The prophetical argument for IM

[Bocephus]

To an "ardent non-instrumentalist" pointing out the scriptural hypocrisy (such as the "specific authority" others need, when what I do only needs "generic authority") that is needed to defend the "non-instrumentalist" position doesn't work either.   

[DCR]

To an "ardent non-instrumentalist" pointing out the scriptural hypocrisy (such as the "specific authority" others need, when what I do only needs "generic authority") that is needed to defend the "non-instrumentalist" position doesn't work either.  

The "generic" vs. "specific" authority dichotomy is probably the most flawed aspect of this hermeneutic IMO.

Whatever is allowed by "generic authority" seems highly, highly subjective.  It's a way of rationalizing your permission to have one thing while you don't give someone else the same option to have another thing... when neither is specifically, expressly authorized in Scripture.

[blituri]

ME IN RED: color of shame!

One of the ways to TRUMP all of the Bible and all recorded history prior to the wild American Frontier which turned witchcraft into religion is to SAY that everything including bad breath was IMPOSED on non-instrumental people. That is a hate crime and will not get you advanced to the fast ones of the fast group.  I am (not really) astounded that people cannot read the simple test.  Otherwise they would grasp the 100% bad press on music and musicators when Jesus meets to teach us if the blabbers can sit down and shut up.

I have told you that Christ outlawed vocal and instrumental rejoicing for the Church of Christ in the wilderness. That never changed at any time in recorded history for the SPIRITUAL people.  On the other hand the ONLY place you can find mechanical instruments making NOISE and never MUSIC is in connection with Satan as source, sorcerers (Rev 18), warrior panic people doing PRAISE to threaten sexual violence on the enemy, prostitutes and Sodomites.  Assuredly before the time of David, no real MALE would or probably COULD fall into the folly which is on the same level with SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

I would jump off a high place if I couldn't grasp the difference between GENERIC things and SPECIFIC things.  Not to worry for the loss, there is NO music term used of God's people from Genesis to Revelation and is UNIVERSALLY associated with nasty people in all other recorded history.  So the only COMMAND is to "Speak that which is written." There was never any locic whenthe Catholics GULPED up music "because it was common to all pagan cults." About 400 years to have ANY kind of authority.

John Girardeau, A Presbyterian speaking for ALL LITERATE BIBLE READERS grasped the Church in the Wilderness as did John Calvin and ME when I thought that I was the only  one.

http://www.piney.com/MuGeoGir2.html

The elements of worship in the Mosaic dispensation were of two kinds:

(1.) The GENERIC or essential. Those observed in the synagogue were the reading and exposition of God's Word, exhortation, prayers, accompanied with singing, [if the common recitation by the people of parts of the Psalms can be so characterized], and the contribution of alms. Without here raising the question whether synagogues had an existence prior to the Babylonian exile, one would risk little in taking the ground that, during all the time of the church's development in the past,

God's people had been accustomed to meet on Sabbath days for engagement in these essential parts of divine worship. The patriarchal dispensation being left out of account,

   1. in which, however, every sentiment of piety and reverence,
   2. the original institution of the seventh day as one of rest,
   3. and the acquaintance of the Israelites with the law of the Sabbath before the promulgation of the Sinaitic law,
   4. render it highly probable that such a practice was maintained, a few reasons will be intimated in favor of its maintenance during the period of the Jewish economy:

When the Israelites rose up in MUSICAL IDOLATRY they PROFANED the Sabbath: the word means to "Play the flute, steal people's inheritance, pollute and prostitute.

If these arguments have availed to prove that the people of Israel were accustomed to

    hold stated meetings for worship apart from the services of the tabernacle and the temple,
    the well-ascertained practice of the post-exilian synagogues clearly establishes
    the absence of instrumental music from those weekly assemblies.

    For had that kind of music been employed in those meetings, it would inevitably have been continued in the synagogue-worship.

       1. Every conceivable consideration would have opposed its elimination the powerful force of long-continued precedents,
       2. the prescriptive usages of the past hallowed by sacred associations,
       3. the conservative sentiment which resists a revolutionary innovation,
       4. and more than all the demands of human taste and the requirements of an acknowledged artistic standard.

But it is certain that no instrumental music was used in the worship of the later synagogue. The argument is well-nigh irresistible.

   1. We have shown that vocal or instrumental rejoicing was excluded from the synagogue or Church of Christ in the wilderness.
   2. That the Temple NOISE is never called music was to "make the lambs dumb before the slaughter
   3. And that this sacrificial system was NATIONAL because they had been abandoned to worship the starry host: this was identical to that in Babylon.
   4. The non-Levites and not on rare duty were QUARANTINED from the temple slaughter.
   5. And they always aggended the Synagogue which was the only God-ordained plan as a school of the Word.

EVEN says Giraradeu however:

If it be contended that instrumental music, which had previously existed, was purged out of the regular worship of the Jews by the post-exilian reformation, the question at issue is given up.
For if the Jews reformed the worship of the church by abandoning instrumental music,
much more should it have been discarded at the greater reformation inaugurated by Christianity.

Otherwise it would be conceded that the Christian Church was less pure in its worship, less thoroughly reformed, than was the Jewish Church in its later and better state.

It has thus been shown that the essential [GENERIC] parts of divine worship were maintained by the people of God in their ordinary Sabbath-day worship during the Jewish dispensation;

and it is the purpose of this discussion, as it shall be developed, to evince the fact that only these essential elements of worship passed over into the Christian dispensation. They are permanent, and like the covenant of grace in its GENERIC and essential features as contradistinguished to the specific and accidental, were designed to endure unchanged through all dispensations.

(2.) The second kind of elements of worship in the Mosaic economy was the Specific or Accidental, which was Typical and Symbolical, and as such temporary in its nature..... Otherwise the MARKS of trusting in the SHADOWS or TYPES is to Recrucify Christ to yourselves which in fact mans to create mental excitement when Jesus is trying to speak.

