to the Bible as confirmation of what seems to have already been established. So RHCC’s description doesn’t seem to fit. Of course, the apostles were inspired, and simply were showing from the Scripture that what the Scripture taught was in harmony with what they were doing. They used Amos for confirmation, turned to it in support of the position they already held.
The material says about Acts 20, {III c. 18:48} “The preeminent text that we have used in churches of Christ for years to prove you can only have communion on Sunday is about a church that had communion on Monday.” The reason for assembling on Sunday was "to break bread” (Acts 20:7) and so far as the record goes, they did so. A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures at Acts 20:7 correctly observes the meaning of sunago as indicating a formal meeting of the disciples as in John 20:19 where the apostles early accepted the first day of the week. Thus they were assembled, or convened, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1).
It seems in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 that they hasted in someway in observing the Lord’s supper, and thus Paul admonished them to “tarry one for another” (v. 33). The purpose for which they came together seemed to be taken care of early at Corinth. No mention is made in Acts 20 of the actual partaking. Like at Corinth, it may have been taken care of early in the meeting.
The mention of Paul’s eating (Acts 20:11) likely had to do with a meal preparatory to his leaving. Communion is group activity and Luke, being as particular as he was, would hardly describe this by saying that Paul broke bread, ate, talked and departed.
The Lord’s Supper as being a part of a common meal together rests upon suppositions of men, and not upon the Bible. At Corinth it did not seem to be in a common meal, but each ate, apparently separately, before other “his own supper” so that when they came to observe the Lord’s Supper they were hindered in the proper observance by some being “hungry” and others “drunken,” or full from their drinking (vv. 20-21). They were admonished to eat their meals at home (vv. 22,34), and to “tarry one for another” (c. 33), relative to eating the Lord’s Supper.
In the “feasts of charity” all ate together, affording opportunity to some to be as spots (Jude 12) in eating, feeding themselves without supplying, who are said to be “spots and blemishes” as those who “riot in the day time” (2 Peter 2:13), not attributed to time of communion.
Unleavened bread came to have religious connotations, and was not always the bread of a common meal. A look at all the references in a good exhaustive concordance is helpful. There is no evidence of substituting bread, likely leavened, from a common meal in observing the Lord’s Supper, as in “and they would take bread and wine from that table” {III c. 13:05}, and no evidence of the procedure outlined is found in the Scriptures.
The material ridicules the argument from the silence of the Scriptures. This is a very important concept regarding the Scriptures, and deserves a separate treatment under “Arguments,” as does the matter of Bible examples. The importance of these concepts impacts the “Bible” but seems to be better served under “Arguments.”
C. CHURCH
The concepts of the church and the kingdom need to be noted before noting the items from the material that give me concern. Bear with me.
The kingdom denotes the rule of God. He rules over all the universe (Ps. 103:19). He rules over man, even the kingdoms of men (Dan. 4:17). When God chose Israel He selected one kingdom for His peculiar possession. These were His subjects upon earth in a different sense from that in His rule over all men. This relation could belong to the Jews, but be taken from them and given to others (Matthew 21:43).
This concept of the kingdom of God is not the whole family of God in heaven and earth (Eph. 3:15), but it is identical on earth to the church of the living God (1 Timothy 3:15). As the church it is the same as those saved through Christ (Acts 2:47). There is one body or church in Christ in the New Testament (Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 12:20; Ephesians 1:23; 3:6; 4:4; 5:23,30; Colossians 1:18; 3:15), and its members are all baptized into it (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). Every Christian is a member of this body, God’s house and family on earth.
The word church is also used to denote a group or congregation of Christians in a locality joined together for purposes of work and worship. One can join a congregation (Acts 9:26), but not the church body of Christ. When he obeys the gospel, Christ adds him to that body, and he is translated into it (Acts 2:47; Colossians 1:13). There is a plurality of churches in the sense of local groups.
The word church is also used in the sense of an assembly of a local group (I Corinthians 11:18,33,35). Several such assemblies are called “churches.” This is closely associated with the idea of its worship as church assembly or churches (1 Corinthians 14:19; 11:16).
I know of no other New Testament people sense of the word church in the New Testament. The one body is not divided (1 Corinthians 1:12; 10:17), but one (Ephesians 4:4,5). It is not divided into “faiths” or “fellowships.” Such ideas of division are from men. The one church of Christ is made up of Christians, as is a local group called a church of Christ. A local church is not a member of the one church, but its members are members of that one church. All the members of all the local churches of Christ are members of the one church as the body of Christ. There is no New Testament sense of the churches being “part of” the one body, with there being additional fellowships of members of the one body making up the rest of the one body. One may substitute “kingdom” for “body” here.
There is no New Testament sense for {I c. 49:20} “churches of Christ are just a part of the kingdom of God.” The statement is contrary to the New Testament teaching about churches of Christ. There is no New Testament sense for {III c. 51:04} “The kingdom of God is larger than the churches of Christ,” and contrary to the New Testament. The rest of the last quote is “always has been, always will be.” This amounts to claiming that in the days of the Book of Acts God had children in His family and kingdom, as Christians other than in His “churches of Christ” for it “always has been.” This is serious. Is it really intended to argue that there are “Christians” outside the “church, which is his body,” (Ephesians 1:22,23) the body of Christ?
