In Christ
Carlos Perez
Evangelist

In Christ
Carlos Perez
Evangelist

The second to last sentence should read: Becareful that we do “not” judge the “righteousness” of one another, whether it be of instruments or meat.

The main proposition made by those believing acapella is the only accepted form is from the silence of Scripture. The statement has been made, “If the Bible does not authorize it, it is not acceptable to God.” If this is true, then let us be consistent in all areas of life and not just in the corporate gathering. For example: The Bible gives specific uses for the offerings of the church. One was to supply the needs of the church (the people) both local and universal. Another use of the offerings was for the support of those who needed funds for the preaching of the Gospel. There is absolutely no authorization in the New Testament for the use of God’s money to pay building loans including interest and extra fees. There is not authorization to purchase air conditioners, heaters, fans, etc. and other things for our comforts. We do have authorization from the Word to fill needs of the church (people). We do not have authorization to fill our wants!

If we are to use certain reasoning to understand God’s meaning, then we need to be consistent in all areas. This is a great challenge for us when we present “creeds” or create demands on people to abibe by our reasoning. I would suggest to you that the statement, “If God does not authorize it, it is not acceptable.” is a statement of reasoning that comes from the mind of man and not from the written Word of God. Therefore, it is open for debate. If it is true, it will stand up to the debate. Those who believe it will hold consistent to it in all areas of thier Biblical hermaneutic.

I challenge each one, not to reason with your feelings. I challenge all not to reason from your own personal experience. When you do that you place yourself into the judges chair, and say I am right and you are wrong.

What I am not saying and what I am saying:
I am not saying that we are free to do whatever we want, whenever we want to do it.
I am saying: Whatever you do in Word or deed, do all in the Name of our Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.
(Col. 3:17 which follows the oft cited 3:16)

I am not saying that worship does not and cannot take place in a group setting.
I am saying that nowhere in the Bible is “our precious worship service”.
(John 4:23,24 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.)

I am not saying that the things we do on Sunday morning (or at other times the church assembles) are not a part of what we offer to God.
I am saying that the things we “do” are not necessary to God, but to us.
(John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.)

Becareful that we do judge the “righteousness” of one another, whether it be of instruments or meat. God has not authorized us to do so.

However, in true worship to God, it’s not about me, it’s not about the instrument player, the band, the song leader or the soloist or the choir singing one of the favorite hymns or something new. It’s about True Worship to our Father in Heaven. “in Spirit and in Truth” It’s about our Saviour Jesus Christ, and spiritual edification of the brethren. Worship to God is not about conforming to wordly ways, or compromise with others and the way they feel, or what they like or prefer.

Let us put our attention to where it belongs. On our God, our Saviour, and in the Spirit, worship our heavenly Father, “singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord” collosians 3:16

If you can’t hear the words over the loud musical instruments, what edification is there. The worship service is not to be a provocation to jealosy or envy, in who can sing the best, or who can play the best, who makes the choir, but I’ve seen it be just that with many. Jesus, and he alone should be on the pedistal.

We could all argue and never agree, concerning instrumental music to be pleasing or not to God. But we can all agree that singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord, is pleasing to God.

I am not an advocate for instrumental music in Worship to God, for several reasons. There is to much of a worldly tone with their use in the worship service to our Father. You think, that maybe God in his wisdom, knew where the use of musical instruments would help to create a decadent society.

Ehesians 5: 18, 19. …;but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord; …

Not as I was taught or raised, do I choose to worship God in singing and without the use of musical instruments. I find singing as Truth, without question.

As the redeemed, we’ll someday be in the midst of Gods Glory, we will All sing in praise to God. If playing a musical instrument is included, we will All sing and ALL play in praise to God.

Love to all the brethren.

However, I guess the liberals are right about us conservatives being ignorant: for the life of me I cannot understand how I, who cannot find mechanical music in the NT, can have fellowship with others at a Lord’s day assembly when they insist on adding whatever they want: musical appliances, etc. Neither do I understand why if I am excluded by the practices of others from having worship fellowship with them I am automatically assumed to have condemned them. Maybe an enlightened liberal can explain it so I can understand it.