In the first place, no element in the synagogue-worship was typical and temporary. This is too evident to require argument. The reading and exposition of the divine Word, hortatory addresses, the singing of psalms, and the contribution of alms, are elements of worship which cannot be regarded as types foreshadowing substantial realities to come. They belong to the class essential and permanent.

[Scoobydoo]

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

There is a lot of confusion here folks.. To the one who said this...

Whatever is allowed by "generic authority" seems highly, highly subjective.  It's a way of rationalizing your permission to have one thing while you don't give someone else the same option to have another thing... when neither is specifically, expressly authorized in Scripture.

My observation--some truth to that except when it comes to the use or non use of the instrument in worship--It is just flat out an act of unrighteousness.

And, kindly, to the person who wrote in red a lot--you do not seem--no offense to grasp the issues surrounding the use or non use of the instrument in worship.

It is so authorized in the Old Testament and found in the Old Mosaic Covenant.

On the other hand such a command is notably lacking in the New Covenant.

One key here is the word "new" and yes the New Covenant church patterened their worship off the synagogue and not the temple. In the synagogue there was singing but no IM.

The one simple solution to this whole issue hawks backs to the early debates in the 1850-1900's
When both sides understood that there was no biblical authority for its use in the New Covenant based on the word "psalms".

Find a new Covenant text today that applies to a Christian--New Covenant began in Acts 2 and runs through the book of Revelation and you have won the discussion.  I know from what I have read from the last century up to today that has not been done.

What I have found is a most vicious attack upon each passage that contans the word "sing" but no one to prove that IM in man's worship to God is an act of righteousness.

Scoobydoo

[DCR]

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

There is a lot of confusion here folks.. To the one who said this...

Whatever is allowed by "generic authority" seems highly, highly subjective.  It's a way of rationalizing your permission to have one thing while you don't give someone else the same option to have another thing... when neither is specifically, expressly authorized in Scripture.

My observation--some truth to that except when it comes to the use or non use of the instrument in worship--It is just flat out an act of unrighteousness.

"Flat out an act of unrighteousness"... that's an awfully strong statement, don't you think?  I don't believe we have authority to declare something to be an act of unrighteousness unless God declares it to be so.  And, we clearly have examples of it being characterized as an "act of righteousness" in Scripture, even if albeit only in the Old Testament and in the book of Revelation.  All you can say about the New Testament where the church is concerned is that the issue doesn't come up.

And, kindly, to the person who wrote in red a lot--you do not seem--no offense to grasp the issues surrounding the use or non use of the instrument in worship.

It is so authorized in the Old Testament and found in the Old Mosaic Covenant.

On the other hand such a command is notably lacking in the New Covenant.

One key here is the word "new" and yes the New Covenant church patterened their worship off the synagogue and not the temple. In the synagogue there was singing but no IM.

The one simple solution to this whole issue hawks backs to the early debates in the 1850-1900's
When both sides understood that there was no biblical authority for its use in the New Covenant based on the word "psalms".

Find a new Covenant text today that applies to a Christian--New Covenant began in Acts 2 and runs through the book of Revelation and you have won the discussion.  I know from what I have read from the last century up to today that has not been done.

What I have found is a most vicious attack upon each passage that contans the word "sing" but no one to prove that IM in man's worship to God is an act of righteousness.

Scoobydoo

Again, here's the fundamental problem:  In the Old Testament we're given all the technical requirements of tabernacle worship in meticulous detail.  But, we're lacking that in the New Testament.  So much of what we do in the modern churches of Christ is not specifically stated in the New Testament.  Rather, our forefathers originated some of the things we do and the way we do them, according to interpretation of generic principles in the New Testament.  If we had recorded in New Testament scripture, a place of worship, how things should be arranged in that place of worship, and what should be done in formal worship proceedings, and precisely how those things should be done, then we might have a stronger platform from which to argue.  That's the kind of detail we're given in the Old Testament about tabernacle worship.

But, in an ironic sort of way, are we now trying to resurrect the tabernacle/Temple by setting up a rigorous set of rules and prohibitions on the correct way to perform Christian worship?  There's an emphasis there that doesn't quite seem to match the spirit of the New Testament.  

[Scoobydoo]

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,
you stated---"Flat out an act of unrighteousness"... that's an awfully strong statement, don't you think?  I don't believe we have authority to declare something to be an act of unrighteousness unless God declares it to be so.  And, we clearly have examples of it being characterized as an "act of righteousness" in Scripture, even if albeit only in the Old Testament and in the book of Revelation.  All you can say about the New Testament where the church is concerned is that the issue doesn't come up.

My response--Absolutely Not!  It is not nearly strong enough!!  Think for a minute about what constitutes "righteous" or "righteousness"
Righteousness is literally translated "rightwiseness" and then we get "right actions". Futher in God's relationship to man--It is God who tells man what is acceptable to Him in Worship--Not the other way around as the Jews were wont to do and died for it.

And, that you for making an excellent point for me--It is clearly absent from the pages of the New Covenant.  God gave everything "new" to the church including the type and kind of music.

In the Old Testament and in the Old Covenant--God clearly authorizes the use of the instrument but God also provides the instrument. The instrument did not come from the society in which the Jews found themselves.

That is clearly absent from the new Covenant and then to attempt to use such as being well pleasing to God--constitutes an act of unrighteousness done in the name of God. This is not a good thing any day of the week.

next you asked---But, in an ironic sort of way, are we now trying to resurrect the tabernacle/Temple by setting up a rigorous set of rules and prohibitions on the correct way to perform Christian worship?  There's an emphasis there that doesn't quite seem to match the spirit of the New Testament. 

My observation--you accurately point out this problem for the Jews in Romans 7:1-4
because neither the Jews then or now or we as Gentiles can be married to more than one covenant at a time.