But that it is denied that all Christians are in Christ’s body, the church, is indicated in the RHCC wording of the Abilene youth’s queries in session I, about time marker 13:32. I insist this is serious.
The references {I c. 39:00} to “the fellowship of churches of Christ” and “a both/and network of churches” denote concepts foreign to the teaching of Christ and the New Testament. This concept is more like the concept held by those of an apostasy. The appeal to church history was {III c. 14 – 15} to “as late as 400 years after Christ.” It was felt that it was proper to argue about what we ought to do from those in that period of time. Paul warned of a drawing away of disciples as early as the late 50’s and commended the study of God’s word (Acts 20:30-32). He spoke of a falling away just before that and that it was already in the works (2 Thessalonians 2:3,7). RHCC’s appeal is to a time of apostasy.
This is not to say that church historians have no value, or that no truth was acknowledged in them, but they like many disciplines contain error. Thus to argue for whatever they approved without substantiation from the Bible is fallacious. To look for them to condemn a practice before it appeared seems strange. To imply that they do not say what they clearly say is out of harmony with truth. At {III c. 37:03} Clement is quoted relative to instruments in social settings “but there is no criticism or condemning of instrumental praise during this time that they worshipped a cappella.” Note what Clement did say, and see if this correctly states the matter.
Clement says “The one instrument of peace, the Word alone by which we honor God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute, which those expert in war and contemners of the fear of God were wont to make use of also in the choruses at their festive assemblies; that by such strains they might raise their dejected minds.” (Clement, Instructor, Chapter IV). This is in the paragraph just above the paragraph from which RHCC quoted. It seems we cannot sometimes recognize what is criticized. How can we fail to see his criticism in the description of the use of instruments to “raise their dejected minds”?
It is also clear that Clement recognizes in the first part of the paragraph from which RHCC quoted, that Christ is with us when we follow His word, “In the present instance He is a guest with us. For the apostle adds again, ‘teaching and admonishing ... God.’” The quote is from Colossians 3:16,17 from “teaching” on. This shows that he is aware of the requirement for the authority of Christ in our worship. The instruments are not in that worship, for they are not authorized.
He recognizes the dangers of instruments “the various spells of the broken strains” used to “corrupt men’s morals” “by the licentious and mischievous art of music” (para. 1). He describes the human instrument in terms of musical instruments “For man is truly a pacific instrument” (para. 2). He contrasts the music of the Christians with that of the Jews in that our drinking is of the word (para. 3, of my first quote). He contrasts our music, in my second quote, describing it as “This is our thankful revelry” which is all that separates it from RHCC’s quote (para. 4). The matter of our “drinking” of paragraph 3 and “thankful revelry” of paragraph 4, clearly come from Ephesians 5:18. Clement in his reference to David in paragraph 4 seems to place his disposition in praise as being akin to ours. Paragraph 6 seems to distinguish using choirs as inharmonious with God’s using His people. This seems to indicate the danger in musical instruments, and is evidently a good reason for God not to authorize them under the New Testament.
Under “Phrasing ...” above, the ideas of “either/or” and “both/and” were noted to be treated here. I assume that the intention of the material used “to set the context” and placing the Jew/Gentile question as a “both/and” question was to show it similar to the issue facing RHCC to become “both/and” relative to instrumental praise. Here is where “either/or” and “both/and” get muddled, as will be noted later also when we come to the arguments.
“Both/and” as a paradigm applied to the case of the Jew/Gentile question is not a template to be indiscriminately applied to all questions. It’s not as simple as merely deciding if you can use “either/or” or “both/and” in some way to describe the question. “Either/or” may be applied to the same question to which “both/and” has been applied, as we shall see. The real template is “What does the Bible say?”
The question in Acts 15 {I c. 20:48 – c. 39} did not involve one service for Jews, and another for Gentiles. There is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ, all become one (Galatians 3:28). The distinction no longer holds, both go to the same service. But at RHCC, with regard to instrumental praise, it is not planned that both those who favor instrumental praise and those who do not, go to the same service. They are to go EITHER to the one service, OR they are to go to the other. It is intended to separate the two, not to bring them together.
It was {II c. 3:20 – c. 6:08} a question at Antioch, raised by Peter’s actions (Galatians 2:11-21), of merely “table fellowship.” In the church they had been treating both Jews and Gentiles as Christians (Acts 12:19-26). The solution to the problem did not involve changing the arrangement in church to two communion services, one for Jews and one for Gentiles. But at RHCC the arrangement is to separate the observance of the Lord’ Supper in the church, by having a service for those worshipping with instruments from those worshipping without instruments.
The reference {I c. 46:10} to “accountability partners” finds no New Testament backing. It is contrary to all the New Testament teaches about our relationship to each other as Christians, and to the relation of members to elders.
