No one has ever said that there is a kind of worship that is required, but make no mistake---no one can ever say that the use of musical instruments to extol the Lord Jesus Christ is pandering to the flesh.
Worship through music
- Thread starter AndrewB93
- Start date
No one has ever said that there is a kind of worship that is required, but make no mistake---no one can ever say that the use of musical instruments to extol the Lord Jesus Christ is pandering to the flesh.
Well... the historical record tells us exactly the opposite. As I've pointed out, many times before, there's no mention of musical instruments in connection with the church for the first 600 years of its existence. The early fathers were particularly strong in their condemnation of musical instruments, among many other things. (Again, as I've said before, I wouldn't trust the doctrine of the early fathers, but they are useful contemporary sources regarding the history).
Shouldn't we rely on His word to know what He takes pleasure in, or how He wishes to be worshipped?
Thank you Jim - I wouldn't want to lead us on to a prohibited topic. Perhaps the topic of tongues is better left undiscussed. I generally avoid it, because I know it's bound to cause controversy. My view of that particular gift is formed by 1 Corinthians 14:22.
One more time-
Musical instruments are not required - but are a good thing
That is what I said and Grant has also stated the same.
Worship is from the heart. God is Spirit and wants worship from the Spirit. So this means it must be from our hearts and the spirit of God living in us.
You keep speaking as if it is being said that musical instruments are not aloud. That is not what is being said. It is said Not required for worship is from the heart and if your heart is not right then all the music in the world is just noise or entertainment for the people.
God Bless
Jim
You know, it matters not that the obvious pattern of worship is not detailed. The reason for this is that it is understood that instruments would be employed in musical worship and praise in the new Christian faith, just as has always been the norm among the Jews. God has instituted it, and it has not changed.
What the early "fathers" have condemned is not what God condemns...which is an indicator of how far removed from the Body of Christ "religion" began to cause people to stray, early on. Religiosity and legalism are killers of faith.
That's the truth. Know the word. Know God.
Thank you brother - that's what I've been wanting to establish. The truth that you've just framed for us here is what we have to understand and get hold of. If we aren't clear as to what worship truly is, then nothing else will can be rightly understood about the subject. The truth is something that is built upon in our souls - we have to have the foundations right before we can possibly see any building up.
I doubt that Grant says it is good, or he would be all for it.
There is no disputing that.
Allowed you mean? Yes, they are allowed and are not to be disallowed. That Grant has said that the early fathers have condemned instruments in worship is indicative of what he is trying to communicate, which grates on the Spirit of God as He leads us to worship completely, with all earnestness.
Really it is all about a personal choice IMO. IF anyone does not think that musical instruments should not be used in worship services, keep looking until you find a church that meets your requirements.
I believe the scriptures give us a good deal of instruction about the assembly, enough to establish that spiritual gifts alone are for the building up of the assembly. However, I'm not talking about the scriptures here, I'm referring to the record of history. It doesn't surprise me at all that history shows that the early Church was entirely distinctive, unlike anything the world had seen. The pagans didn't know what to make of it. It was a new religion which had no physical temple, no obvious designated priesthood, no elaborate ritual. It was a complete contrast to the Jewish system and the pagan idolatry, with all its outward show. The Jews and the pagans had their feasts and revels and music, but the Christians met in private houses, sang simple hymns and songs, held their goods in common, and so on. The pagans could find no moral impropriety to accuse the Christians of, so they had to invent scurrilous rumours (the examples that I know of are too graphic to repeat on a family friendly forum) about the depraved activities that the believers got up to at their 'secret' gatherings. There was nothing in the praise and worship of these early believers that bears any resemblance to the excesses of some gatherings of professing Christians today.
I totally disagree with you.
We most definitely should. Instead of thinking only that "all things are lawful" and going on to indulge our every natural taste, shouldn't we go on to think of what is profitable, what is edifying? There is what is lawful, and then over and above that there's what ministers particularly to the pleasure and interests of God.
We are not discussing indulgence. Do you actually presume to judge that those who worship God with all they've got are being self-indulgent? Shades of Michal, is all I can say.
Ah, but if we keep looking for somewhere that suits our tastes, then we really have self before us, don't we? If we have Christ before us, then we'll value the truth of His body, the Church, and look for an expression of it amidst all the departure and unfaithfulness of Christendom.
I'm sorry that that's the case - but, I don't expect or demand that you take my word for it. I think if you look into the subject for yourself (which I'd highly recommend), then you'll find that the historical record bears out what I've said. I can recommend Mr Knight's 'Church History', or, even better, Mr Carron's 'Christian Testimony Through the Ages'. For a more detailed (although secular) history, the first few volumes of Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' have a good deal of fascinating detail about the early Church. Mr Miller's little 'Concise History of the Church' is a good read as well, but perhaps doesn't give the level of detail necessary to establish the facts in this particular case.
I do not agree that our choice in music or no music is unfaithfulness to Christ. IMO that is a personal thought on your part which should not be demanded of others.
Personally, I can not think of a better way to worship God than to be in the middle of a bunch of men and women picking guitars and banjos and singing "I have a mansion just over the hilltop".
The Roman Empire was certainly effected by the spread of Christianity as it replaced the glory pointed toward the state to God.
However, I can not find anything that would speak to music as a cause for the decline of Rome, IF that was what you were trying to say.
With all due respect, we really are talking about indulgence. There's been a good deal of talk about emotions and how important they are, which shows that natural things brought into the assembly merely have an emotional appeal and provoke an emotional response.
Yes, the spirit of Michal is alive and well. Michal was clinging, in her heart, to what was past. The claims of nature made her prefer the kingship of Saul to that of her husband David, whose claims were higher and greater. Isn't this a sad type of Christendom? Clinging to the types and shadows of Judaism, despising, at heart, the energetic and priestly King who has come in to make all things new. Christendom will be cast off, spued out of the mouth of the Lord, rejected utterly. Its line will end, its generation will be cut off. Let's not be a part of that unfruitful line of things.
I think perhaps we need to take a step back from the question of music or no music, and look at what criteria we're working with when we're choosing the Christian company we link on with. My question as to faithfulness would be as to whether we're being guided by the Lord in that, or whether we're simply going where our tastes will be catered to, whether that's for music, or no music, or chanting, or sung psalms, or whatever else.