None of the "points" illustrating the use of the IM in Old Covenant worship is to be found nor identified in the "new" covenant.  God was clearly establishing  "righteousness" for men in their worship to God when God says sing under the new Covenant.

The fact that the Jews did not use the instrument in the synagogue is correct but that is not why they in the first century did not use it. It was never ever authorized by anyone in the new covenant.

The folks today who claim that IM is ok--are acting like those Jews in the days of Jesus who were lost--because they had become disobedient.

Rom 6:14  For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15  What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16  Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17  But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;
Rom 6:18  and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness. 
As priests today we each are to offer up to our God those sacrifices that God has told us are well-pleasing and the use of IM does not enter in here. Thus it truly is an act of unrighteousness for folks to offer it up today.
Granted that is not good news for those who use it--so you will have to explain it away but you will not a find a new covenant text anywhere in which to support it.  So, in the end whom is fooling whom?

And when those in the churches of Christ for whatever reason give in--they will lose every single time. It is just not worth it.

Scoobydoo

[blituri]

And, kindly, to the person who wrote in red a lot--you do not seem--no offense to grasp the issues surrounding the use or non use of the instrument in worship.

It is so authorized in the Old Testament and found in the Old Mosaic Covenant.

And, kindly, being part of the New Testament Church, there is little need to understand what happened at Mount Sinai and the nature of the sacrificial system.

The one TRIP POINT should be in Acts 7 when Stephen pointed to the Amos musical idolatry and connected that to the event in Exodus kissed off too lightly as ROSE UP TO PLAY.  In fact, this was just after God warned about the Sabbath (Ex 31) and that they should not profane it.  That word is translated as "blow the flute, steal other's inheritance, pollute and prostitute."

The word PLAY has a broader meaning proving that they reverted to their old trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus under the sign of the Golden Calf.  That was clearly musical idolatry.

As a result, Stephen and some Psalms and prophets (by Christ in Spirit) define this as a FALL FROM GRACE.

When the elders fired God and demanded a king like the nations, God understood that they wanted to worship like the nations. He warned that they would carry out the captivity and death sentence imposed as Mount Sinai.  Therefore, God did not COMMAND anything under the NATIONAL (Babylonian etal) sacrificial system and that would be the instruments which made NOISE and not MUSIC.

The Levites have a history in Egypt connected to Molech one of the "gods" to which God abandoned them. They were under the KING and COMMANDERS OF THE ARMY and not the PRIESTS. The not-commanded temple was the NATIONAL or KING'S SHRINE and the warrior Levites job was to "make the lambs dumb before the slaughter."  As a WARRIOR and not a WORSHIP LEADER men like David needed no command for the usual PANIC instruments used in making war.

I have done my research and find that the historical scholars agree. The MONARCHY was God's abandonment of the tribe of LEVI as "sacrificers" and Jacob warned us "not to attend the assemblies of Levi" who had blood on his hands.

The synagogue or church in the wilderness always existed for rest, reading and rehearsing the Word. That never changed and the SPIRITUAL people attended synagogue or EKKLESIA which was not a "worship center" but a school of the Bible. The Campbells tried to restore The School of Christ (only).

Nope, if you think that God approved of anything in the sacrificial system then join the happy host of preachers and scholars in the Church of Christ who LOOSE the battle when they claim that God AUTHORIZED instrumental WORSHIP but CHANGED THE LAW.

http://www.piney.com/2.Chronicles.29.html

I call for a NEW RESTORATION MOVEMENT beginning with Bible 101a.

The Covenant Christ in Spirit made to Abraham was the ONLY spiritual covenant: it was restated in Galatians 3.  The MONARCHY was called a SHADOW or SKIA and a covenant with death.

[Scoobydoo]

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texaz,

Actually how God teaches and interacts with His people is very important. But you know what?  it is ok if you don't so believe.
You want to take the end result of gainsaying anddisobedient people at the end and not at the beginning needs some rethinking.

In the worship of men to God--God established His rightwiseness, His righteousness in the commands that He gave and that is going to help us today.

God commanded the use of the instrument in His people's worship to Him. tells us how God feels when His people disobey.

We arrive at a much better biblical solution by considering the whole picture.  it is a fact that God provided the instruments to be used in their worship. If they later corrupt that--that corruption does not change what God has done.

The churches of Christ do not depend on Campbell as our authority but rather the teaching of the texts.

Thus with an understanding of God's use and application of instruments in the early Jewish worship does not decay simply because they abused it.

Scoobydoo

[zoonance]

True, the argument against the use of IM in worship would be greatly enhanced if there was some scriptural proof that God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit ever condemned their use.  Rather, they have condoned and even commanded their use.   The only negative I find (that I know of anyway) is the passages in Amos 5 and 6.

5:23 Take away from me the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps.
6:5 who strum on the strings of a harp; who invent for themselves instruments of music, like David;


The context doesn't come close to suggesting that it was the IM that made Him angry! 

Thus, who really speaks accurately on behalf of God through His Spirit?

[blituri]

Show where God commanded the use of instrumental music for congregational worship.

I have shown how Christ for the qahal, synagogue or church in the wilderness OUTLAWED the use of vocal or instrumental rejoicing.

You do not remotely grasp that Jesus used the word ekklesia and Paul used words meaning synagogue. These were for verbal instruction by READING and DISCUSSING what some HIGHER authority presented to them.

If you could understand words like PLAY, laded burden, rest, sporting or SELF-pleasure you would see the clear condemnation of all of the HYPOCRITIC arts.  Because you do not know you think that church is a WORSHIP CENTER where you refuse to use the commanded RESOURCE and insist on using the OUTLAWED method of presentation.
 