The reference {III c. 49:39} to “church planter gathering” and the “impassioned plea to plant churches inside this fellowship” is contrary to the whole New Testament concept of the authority of Christ in the Bible, and the concept of the church of Christ as His saved ones. How could anyone consider planting churches inside of churches? The terminology is that of the Boston Movement.
The above gives my understanding of the ABC’s connected with the teaching of RHCC’s material about the both/and church proposal. I want now to turn to what I have referred to as “Arguments.”
IV. ARGUMENTS
A. Arguments Attributed to Opposition
Since the argument from the silence of Scripture is recognized as the chief argument used to oppose instruments of music in worship, I want to look at it here first, then at the absence of instruments in the worship of the early church as evidence of it. The matter of authority will be considered with several points, before looking at psallo. Then before concluding I want to consider the arguments presented in the material for the use of instruments of music in worship.
1. Silence of Scripture is what the Bible speaks of, and has to do with what is authorized. Hebrews 7:14 uses “spake nothing” and 1 Peter 4:11 speaks of advocating only that for which one can give the oracles of God as authority. This is what the Bible says about the silence of the Scriptures. When the Bible doesn’t authorize a practice, we cannot teach it. The idea of exclusion comes from the argument, but is a negative way of looking at the argument. The positive is that what is authorized is to be followed. If it is not authorized we don’t follow it. Thus it is important to look at the matter of deciding authority.
a. Need for Authority from Christ, from the Bible See III.A.
1) We must abide within the doctrine of Christ, act by His Authority. All authority was given Christ (Matthew 28:18-20). Christ is head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; Col. 1:18; 2:9-10, 19-23). Jesus says “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love” and “He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit” (John 15:10,5). What Jesus taught, personally or through the Spirit-filled apostles, is what we must follow to abide in Him.
The Jews recognized the need for authority in religion (Matthew 21:23-27). God’s word in the Scripture is God’s authority. Men are not to alter it in any age (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18), but to abide in it (2 John 9), not following the teaching originating with man (Colossians 2:22; Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7; Romans 16:17).
Under the Old Testament when the prophet advocated a matter, the scripture was to be searched, “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). We live under a different covenant, but the same idea is suggested by “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). We need the word of God for what we practice, a thus saith the Lord. “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17). Search now, daily (Acts 17:11). Don’t wait more than ten years {II c. 2:50 – 6:00) till you must act, or 30 years {I c. 48:20 – 49:20} till you deeply regret waiting.
We need to be very careful in dealing with the need for authority. Men generally recognize this in almost every field. The mail order firms try to fill every item on the order form, but they do not add to it. A mother expects a child to purchase the items on the grocery list, and not a thing not on it. When mother sent me to the store with a fifty-cent coin for a pound box of crackers, and a five-pound bag of sugar, she expected the nickel in change. I would not tell her “you did not say not to get any candy or a soda.” My mother put on the list what she wanted, and she did not compile a list of items that she did not want. I did not have her authority to buy candy or a soda. Lack of mention was the same as prohibition, not license.
When I order books from a publisher, I do not compile a list of books I don’t want. It seems strange that God would be asked to write a book and to list everything He doesn’t want us to do. His simply telling us what to do ought to be enough. However, He did say don’t add to it. How simple does He have to make it? Yet we are repeatedly told in the material that such a forbid list is expected of Him.
Imagine the Bible containing a prohibition list of all the errors taught in the world!
{II c. 26:43} “Where is the specific word, anywhere in the Bible, that forbids ...?” {III c. 27:05} “All the emails I got from critics never mention the verse where God forbids instrumental praise, because it’s not there.” {II c. 34:35} “You can’t open your Bibles and show me where God forbids it.” Also just before this, “the authority to forbid instrumental music has got to be established apart from a clear command of God.” {II c. 20:30} “The anti-instrument advocates must speak where God has not spoken.” Actually the pro-instrument advocates have to admit they are without a command, and the anti-instrument advocates use the clear command not to add, and then rebuke with 1 Peter 4:11.
Continuing the material’s call for God to give a list of prohibitions: {II c. 43:49} “If you’ve punished your children for what you call disobedience over something you never talked about, are you a good father?” {II c. 41:53} “and I don’t believe just because the Bible is silent you can’t do anything” {II c. 43:36} “What great message of God did he ever communicate by saying nothing about it?” {II c. 43:49} “ ... He does not communicate to us by saying nothing.” I think we need to turn to the Bible and let God tell us.
“For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood” (Hebrews 7:14). This is the evidence of why no man from any unauthorized tribe had ever given attendance at the altar under the law of Moses (v. 13), a law from God through Moses – God said nothing about it! To accomplish having Christ as priest the law had to be changed (v. 12), and that was so regarding that about which God through Moses “spake nothing.” I consider it a great message as did God. It was something, an “anything,” that God says was not to be done by saying “nothing.” And because of this principle, Christ could not be priest while on earth (Heb. 8:4). God tells what He wants us to do, and does not burden us with a huge prohibition list.