When one studies the etymology of this word, he will find that it is incorrect to say that every time psallo was used in antiquity, it meant to play an instrument. By studying reliable Greek lexicons (dictionaries) and various historical documents, one soon comes to understand that the term psallo has had a variety of meanings in different periods of its history. In fact, the evidence indicates that even before Christ came to Earth, psallo no longer meant to play instruments of music. Numerous scholarly sources could be cited to prove this point, but for the sake of space, three will suffice. First, Walter Bauer’s highly respected lexicon, revised by Frederick Danker in 2000, indicates that even in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament that appeared about 250 years before Christ was born), it “is usually the case” that psallo is translated as only “to sing” (2000, p. 1096). In Henry Thayer’s often-quoted Greek lexicon, he noted that by the time the events recorded in the New Testament took place, psallo meant “to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song” (1962, p. 675). Finally, Sophocles, a native Greek and for thirty-eight years a professor of the Greek language at Harvard University, declared (after examining a plethora of secular and religious historical documents) that there was not a single example of psallo ever used in the time of Christ that involved or implied the use of an instrument; rather, it always meant to chant or sing religious hymns (see Kurfees, 1999, p. 47).

When one wishes to know the definition of a word from times past, he must inquire as to how the word was used at any particular time in history. For example, when one reads the word “prevent” in the King James Version (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15), he must understand that this word does not mean the same thing it did when this version was first produced in 1611. Then, it meant “to go before; to precede.” Today, it means “to keep from happening; to impede.” The word “idiot” was used in the seventeenth century in reference to one “in a private station, as distinguished from one holding public office.” Today, it is used to speak of “an unlearned, or ignorant person.” Just as these English words once had meanings that now are entirely obsolete, the Greek word psallo once meant “to pluck or strike the chords of a musical instrument.” But, before the beginning of the New Testament period, it had lost this meaning. In his well-researched book, Instrumental Music in the Worship, M.C. Kurfees noted that the word psallo never is used in the New Testament or in contemporaneous literature to mean anything other than to sing (1999, p. 45). The other meanings had entirely disappeared by the time the New Testament was written.

The fact is, however, even if this word had retained all of its original meanings (and the evidence shows that it clearly had not), the letters Paul penned to the Christians in Ephesus and Colossae specifically name the “plucked” instrument—the heart. Thus, a harp, piano, banjo, or any other kind of musical instrument is no more an integral part of psallo than the plucking of chicken feathers. The deceptive and misleading argument which suggests that in the New Testament psallo means “to strike the cords on a musical instrument,” is false to the core. It can be refuted simply by taking an honest look at all of the evidence availab
The rightness or wrongness of every doctrine and practice is to be determined by what God has said (authorized) about the matter. (Colossians 3:17.)

True, David used instrumental music, but he also offered animal sacrifices and burned incense in worship. We do not take our orders from David today. Christ is our lawgiver and guide. (Matt. 17:5; 28:18; Heb. 1:1-2). He has nowhere authorized instrumental music, the Holy Spirit-inspired apostles did not sanction it, no New Testament writer mentioned it in Christian worship, and no apostolic church practiced it. To engage in it is to fail to worship “in truth.” But God is pleased when one only worships in truth. Therefore, instrumental music is not pleasing to him.
First, it is imperative that we understand that the conscience is not the final authority in matters religious. It is possible for some, in following their consciences, to condemn that which God allows. Such is the case with those of whom Paul warned Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:1-4. These brethren were refusing to marry and commanding others to abstain from meat— actions which, in and of themselves, were perfectly acceptable to God.

On the other hand, some, in following the dictates of their consciences, have condoned that which God has condemned. We need only to be reminded of the life of Paul prior to his conversion to Christ. He consented to the stoning of Stephen. (Acts 8:1.) He persecuted the church, and thus persecuted the Lord. (Acts 8:1; 9:1-5; 22:4; 26:10-12.) Yet, in all of these sinful actions Paul only did that which his conscience allowed. (Acts 23:1.)

Clearly, the conscience alone is not a sufficient guide in religious matters.