When everyone RISES UP to be mentally deranged by singing an arousing song NOT composed by Christ it intends to prove that you have SPIRIT.  This is EXACTLY the meaning of RISING UP TO PLAY: you are in MORTAL rebellion against Jesus Christ where MUSIC always meant to "silence the voice of the victim." You worship twila paris or fanny crosby because you GIVE HEED to their words.  This, like the Pharisees was to KEEP FROM having to speak "that which is written" and commanded for the elders ONLY as "teaching that which has been taught." You will use DAVID for your patternism but he too, ROSE UP TO PLAY and made himself VILE with the camp following girls.  Music as a religious ritual was called SACRED VIOLENCE.  And so it is.

If you have been "learned" by colleges or preachers in the church of Christ in the last three decades you do NOT know how to read the Bible. Indeed, you don't NEED to be a Bible student at all to be a preacher who had NO ROLE in the synagogue (from the wilderness to the time of Christ), no role in the ekklesia and no role in an Assembly of Christ.

You guys DO NOT know the story line: how could you understand the sub plots?

Acts 15:21 For Moses
       of old time
       hath in every city
       them that preach him,
       being read in the synagogues
       every sabbath day.

No one could even HALLUCINATE singing as an ACT of worship until the year 373
That would not have been "tuneful" because melody as tunefulness belongs to the 19th century
That SPLIT the West from the Eastern church even to this day.

If you have a MINIMALIST GRASP of the meaning of Qahal, synagogue or ekklesia you could not even HALLUCINATE a role for "music" unless you INTENTIONALLY intend to "make the lambs dumb before the slaughter." That is THE root meaning of MUSIC.

NOPE: no disciples of Christ with Christian morality and decency and reverence would allow you to do as in Ezekiel 33 to "Turn the Words of God into a song."  Paul said that this lack of reverence ignores that GOD IS A CONSUMING FIRE and the IGNIS or fire starter was the "one who started the songs."

You cannot SING any of the Bible.
You are APOSTATE if you do not use that which is commanded.
    Like the Scribes and Pharisees Jesus called hypocrites by pointing to speakers, singers and instrument players,
    You will leave no stone unturned (or tern unstoned) to keep FROM teaching "that which has been taught.
    As Paul defined "corrupting the Word" as selling learning at retail and therefore adultery, Peter WROTE as 
    Mark of false teachers those who do not "give heed to the prophecies made more certain."

NOPE: call it what you will but you guys do not grasp The Church of Christ which is a school (only) of His Words (only).
Better, get a real job.

[Livelysword]

Scoobydoo

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

There is a lot of confusion here folks.. To the one who said this...

Whatever is allowed by "generic authority" seems highly, highly subjective.  It's a way of rationalizing your permission to have one thing while you don't give someone else the same option to have another thing... when neither is specifically, expressly authorized in Scripture.

My observation--some truth to that except when it comes to the use or non use of the instrument in worship--It is just flat out an act of unrighteousness.

And, kindly, to the person who wrote in red a lot--you do not seem--no offense to grasp the issues surrounding the use or non use of the instrument in worship.

It is so authorized in the Old Testament and found in the Old Mosaic Covenant.

On the other hand such a command is notably lacking in the New Covenant.

One key here is the word "new" and yes the New Covenant church patterened their worship off the synagogue and not the temple. In the synagogue there was singing but no IM.

The one simple solution to this whole issue hawks backs to the early debates in the 1850-1900's
When both sides understood that there was no biblical authority for its use in the New Covenant based on the word "psalms".

Find a new Covenant text today that applies to a Christian--New Covenant began in Acts 2 and runs through the book of Revelation and you have won the discussion.  I know from what I have read from the last century up to today that has not been done.

What I have found is a most vicious attack upon each passage that contans the word "sing" but no one to prove that IM in man's worship to God is an act of righteousness.

Scoobydoo

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,
you stated---"Flat out an act of unrighteousness"... that's an awfully strong statement, don't you think?  I don't believe we have authority to declare something to be an act of unrighteousness unless God declares it to be so.  And, we clearly have examples of it being characterized as an "act of righteousness" in Scripture, even if albeit only in the Old Testament and in the book of Revelation.  All you can say about the New Testament where the church is concerned is that the issue doesn't come up.

My response--Absolutely Not!  It is not nearly strong enough!!  Think for a minute about what constitutes "righteous" or "righteousness"
Righteousness is literally translated "rightwiseness" and then we get "right actions". Futher in God's relationship to man--It is God who tells man what is acceptable to Him in Worship--Not the other way around as the Jews were wont to do and died for it.

And, that you for making an excellent point for me--It is clearly absent from the pages of the New Covenant.  God gave everything "new" to the church including the type and kind of music.

In the Old Testament and in the Old Covenant--God clearly authorizes the use of the instrument but God also provides the instrument. The instrument did not come from the society in which the Jews found themselves.

That is clearly absent from the new Covenant and then to attempt to use such as being well pleasing to God--constitutes an act of unrighteousness done in the name of God. This is not a good thing any day of the week.

next you asked---But, in an ironic sort of way, are we now trying to resurrect the tabernacle/Temple by setting up a rigorous set of rules and prohibitions on the correct way to perform Christian worship?  There's an emphasis there that doesn't quite seem to match the spirit of the New Testament.  

My observation--you accurately point out this problem for the Jews in Romans 7:1-4
because neither the Jews then or now or we as Gentiles can be married to more than one covenant at a time.

None of the "points" illustrating the use of the IM in Old Covenant worship is to be found nor identified in the "new" covenant.  God was clearly establishing  "righteousness" for men in their worship to God when God says sing under the new Covenant.

The fact that the Jews did not use the instrument in the synagogue is correct but that is not why they in the first century did not use it. It was never ever authorized by anyone in the new covenant.

The folks today who claim that IM is ok--are acting like those Jews in the days of Jesus who were lost--because they had become disobedient.