Through the Hebrew writer God says speaking nothing to authorize a practice means it is not to be done, as shown above. In the face of this, it is said {II c. 41:53} “and I don’t believe just because the Bible is silent you can’t do anything.”
I would hesitate to tell God what I expect of Him. {II c. 19:50} “Now, if God’s attitude toward instrumental music changed in the New Testament, you would expect one of the following three things – a clear passage condemning its use, a clear passage commanding a cappella praise only, or a prophecy announcing the end of instrumental music.” I am not in the “you” considered. If God wants to forbid one not of the tribe of Levi from being priest by saying nothing about it (Hebrews 7:13-14) it’s okay with me. “That’s His call” and His silence.
That is the law concerning the silence of the Scriptures. God could expect people to stay within the law of Moses, without giving a list of tribes that were forbidden to be priests. This is not “the law of exclusion,” although what is not authorized is prohibited. If one does only what is authorized he doesn’t need a prohibition list. This is a great principle, reduces Bible size. That God suffered the Jews’ manners (Acts 13:18) and accepted some things He did not approve in His mercy in Old Testament times is clear in the Bible (Psalms 78 and 106).
The absence of the use of instruments in the New Testament worship shows the validity of the principle of the silence of the Scriptures. After noting this, the matter of authority and several points will be noted.
2) The early New Testament church worshipped God without the customary musical instruments of the Old Testament. This is not hard to see at all to the one who understands and is willing to abide by God’s right to command and be obeyed, so that what is not authorized is not done. That the early church took this approach was the conviction of Clement of Alexandria in the quote above in their honoring God in what they employed.
It is admitted that the early church worshipped God without the use of instruments of music. You can search the New Testament worship for them and you will not find them. It was indeed not an issue, they accepted God’s word on the matter, and followed it. Later there was an apostasy and things did change. Church history, by the early fathers, discusses what happened to some extent, but this is not Scripture.
Trying to find information from human authors is of some value, if one is careful enough as to how he reads it. It is not to replace the Bible. The study about instrumental music from material in libraries like at Abilene {II c. 13:55) and from modern religious theorists has some disadvantages. Much study is a weariness (Eccl. 12:12) and the brain may go tired {III c. 34:07}, so that a lot of what is read is not grasped. But let us look at some things from such material.
Earl West’s The Search For The Ancient Order (1950) was surely in the library at Abilene. The title reminds one of the “old paths” of “ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein” (Jeremiah 6:16). West discusses the issue of Instrumental Music. “The apology chiefly used for introducing the instrument was the rapidly changing world” (p. 83). I note that RHCC’s material follows this apology in several places {I c. 9:09 – c. 11:00; III c. 0:01 – 3:03; III c. 26-33}.
“A few churches have actually used it, and their preachers have approved, but have not often ventured publicly to defend it” (p. 83). I hope RHCC does not follow this. Ben Franklin felt that “Man had no right to add an element of human origin to the divine worship, for such inescapably led to innovation” (p. 89). It was of the essence of innovation, not a good word for the “old paths” of the “ancient order” from God. The above quotes are from volume two.
In the first volume of Earl West’s The Search for the Ancient Order, chapter XVII (pp. 306 – 317) is on Instrumental Music. It is part of what has been written on the subject. A quote from the American Christian Review of what Z. F. Smith wrote is given on page 315. In part, he said, “It is very clear that musical instruments were used by the Jews in their praises to God. It is equally clear, to every one familiar to the New Testament, that not one evidence, either in precept or example, of such practice is found in the appointed orders of Christian worship. This omission must be esteemed a consideration of great importance in solving the question of its right; and especially when viewed in the light of those circumstances which marked the change from one dispensation to another. Whatever was peculiar to the genus and character of both was preserved; what was peculiar to the former alone, was omitted. ... The religion of Jesus Christ is purely spiritual; as such, its genus and character forbade the introduction of a carnal element.”
Evidently the “best shot” of {II c. 13:55} is not given in RHCC’s material.
b. Observations for Establishing Authority on Some Points
The questions concerning these indicate haziness about the context of authority, about the nature of commands, and about the ways in which teaching is accomplished. Where this stems from is not clear. Let’s work backwards.
Teaching is accomplished by communication in lectures, by demonstration in activities or labs, and by inferences of either of these. After a lab the instructor may elicit inferences or ask questions on a quiz that involves inferences from what is demonstrated, from lectures, or from a combination of what is taught and what is demonstrated. Demonstration takes the character of an example. The Bible teaches, uses the same.
Commands differ from opinions or observations. An apple is not an orange. One may observe that he saw a certain man in town. Such an observation does not hint that no other man was in town. But an order to a firm for an item does limit itself to that item.
In the discussion of authority over the past several decades certain concepts have been introduced. We speak of specific authority and of generic authority. We speak of innovations and additions, and of the expedients or details. It would be inconvenient to try to explain the whole matter of establishing authority, but I do feel that enough is needed to see what I am driving at.