Second, it is imperative to note what is and what is not a matter of conscience according to God’s word, not according to man’s feelings. Many brethren, in an attempt to defend or reject this or that practice, have relegated issues to the realm of conscience by simply stating: “Oh, that’s only a matter of conscience.” The statement is often made as if to say: “If your conscience allows it, that’s fine, If your conscience condemns it, then that’s fine too. Whatever your conscience dictates is right.” The problem occurs, however, when this sort of statement is made without regard to the specific nature of the issue under consideration.

There are, for example, those areas of Christian practice that are properly determined to be right or wrong based upon the dictates of the individual conscience. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8, 10, and Romans 14, addresses some of those issues. More specifically, he taught that such actions as the eating of meats offered to idols and the keeping of certain days, were, in effect, matters of conscience, and thus to be determined by each individual in accordance with the dictates of that faculty. It is imperative, however, to note that both of these actions were right, in and of themselves, to be practiced before God, but also right to be avoided before God. (Romans 14:6.) Not every issue falls into this category.

There are many issues and practices that brethren seek to make matters of conscience, but which, in reality, are not at all parallel to the eating of meats offered to idols and the keeping of days. The marriage, divorce and remarriage question is not an issue that can be decided by the urgings of one’s conscience. The matter of fellowship, regardless of what men might say, is not merely a matter of conscience. Neither is the use of instrumental music in worship only a matter of conscience.

Third, though the conscience is involved in these, and other issues, they are really matters to be decided as right or wrong based upon biblical authority. The rightness or wrongness of every doctrine and practice is to be determined by what God has said (authorized) about the matter. (Colossians 3:17.) Even the matters of conscience that Paul addressed involved authority. If the eating of meats met God’s approval, and thus was authorized by God, then it would be wrong to demand that one abstain from meats as if abstention was the only practice demanded by the Lord. On the other hand, if God allowed (authorized) the eating of meats to be avoided, it would be wrong to force the eating of meats as if it were the only practice demanded by the Lord. The eating of meats and the keeping of days were both practices that were, in and of themselves, acceptable to the Lord, but which could also be avoided with the approval of the Lord. The marriage, fellowship, and music questions involve certain positions which are not, in and of themselves, acceptable to the Lord, and thus not parallel as matters of conscience to the questions of eating meats and keeping days.

Fourth, matters of conscience can be matters of opinion, but are not, of necessity, always, and only, matters of opinion. The issues discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8, 10, and Romans 14 were matters of conscience in the sense that one could either involve himself in or abstain from a given practice and still be right in the sight of God based upon his conscience. There are, however, biblical doctrines and practices that, though they involve the individual conscience, are not, simply by virtue of the conscience’s involvement, only matters of opinion. Such has been intimated previously and will presently be discussed as the question of instrumental music is raised.

Fifth, the use of instruments of music in worship involves the conscience, but sixth, the use of such also involves authority. As previously mentioned, it is almost impossible to discuss a matter of conscience without also realizing that, whatever that matter might be, it also involves authority. An explanation is in order.

I am conscientiously opposed to the use of instrumental music in worship, not merely as a matter of conscience, but rather due to the fact that I know that the use of instruments of music in worship (o God is not authorized. I cannot, therefore, in good conscience, worship God with the use of instruments. My opposition is not based solely upon the promptings of my conscience, but primarily upon my knowledge of God’s word, which, I am convinced, provides no authority for the use of such in the New Testament.

Those who contend that the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship is only a “matter of conscience” or a matter of opinion’’ confound the issue. The issue is not one of “conscience” versus “opinion.” The issue is now, and always has been, centered around authority. The issue is “authority” versus “non- authority.” To be parallel to the issues discussed by Paul, both the use and non-use of instrumental music in worship must be authorized by God. Then, and only then, would a person’s decision about the issue be that of his conscience. But, such is not the case, for the use of instrumental music in worship is not authorized in the New Testament.

To suggest therefore, that the instrumental music question is only a matter of conscience, is to be most misleading. Such a position completely overlooks the fact that the instrumental music question is, first and foremost, a question of authority. It is not enough to say that “We can worship with the instrument because to us it is only a matter of opinion.” The question is not simply “Can we, in good conscience, use instrumental music in worship to God?” Rather, the crux of the matter centers on the questions “What does God, through the Bible, authorize?” and “Is our practice of worshipping God with/without instruments of music that which is authorized by God in the New Testament?