Rom 6:14  For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15  What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16  Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17  But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;
Rom 6:18  and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.  
As priests today we each are to offer up to our God those sacrifices that God has told us are well-pleasing and the use of IM does not enter in here. Thus it truly is an act of unrighteousness for folks to offer it up today.
Granted that is not good news for those who use it--so you will have to explain it away but you will not a find a new covenant text anywhere in which to support it.  So, in the end whom is fooling whom?

And when those in the churches of Christ for whatever reason give in--they will lose every single time. It is just not worth it.

Scoobydoo

Lively:  I read both of these posts and they are well thought out and to the point and biblically sound... and I am happy to see it on this board... well done scoobydoo.

[blituri]

History notes that with Saul and David for the first time MUSIC and especially RELIGIOUS music began to be performed by males: that is because God had abandoned them to worship the starry host.  While males performed all of the SACRIFICIAL NOISE which God had NOT commanded, the definition of words always means to PERFORM THE ROLE OF WOMEN.  The clothing, singing falsetto, the type of songs of the virgin, the instruments previously used by prostitutes and performing PROPHESYING. With both Miriam and with the Levites the word is defined as SOOTHSAYING.

GOD GAVE THEM KINGS IN HIS ANGER AND TOOK THEM AWAY IN HIS ANGER: their task was to carry out the captivity and death sentence imposed BECAUSE of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai.  Why would God ABANDON them to worship the Astrial DEITIES and then commanded them to do it with MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. In fact, these instruments made noise and never music.

No, God did not COMMAND the use of the warrior's instruments to make WORSHIP: them made warfare and burnt offerings NOT COMMANDED says Christ in many of the prophets.  If you cannot grasp that then you have no defense against instruments other than some kind of LEGALISM.

There never was an age--including that of Nimrod--which was not SMART ENOUGH to figure you musical fellas out.

Aristotle on Politics 1339a

http://www.piney.com/ArisPolit8.html

Hence our predecessors included music in education not as a necessity (for there is nothing necessary about, nor as useful (in the way in which reading and writing are useful for business and for household management and for acquiring learning and for many pursuits of civil life  (for we do not see either of these things produced as a result of music);

it remains therefore that it is useful as a pastime in leisure, which is evidently the purpose for which people actually introduce it, for they rank it as a form of pastime that they think proper for free men.

1. for amusement and relaxation, as one indulges in sleep and deep drinking (for these in themselves
        are not serious pursuits but merely pleasant, and 'relax our care,' as Euripides says;
        sleep, deep drinking and music, in the same way,
        and they also place dancing in the same class); (Aristotle isn't kind)

2. or whether we ought rather to think that music tends in some degree to virtue
        (music being capable of producing a certain quality of character
        just as gymnastics are capable of producing a certain quality of body,
        music accustoming men to be able to rejoice rightly);

3. or that it contributes something to intellectual entertainment and culture
        (for this must be set down as a third alternative among those mentioned).
        Now it is not difficult to see that one must not make amusement
        the object of the education of the young;
        for amusement does not go with learning--learning is a painful process.

"And we may consider the conception that we have about the gods:
        Zeus does not sing and harp to the poets himself.
        But professional musicians we speak of as vulgar people, and indeed
        we think it not manly to perform music, except when drunk or for fun.

And the usual contempt for the audience (congregation).

For I have to pay the closest attention to them;
        since, if I set them crying,
        I shall laugh myself because of the money I take,
        but if they laugh, I myself shall cry because of the money I lose.

You need to tell me where God commanded INSTRUMENTAL WORSHIP. No, no one in Revelation PLAYS the harps. By HOLDING the HARPS OF GOD they "apprehended the Word of God."

ALL of the SOUNDS LIKE are the sounds of panic and the artificial sounds created in the pagan theaters.

The angel to those STILL LIVING was to PREACH THE GOSPEL.  The word PREACH excludes poetry or music as does the command to TEACH that which has written.

The latter end of the Church of Christ has fallen for the CHURCH IS JUST WORSHIP folly which was the MAKIN purpose of Jubilee and the other efforts.

[zoonance]

Scoobydoo

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

There is a lot of confusion here folks.. To the one who said this...

Whatever is allowed by "generic authority" seems highly, highly subjective.  It's a way of rationalizing your permission to have one thing while you don't give someone else the same option to have another thing... when neither is specifically, expressly authorized in Scripture.

My observation--some truth to that except when it comes to the use or non use of the instrument in worship--It is just flat out an act of unrighteousness.

And, kindly, to the person who wrote in red a lot--you do not seem--no offense to grasp the issues surrounding the use or non use of the instrument in worship.

It is so authorized in the Old Testament and found in the Old Mosaic Covenant.

On the other hand such a command is notably lacking in the New Covenant.

One key here is the word "new" and yes the New Covenant church patterened their worship off the synagogue and not the temple. In the synagogue there was singing but no IM.

The one simple solution to this whole issue hawks backs to the early debates in the 1850-1900's
When both sides understood that there was no biblical authority for its use in the New Covenant based on the word "psalms".

Find a new Covenant text today that applies to a Christian--New Covenant began in Acts 2 and runs through the book of Revelation and you have won the discussion.  I know from what I have read from the last century up to today that has not been done.

What I have found is a most vicious attack upon each passage that contans the word "sing" but no one to prove that IM in man's worship to God is an act of righteousness.

Scoobydoo

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,
you stated---"Flat out an act of unrighteousness"... that's an awfully strong statement, don't you think?  I don't believe we have authority to declare something to be an act of unrighteousness unless God declares it to be so.  And, we clearly have examples of it being characterized as an "act of righteousness" in Scripture, even if albeit only in the Old Testament and in the book of Revelation.  All you can say about the New Testament where the church is concerned is that the issue doesn't come up.

My response--Absolutely Not!  It is not nearly strong enough!!  Think for a minute about what constitutes "righteous" or "righteousness"
Righteousness is literally translated "rightwiseness" and then we get "right actions". Futher in God's relationship to man--It is God who tells man what is acceptable to Him in Worship--Not the other way around as the Jews were wont to do and died for it.