The specific command to go is called generic. The specific command to go by walking is called specific, but “specific” is used in two different senses. In the first two instances, “specific” has to do with definite as a command, in the third instance it has to do with species of travel. One ordered to go may still go whether by boat or walking. But walking wouldn’t fit “go by boat.” When the material asks for a “specific word” {II c. 26 – 28} and “not specifically authorized” {II c. 39:40 – 40:05}, I consider these as having to do with “definite.”
{II c. 42:14 – 43:49} “Where, anywhere in the Bible, does God authorize a synagogue? No where! Jesus went to synagogues. Where, anywhere in the Bible does God authorize a feast of lights? ... Where in the Bible does the Passover meal authorize using cups of wine? No! you read it, you go read what God authorized in the Passover. He doesn’t mention wine one time.”
As to the need for authority for the synagogue, the feast, and the cup of wine mentioned in the quote above, each of these differ in some way. So we need to look at them individually.
1) Synagogue
The command to teach may be executed in different settings. Many passages to “teach” could be given – Exodus 18:20; Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 4:9; 6:1; 11:19. The command to “teach” must be expedited, and so a pulpit was “made for the purpose” and Ezra taught the people (Nehemiah 8:4, 4-8). Samuel judged Israel and taught them precepts, having a circuit for such (1 Samuel 7:15-17). Calling assemblies and making arrangements for teaching had “purpose,” as did the synagogue.
2) Feasts
Those over Israel or others were obligated to rule. Esther was in her right in establishing a feast of Purim for the nation of her people. When the temple was cleansed the Jews had right to establish a time of feast for remembering this fact. God commanded the people to do the king’s bidding (2 Chronicles 30:12), which is likely the basis of 2 Chronicles 29:25. As Jews, the people, including Jesus, had the right to observe national festivities. As a Jew, Paul had the right to keep Jewish feasts and customs (Acts 18:21; 20:16; 21:24).
3) The cup of wine
The question about the wine in the “Passover meal” {II c. 42:14 – 43:49} is not that difficult when you look at the matter of feasts. While the New Testament kingdom is not in “meat and drink” (Romans 14:17) and we are not to be judged regarding these (Colossians 2:16), they had them in the Old Testament kingdom. The Passover was an evening meal and was kept as a feast, and thus would have meat and drink. Stipulations for preparing the meat (Exodus 12:3-9) do not mention the drink associated with the meal. Consider bread and wine (Ezra 6:9,17,19; Nehemiah 5:15).
The Passover stipulation concerning bread carried over into the week of unleavened bread (Exodus 12:15-20), but in eating their meals they consumed parched corn the day after the Passover (Joshua 5:11), although such was not mentioned in Exodus 12:15-20. Not every detail of their meal was affected by the Passover stipulations of Exodus 12.
Just as the law of burnt offerings (Leviticus 6:14-18) did not include the drink associated with the offering. The offerings, even those of the Passover week (Numbers 28:16-31) had drink with them. Drink offerings involved wine (Numbers 15). The offering for Aaron and his sons was to be “wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23, comp. v. 30), but some offerings were eaten by the priests and their families and some by the supplicant (Leviticus 7:14-16). Feasts like the Passover were eaten by all (Leviticus 23). Meals included drink like wine.
Now “first day of the week” and examples {III c. 7:19 and c. 17:19} and the claim that sing commands are not for the assembly {II c. 23:17}.
4) The first day of the week, and examples – The mention of the first day of the week in connection with the resurrection and the disciples assembling together and the Lord’s Supper should be noted. After Jesus arose on the first day of the week (John 20:1), the disciples met again the next first day of the week (John 20:26), and possibly each first day of the week after that. For they did on the day the Lord’s church was established (Acts 2:1). Things having to do with the church that came up and would demand a coming together, like their contribution to the poor saints, for convenience seemed to have used their regular meeting time (1 Corinthians 16:2). This was not just for Corinth, but was the same in Galatia (1 Corinthians 16:1). Being regularly attended to, there would be no call for a special gathering (vv. 2-3).
There being a regular time of assembly for observing the Lord’s Supper led to Paul’s waiting at Troas for the first day of the week to come around, even though he hasted to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost, and he called for the Ephesian elders to meet him to avoid delay (Acts 20:15-16). But he didn’t try to save six days by asking the disciples at Troas to take communion at another time. They honored the Lord. The word “Lord’s” (Greek kuriakos, #2960) appears twice in the New Testament. It is the “Lord’s” Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20), and the “Lord’s” day (Revelation 1:10). John seems to let the churches know his feelings on that day, as in earlier days they had seen the Lord, and again he did (Revelation 1:12-29). The first day of the week was the day of His resurrection, and assured that He would come again. While it was the bread and wine that showed the death of the Son of God, the Lord’s Day may have reminded that He would come again (1 Corinthians 11:26).
Robertson saw no conflict between his teaching in his Grammer and that in his Word Pictures Bible commentaries. The “as oft as” or “whenever” in 1 Corinthians 11:25,26 and Revelation 11:6, from the Greek hosakis (“only used with the notion of indefinite repetition” Grammer, p. 973) used with ean/an (“usual construction for general temporal clause of repetition” WP, 1 Cor. 11:25) have to do with unspecified frequency. Jesus through John used “as oft as they will” in Revelation 11:7, where the prophets were to decide when the circumstances asked for action. Jesus used “as oft as” (without “you will”) in 1 Corinthians 11:25, where He had not yet given (John 16:12) the time, but left it to the apostles to use the time, not of their will, but as taught by the Spirit (John 16:13). A. T. Robertson recognized the twelve as making the first day of the week their assembly time (WP, Acts 20:7).
The RHCC discussion {III c. 19:20 – 21:25} of “whenever” in 1 Corinthians 11:25 and Revelation 11:6 as to indefiniteness, and for the latter “How often were they to do this? The actual matter of frequency was left to the two witnesses to determine.” From their argument and the resulting practice, it seems that they feel that hosakis leaves the frequency to be determined by man. This is not the case in 1 Corinthians 7:25, only in Revelation 11:6 is it “as they will.”
Breaking bread was an example of what Troas did in an assembly with which was connected the matter of giving. Corinth and Galatian churches used this day (1 Corinthians 16:1-3). Examples differ. Some examples show what not to do (2 Peter 2:6; 1 Corinthians 10:11). Some are definitely important to follow. That of Jesus is (1 Peter 2:21), as is also that of the apostles in their following Jesus (1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:7,9; Phil. 3:16-17), and as is that of churches that followed apostolic teaching (1 Thessalonians 2:14). For so was the instruction of Paul, “Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do; and the God of peace shall be with you” (Philippians 4:9).
5) Commands to sing in Ephesians and Colossians – RHCC’s material {II c. 22:45 – 28:25} uses James 5:13 in connection with these two, as if someone argues for it, as authorizing singing only, in the church assemblies. I was not aware of it being so used, although it has to do with singing, and not with playing on an instrument, as psallo would demand of the sick, if that were the only way psallo was used.
The material seems to have it a matter only of the heart, and thus that of a deaf mute, and of a person that sings and plays. God hears not the voice or the instrument, but “the heart of the person who produces both” {II c. 26:03 – 26:40}. This seems to say we must both sing and play. {II c. 22:20 – 22:40} “Nowhere in the New Testament is congregational singing specifically authorized.” I take this to mean not definitely authorized. {II c. 25:00} “There is only one reference I know of in the entire New Testament for music in the assembly. It’s in 1 Corinthians 14:26.” Note 1 Corinthians 14:15.
While “in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” (Hebrews 2:12) is not specifically speaking of the New Testament church in its source in Psalm 22:22, the idea of worship congregationally is. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16-17 are of the same nature. So we will look at RHCC’s comments on these two, after the following observations on Hebrews 2:12.
Hebrews 2:12 is given in proof of verse 11 that Jesus, of verse 9 as the sanctifier of those who are one with Him, is not ashamed to call them brethren. This says that in the congregation/church where these worship, He will be with them in this worship in singing. This is much like “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). It is similar to “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:19). Jesus joins in our worship to the Father, thus in congregational singing.
{II c. 23:07 – 25:00} “All these references to singing in the New Testament are speaking to the individual. They all clearly address the Christian’s daily walk and his relationship to other believers. The corporate assembly is not the context for any of those three verses.” I am interested only in Ephesians and Colossians here. It is argued that the whole context of the book of Ephesians is only about daily living, and a summary is given. It is claimed that the same holds in Colossians. So we need to look to see whether those things be so.
One surely can see the individual obligations in the Book of Ephesians, but one should not be blind to any obligation the individual has in the corporate body, as in Ephesians 4:4. Nor is Paul limited to speak only of individual obligation, but can speak of the body obligations to which the group is obligated, as in Ephesians 4:11-17. When he comes to worship obligations he can admonish them (Ephesians 5:18-19) to not be as those groups who are enlivened by wine, but that they are to be enlivened by the Spirit in “their speaking to yourselves,” showing group activity, that of the body. Same concepts are in Colossians 3:16-17.
2. An Argument on psallo is attributed to the opposition.
I never knew anyone to go to “the psallo argument” as a basis for not using the instrument. The argument on psallo was like the argument on zamar, it was on the other foot. Like as is argued in the material at {II c. 18:00 – 19:33}, and at {II c. 36:33 – 37:35}. In my experience the psallo argument was tried to be used to support the use of instruments as is done in the material, which was refuted by showing that the psallo of the New Testament does not necessarily demand instruments, but simply means sing in the New Testament worship. We were in the defensive position on psallo. If psallo translates zamar it doesn’t change the New Testament usage of psallo. The New Testament practice shows the understanding for the words. The argument in the material attempts to prove that the instrument is still to be understood in the words. This would prove more than is wanted. Such would demand the use of instruments of every one who is to sing. The words indeed have a meaning of to sing only.