And, that you for making an excellent point for me--It is clearly absent from the pages of the New Covenant.  God gave everything "new" to the church including the type and kind of music.

In the Old Testament and in the Old Covenant--God clearly authorizes the use of the instrument but God also provides the instrument. The instrument did not come from the society in which the Jews found themselves.

That is clearly absent from the new Covenant and then to attempt to use such as being well pleasing to God--constitutes an act of unrighteousness done in the name of God. This is not a good thing any day of the week.

next you asked---But, in an ironic sort of way, are we now trying to resurrect the tabernacle/Temple by setting up a rigorous set of rules and prohibitions on the correct way to perform Christian worship?  There's an emphasis there that doesn't quite seem to match the spirit of the New Testament.  

My observation--you accurately point out this problem for the Jews in Romans 7:1-4
because neither the Jews then or now or we as Gentiles can be married to more than one covenant at a time.

None of the "points" illustrating the use of the IM in Old Covenant worship is to be found nor identified in the "new" covenant.  God was clearly establishing  "righteousness" for men in their worship to God when God says sing under the new Covenant.

The fact that the Jews did not use the instrument in the synagogue is correct but that is not why they in the first century did not use it. It was never ever authorized by anyone in the new covenant.

The folks today who claim that IM is ok--are acting like those Jews in the days of Jesus who were lost--because they had become disobedient.

Rom 6:14  For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15  What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16  Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17  But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;
Rom 6:18  and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.  
As priests today we each are to offer up to our God those sacrifices that God has told us are well-pleasing and the use of IM does not enter in here. Thus it truly is an act of unrighteousness for folks to offer it up today.
Granted that is not good news for those who use it--so you will have to explain it away but you will not a find a new covenant text anywhere in which to support it.  So, in the end whom is fooling whom?

And when those in the churches of Christ for whatever reason give in--they will lose every single time. It is just not worth it.

Scoobydoo

Lively:  I read both of these posts and they are well thought out and to the point and biblically sound... and I am happy to see it on this board... well done scoobydoo.

I have read both these posts and am more confused.   New Covenant versus Old Covenant.  The New Covenant has the same, though different, number of rules and regulations?  The New Testament is not the New Covenant anymore than the Old Testament is the Old Covenant.  The terms we use "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are inventions by man, unauthorized divisions of the book.

[Livelysword]

Scoobydoo

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

There is a lot of confusion here folks.. To the one who said this...

Whatever is allowed by "generic authority" seems highly, highly subjective.  It's a way of rationalizing your permission to have one thing while you don't give someone else the same option to have another thing... when neither is specifically, expressly authorized in Scripture.

My observation--some truth to that except when it comes to the use or non use of the instrument in worship--It is just flat out an act of unrighteousness.

And, kindly, to the person who wrote in red a lot--you do not seem--no offense to grasp the issues surrounding the use or non use of the instrument in worship.

It is so authorized in the Old Testament and found in the Old Mosaic Covenant.

On the other hand such a command is notably lacking in the New Covenant.

One key here is the word "new" and yes the New Covenant church patterened their worship off the synagogue and not the temple. In the synagogue there was singing but no IM.

The one simple solution to this whole issue hawks backs to the early debates in the 1850-1900's
When both sides understood that there was no biblical authority for its use in the New Covenant based on the word "psalms".

Find a new Covenant text today that applies to a Christian--New Covenant began in Acts 2 and runs through the book of Revelation and you have won the discussion.  I know from what I have read from the last century up to today that has not been done.

What I have found is a most vicious attack upon each passage that contans the word "sing" but no one to prove that IM in man's worship to God is an act of righteousness.

Scoobydoo

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,
you stated---"Flat out an act of unrighteousness"... that's an awfully strong statement, don't you think?  I don't believe we have authority to declare something to be an act of unrighteousness unless God declares it to be so.  And, we clearly have examples of it being characterized as an "act of righteousness" in Scripture, even if albeit only in the Old Testament and in the book of Revelation.  All you can say about the New Testament where the church is concerned is that the issue doesn't come up.

My response--Absolutely Not!  It is not nearly strong enough!!  Think for a minute about what constitutes "righteous" or "righteousness"
Righteousness is literally translated "rightwiseness" and then we get "right actions". Futher in God's relationship to man--It is God who tells man what is acceptable to Him in Worship--Not the other way around as the Jews were wont to do and died for it.

And, that you for making an excellent point for me--It is clearly absent from the pages of the New Covenant.  God gave everything "new" to the church including the type and kind of music.

In the Old Testament and in the Old Covenant--God clearly authorizes the use of the instrument but God also provides the instrument. The instrument did not come from the society in which the Jews found themselves.

That is clearly absent from the new Covenant and then to attempt to use such as being well pleasing to God--constitutes an act of unrighteousness done in the name of God. This is not a good thing any day of the week.

next you asked---But, in an ironic sort of way, are we now trying to resurrect the tabernacle/Temple by setting up a rigorous set of rules and prohibitions on the correct way to perform Christian worship?  There's an emphasis there that doesn't quite seem to match the spirit of the New Testament.  

My observation--you accurately point out this problem for the Jews in Romans 7:1-4
because neither the Jews then or now or we as Gentiles can be married to more than one covenant at a time.

None of the "points" illustrating the use of the IM in Old Covenant worship is to be found nor identified in the "new" covenant.  God was clearly establishing  "righteousness" for men in their worship to God when God says sing under the new Covenant.

The fact that the Jews did not use the instrument in the synagogue is correct but that is not why they in the first century did not use it. It was never ever authorized by anyone in the new covenant.

The folks today who claim that IM is ok--are acting like those Jews in the days of Jesus who were lost--because they had become disobedient.