If it is proved that the New Testament uses words that demand the use of the instrument, we have a dilemma - the early church under the apostles violated the demands of Scripture. The material argues that the words demand that understanding, and tries to explain the “why” {III c. 34:07} so as to excuse the church for not using the instrument. Is there any reason, given or not, that will justify the early church under apostolic direction to end something God had not intended to end {II c. 19:50} but to have it continue {II c. 16:45} in the Messianic age? What proves too much, proves nothing.
If an argument demands an untenable result, the argument is invalid. If an argument “proves” the New Testament church under the Spirit-filled Apostles failed to do what was prophesied of them, challenging Christianity as the Messianic age, such is not tenable. The argument is invalid. The argument destroys Christianity, rather than defines it.
Quotes from the material that admits the instruments are not demanded by the New Testament conflict with other quotes from the material.
{II c. 16:42} It is argued, “Messianic prophecy anticipated instrumental music would continue in the coming kingdom.” {III c. 33:15 – 34:07) “But in the places where we do know, we acknowledge the worship was almost exclusively a cappella.” {III c. 36:28 – 37:03} “ ... while they may not have used instrumental music, no church father condemned its use until you get into the third century, two hundred years later.” This is in the material where it was attempted to explain the reason why the early church did not use instrumental music. There seems to be a decided hesitancy to come right out and admit it. Where is it evidenced that singing was “almost” the exclusive music? And what is the evidence that they “may” not have used the instrument? They simply did not!
{II c. 35:44 – 36:22} About instruments, “They are not spoken about positively, they are not spoken about negatively. They aren’t prescribed, they’re not excluded.” This says instruments are not considered. The word psallo doesn’t address them! Yet the material insists that the word was in the Septuagint used, and that scholarship disagrees that psallo could denote singing alone in the New Testament, and argues, {II c. 38:00 – 38:33} “Now if the Holy Spirit’s purpose was to forbid instrumental music, why did He use a word so commonly associated with it?” {II c. 41:00 – 41:50} “Listen, silence in the New Testament on instrumental music is not intentional, it’s incidental.” If the New Testament doesn’t deal with instruments, then RHCC’s arguments about psallo sink.
One can’t consistently say that the word psallo doesn’t prescribe the instrument, but its meaning demands the instrument! One can’t say the Scriptures teach that instruments were to be used in the Messianic age, and turn around and say this only teaches that you are free to do it, but not that you have to do it!
The early church did not need excuse for not using instruments, they just did what was commanded of them. The instruments were not used, and therefore did not “continue” in the coming kingdom {II c. 1642}, the argument, that they were so prophesied, fails.
B. The Arguments used in the material for the use of instruments of music – [Observations will be bracketed].
1. Setting the context and Acts 15 {I c. 20:48 – 39:00} seem to be felt to have connection. Evidently it is felt that it has connection to cultural change and innovation, and that such is thus Bible supported. This led to a defining of “both/and” and “either/or”. [BOTH Jew AND Gentile in “one body” fellowship, as well as one in social “table fellowship,” as Paul taught, is muddled as being similar to BOTH opposers AND advocates of the use of instrumental music having to go EITHER to one service OR to the other, disrupting the “Lord’s Table fellowship,” separating the observance, so that the one does not take communion with the other.]
But the main arguments are from the Old and New Testaments as to offering Bible as authority for the instruments, and then from cultural observations.
2.The Old Testament arguments {II c. 8:55 – 20:20} are said to be 1) God commanded them {II c. 8:55 – 15:00), 2) God blessed their use {II c. 15:15 – 16:40}, and 3) “Messianic prophecy anticipated instrumental music would continue in the coming kingdom” {II c. 16:40 – 19:30}, a summary followed.
[For “1)” From the NIV are given 2 Chronicles 7:6 “with the Lord’s musical instruments, which King David had made for praising the Lord”; 1 Chronicles 28:12,19 David gave Solomon “all that the Spirit had put in his mind” implying that the instruments and their use was of the Spirit; 2 Chronicles 29:25 which shows the priests with instruments were “in the way prescribed by David and Gad the king’s seer and Nathan the prophet; this was commanded by the LORD through His prophets”; 2 Chronicles 5:13 “The trumpeters and singers joined in unison, as with one voice”; Several Psalms mentioning instruments and Psalm 81:1-5, claiming correlation with Exodus 15:23, and so being before the law. ...]
[It is to be noted that David made the instruments and prescribed their use, not that they were presented to David by the Spirit. David could not have been said to have invented them (Amos 6:5), to have made them, and to have prescribed them, had the direction been from the Spirit. That God accepted David in this is certain, and that He commanded through His prophets that these be observed, like in 2 Chronicles 30:12. Psalm 81 has to do with the Passover Festival, the solemn feast day (verse 3) is a law from their coming out of Egypt, and not the instruments used by Miriam. The feast looks back to deliverance, not to the instruments. See Keil & Delitzsch. That God accepted David’s instruments is clear, but that they originated with God is denied. God commanded to do what David said, to submit to the King. ]
[ Psalms – {II c. 12:00} “Now doesn’t it seem odd to you the Holy Spirit would command us to sing Psalms we are forbidden to practice?” We need to think.
The Psalms address carnal things, like hatred and destruction of enemies (e.g. 18:40 and 139:22) and burnt offerings and incense (e.g. 66:15). Is RHCC’s suggestion {II c. 12:00} not applicable here? ]
[For 2) the appearance of the cloud in 2 Chronicles 5:14 is given. It is certain that the instruments were used in praising God, but that the glory of the LORD was for the purpose of blessing the use of the instruments is not. Solomon connects it to the dedication of the temple (2 Chronicles 6:1) as in 1 Kings 8:10-12, where the instruments are not mentioned. Let’s not say more than the text says {II c. 26:30}.]
[For 3) Hebrews 1:8-9 uses Psalm 45:6-7 (but not v. 8) as being Messianic. The KJV gives verse 8 as “All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.” The NIV has verse 8 as “All your robes are fragrant with myrrh, and aloes, and cassia; from palaces adorned with ivory the music of the strings makes you glad.” RHCC tries to make this a part of the prophecy. RHCC claims Romans 15:11 from Psalms 18:49 or 57:9 make it even clearer, that is, instruments were prophesied to be used in the Messianic kingdom. They weren’t used. They weren’t so prophesied. See Deuteronomy 18:22.]
3. The New Testament arguments {II c. 20:20 – 36:20} are from a negative viewpoint, that of it being a non-issue, and that nothing forbids usage. They are given under five heads, 1) Jesus never dealt with the issue {II c. 20:30 – 21:50}, 2) Instruments of music is a non-issue in the Book of Acts {II c. 21:55 – 22:40}, 3) The New Testament commands to sing neither prescribe nor preclude instruments of music {II c. 22:45 – 28:20}, 4) Instruments in the Book of Revelation show God approved of them {II c. 28:25 – 30:30}, and 5) The New Testament idea of giftedness supports the practice of instrumental praise {II c. 30:33 – 34:30}. There follows some observations about New Testament writers and a discussion in rebuttal to the two arguments claimed to be from those who oppose the use of instruments {II c. 34:35 – 44:25}.
[No instruments of music argued for in the New Testament worship, simply the fact that they are not there, which shows the idea of Messianic prophecy for their use is not valid. Any prophecy to zamar in the New Testament was fulfilled in its meaning as a cappella].
[ Revelation – {II c. 28:25} “Instruments in the book of Revelation show God pleased with them” and that literal or figurative is irrelevant.
Revelation uses many Old Testament concepts as symbols for New Testament application, such as the temple with its court (11:1), the altar with its horns and golden censers (6:9; 8:3-5; 9:13). And RHCC thinks that it is irrelevant whether these are literal or figurative? And make an argument on symbols, applied literally? ]
4. The Cultural Observations Argument {III c. 26:55 – 46:30} are held the most subjective part of the argument. These involve ideas of building relationships, gleaning principles from faith communities of other times and places, human opinions as to the absence of instruments in the New Testament, the mission of reaching the lost, some are leaving our ranks, and so are our kids.
[I see no argument. We have an obligation to teach the word. We must not get in the way, but whether people obey or leave we cannot control. Ours is to labor, God gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:7). Paul was not so successful at Athens (Acts 17:15-34), but there is no evidence of concern for cultural changes to accommodate to religious practices in Athens, they were taught the same as others, and although Paul surely regretted the paucity of response, he accepted that most refused the gospel he taught.
V. CONCLUSION - Thoughts in conclusion: I am sure that many people feel the same as David did in wanting to express their thanksgiving to God. God accepted David’s way, but not all followed it. They used their own inventiveness with it, and displeased God (Amos 6:3-6).
There is a psychology in the use of instruments. They can accomplish good, and they can accomplish evil. They have a carnal nature. This accounts for their use at a number of functions. Their nature is exploited in “healing campaigns,” and carnivals. That nature accounts for their use in pep rallies, and in reveling. Clement spoke to the natures of instrumental music.
When one considers the purpose of the old law as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:23-25), it may be seen that God could use the accepting of David’s instruments in that plan.
It is clear from the New Testament that God has not authorized the use of instruments in New Testament worship assemblies. I wish to object to any plan to violate His wishes in this.
To argue against the silence of the scripture is to argue against the scripture (as Hebrews 7:14) itself. While we need to recognize that what is not authorized is to be excluded from our practice, it is not proper to say that the command to sing excludes the use of instruments. That is not the ground of exclusion. The command to sing does not exclude prayer, instruments, or the counting of beads. Neither of the latter are in the command, but prayer is authorized elsewhere. The other two are not authorized, and this is the ground of exclusion. The Bible is silent on them.
I will do my best to find right means of rebuking violations of the silence of the scriptures. That’s all I can do.
In this, I shall be open to dialogue. I hope others will be also.
-- Billy Duncan