Rom 6:14  For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15  What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16  Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17  But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;
Rom 6:18  and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.  
As priests today we each are to offer up to our God those sacrifices that God has told us are well-pleasing and the use of IM does not enter in here. Thus it truly is an act of unrighteousness for folks to offer it up today.
Granted that is not good news for those who use it--so you will have to explain it away but you will not a find a new covenant text anywhere in which to support it.  So, in the end whom is fooling whom?

And when those in the churches of Christ for whatever reason give in--they will lose every single time. It is just not worth it.

Scoobydoo

Lively:  I read both of these posts and they are well thought out and to the point and biblically sound... and I am happy to see it on this board... well done scoobydoo.

I have read both these posts and am more confused.   New Covenant versus Old Covenant.  The New Covenant has the same, though different, number of rules and regulations?  The New Testament is not the New Covenant anymore than the Old Testament is the Old Covenant.  The terms we use "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are inventions by man, unauthorized divisions of the book.

Lively:  I would disagree... and I also disagree that the start of the covenant begins in Acts 2 as well, since all of the teaching of Christ in his earthly ministry is in the four gospels... What, what he said was not his testament from the Father and is not to be counted as his will and testament?   They were actually written after his death... and are his testament...  we were told by Jesus at the last supper, recorded in the gospels, when he instituted the communion, that the fruit of the vine was his blood in the New Testament...  That is, what he is testifying.  Paul was made an able minister of the New Testament.  Not of the Old but of the New.  The Old testament was taken away to bring in the New Testament...   Jesus was made a surety of a better testament... and he is the mediator of the New Testament.  Both 2Cor 3 and Heb 9 should be studied on this issue...  the words New Testament clearly are in the words of God...

Heb 9:15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


as well as the Old Testament... so clearly God has made distinction between the two...


2Co 3:14  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.


clearly we are to understand where the NT begins and where the OT leaves off...  and that which was written after the death of Christ is clearly NT and covenant.

[Seeker_of_Truth]

ME IN RED: color of shame!

One of the ways to TRUMP all of the Bible and all recorded history prior to the wild American Frontier which turned witchcraft into religion is to SAY that everything including bad breath was IMPOSED on non-instrumental people. That is a hate crime and will not get you advanced to the fast ones of the fast group.  I am (not really) astounded that people cannot read the simple test.  Otherwise they would grasp the 100% bad press on music and musicators when Jesus meets to teach us if the blabbers can sit down and shut up.

I have told you that Christ outlawed vocal and instrumental rejoicing for the Church of Christ in the wilderness. That never changed at any time in recorded history for the SPIRITUAL people.  On the other hand the ONLY place you can find mechanical instruments making NOISE and never MUSIC is in connection with Satan as source, sorcerers (Rev 18), warrior panic people doing PRAISE to threaten sexual violence on the enemy, prostitutes and Sodomites.  Assuredly before the time of David, no real MALE would or probably COULD fall into the folly which is on the same level with SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

I would jump off a high place if I couldn't grasp the difference between GENERIC things and SPECIFIC things.  Not to worry for the loss, there is NO music term used of God's people from Genesis to Revelation and is UNIVERSALLY associated with nasty people in all other recorded history.  So the only COMMAND is to "Speak that which is written." There was never any locic whenthe Catholics GULPED up music "because it was common to all pagan cults." About 400 years to have ANY kind of authority.

John Girardeau, A Presbyterian speaking for ALL LITERATE BIBLE READERS grasped the Church in the Wilderness as did John Calvin and ME when I thought that I was the only  one.

http://www.piney.com/MuGeoGir2.html

The elements of worship in the Mosaic dispensation were of two kinds:

(1.) The GENERIC or essential. Those observed in the synagogue were the reading and exposition of God's Word, exhortation, prayers, accompanied with singing, [if the common recitation by the people of parts of the Psalms can be so characterized], and the contribution of alms. Without here raising the question whether synagogues had an existence prior to the Babylonian exile, one would risk little in taking the ground that, during all the time of the church's development in the past,

God's people had been accustomed to meet on Sabbath days for engagement in these essential parts of divine worship. The patriarchal dispensation being left out of account,

   1. in which, however, every sentiment of piety and reverence,
   2. the original institution of the seventh day as one of rest,
   3. and the acquaintance of the Israelites with the law of the Sabbath before the promulgation of the Sinaitic law,
   4. render it highly probable that such a practice was maintained, a few reasons will be intimated in favor of its maintenance during the period of the Jewish economy:

When the Israelites rose up in MUSICAL IDOLATRY they PROFANED the Sabbath: the word means to "Play the flute, steal people's inheritance, pollute and prostitute.

If these arguments have availed to prove that the people of Israel were accustomed to

    hold stated meetings for worship apart from the services of the tabernacle and the temple,
    the well-ascertained practice of the post-exilian synagogues clearly establishes
    the absence of instrumental music from those weekly assemblies.

    For had that kind of music been employed in those meetings, it would inevitably have been continued in the synagogue-worship.

       1. Every conceivable consideration would have opposed its elimination the powerful force of long-continued precedents,
       2. the prescriptive usages of the past hallowed by sacred associations,
       3. the conservative sentiment which resists a revolutionary innovation,
       4. and more than all the demands of human taste and the requirements of an acknowledged artistic standard.

But it is certain that no instrumental music was used in the worship of the later synagogue. The argument is well-nigh irresistible.

   1. We have shown that vocal or instrumental rejoicing was excluded from the synagogue or Church of Christ in the wilderness.
   2. That the Temple NOISE is never called music was to "make the lambs dumb before the slaughter
   3. And that this sacrificial system was NATIONAL because they had been abandoned to worship the starry host: this was identical to that in Babylon.
   4. The non-Levites and not on rare duty were QUARANTINED from the temple slaughter.
   5. And they always aggended the Synagogue which was the only God-ordained plan as a school of the Word.

EVEN says Giraradeu however:

If it be contended that instrumental music, which had previously existed, was purged out of the regular worship of the Jews by the post-exilian reformation, the question at issue is given up.
For if the Jews reformed the worship of the church by abandoning instrumental music,
much more should it have been discarded at the greater reformation inaugurated by Christianity.

Otherwise it would be conceded that the Christian Church was less pure in its worship, less thoroughly reformed, than was the Jewish Church in its later and better state.

It has thus been shown that the essential [GENERIC] parts of divine worship were maintained by the people of God in their ordinary Sabbath-day worship during the Jewish dispensation;

and it is the purpose of this discussion, as it shall be developed, to evince the fact that only these essential elements of worship passed over into the Christian dispensation. They are permanent, and like the covenant of grace in its GENERIC and essential features as contradistinguished to the specific and accidental, were designed to endure unchanged through all dispensations.

(2.) The second kind of elements of worship in the Mosaic economy was the Specific or Accidental, which was Typical and Symbolical, and as such temporary in its nature..... Otherwise the MARKS of trusting in the SHADOWS or TYPES is to Recrucify Christ to yourselves which in fact mans to create mental excitement when Jesus is trying to speak.

In the first place, no element in the synagogue-worship was typical and temporary. This is too evident to require argument. The reading and exposition of the divine Word, hortatory addresses, the singing of psalms, and the contribution of alms, are elements of worship which cannot be regarded as types foreshadowing substantial realities to come. They belong to the class essential and permanent.

The sheeple are in Babylon and they can not understand their eyes are blinded. Check out jesus is savior  dot com. Lots of stuff to read about what is happening in the world. I am not Church of Christ I do not hold to any denomination as none of you have all the truth so why stay in a place where I can not share something that is different than one's doctrines. I learn from many resources. But i try to stay away from the organizations who are in the occult deliberately.

I am glad I found the info about the truth of what happened at Mt Sinai. I learned that at piney.com. I try to share with others who know the saviors Hebrew name and they reject this info and ban me because he does not use the saviors real name. But He does keep the real Shabbat along with the first day of the week. There are hundreds of pages to read concerning the musical idolatry.

I get rejected every where. Not because I am living in sin but because I obey Abba Father. Yahushuah said, If you say you love me and do not obey my fathers commands then you are a liar and the truth is not in you. What are Yahuah's commands. They are not what was done in the temple. That was allowed for Israel's destruction because they mocked and played at Yahuah and no longer wanted Him for a king. But instead wanted an earthly king and be able to worship like the nations. He answered their prayer but it is not His will it was theirs.

Think about it if the temple was of Yahuah then it would have never been destroyed. And the Israelites would have never been dispersed because of their wickedness. As for King David and Solomon and Saul they were evil. Solomon spoke wisdom but he wasn't wise. If he was wise he would not have married all the foreign wives that led to his destruction. See only those who are not blind can understand that the Israelites were worshiping Yahuah like the nations around them.  Which in scripture we are told not to do.

We are called to go back to the Abrahamic Covenant. That is what Moses was bringing to the people at Mt Sinai but instead they set up a golden calf which included music. There are seven feast days, those are the high shabbats and the shabbat which is the seventh day of the week. The seventh day of the week by the gregorian or jewish calender is not correct. The yearly calender was given to Enoch. and the seventh day changes yearly in comparison to those two calenders.

I am just a seeker of truth. Christians believe what ever their pastor, Father pope, Church Father, etc says messianic judaism believes in what ever the Rabi says or whatever the Talmud or Kabbala.

Are we supposed to be like the Vatican who policed people on what they are to believe, And they are only allowed to read what we approve. Many books in which Yahushuah himself quoted were never canonized.

There is so much going on we have been lied to by many things. I used to go to church that used IM. I never cared for the drums especially after i learned they were used in pagan rituals to drum up demons.

My savior is Hebrew and He was given a Hebrew name. Yahushuah. Every time you call upon that name you are saying Yahuah is salvation. That is what that name means. Did you know HalleluYah means praise Yahuah.

I have come completely out of babylon? Will anyone else. I will not discuss what I mean by that here. Contact me if one wants to discuss this further.

True history as been distorted that is why we are told to seek for His truth and righteousness. Nobody can understand scripture without knowing the historical context, and the Hebrew roots. Don't be going to Judaism for the roots. We are to call no one Rabbi but Yahushuah. And no one is to be called Father so why do so many call the pope Father. Judaism including messianic Judaism uses the Talmud and Kabbala. Both of those are wicked. The Vatican I hope one does not ban me before looking into this matter. Let me say this I love all the people who are being led astray. Just because something is said against one's believe does not mean I am against them. There is docu mentation to back this up. Lots of it. The Vatican is involved in both black and white witchcraft. The vatican, the jesuits, the freemasons, contempory christian music artists, all music artists of the world, are presidents, many of the pastors etc who have the mega churches are involved in the occult. That is just a small list.
We can either believe just in what are denomino says. Line up the dominoes and push the first one and they all fall down. RC is the mother Harlot and all the protestant are her daughters. We are being called out of Babylon. Music idolatry is part of it. If are denomino will not let us believe anything other than what they say is correct then how are we to find truths, like I said earlier no one has it all. The Baptists welol it depends on which ones the jesuits inflitrated the many churches of all denomioes to instill false hoods that is why we have so many different beliefs. Even Yahushua was against denomios.

As for me I seek after his truth and righteousness and I have to humble myself many of times and admit I was deceived. As I keep learning more and more I was a believer since I was three. I become more and more set apart. I truly am in the world but not of it are you?

Here is an analogy that was given to me by Ruach Hakodesh.

If 90 percent being taught is truth and 10 percent lies then, the lies will be believed as truth.

If 90 percent being taught is lies and 10 percent truth then, the truth will be believed as lies.

shalom,