Reply to Servant's Post on the Jeff Walling and Instrumental Music Thread

Servant
Servant

December 9th, 2006, 7:32 am #11

I won't spend much time responding to the attempts to deflect the discussion into other areas. Whether I wear a suit to worship (I typically do not) or worship in a "lavish" building (I do not) is irrelevant. You are correct in that God looks at our hearts; however, our obedience reveals what is in our hearts.

Regarding your comment on history; history is the study of WHAT HAPPENED and not of what did NOT happen. History shows that instrumental music in worship did not become an issue until the 5th century and it was quickly rejected as sin. Even the founders of the major protestant denominations all opposed the practice. It is a relatively recent deviation from God's word.

If instrumental music in worship is truly a "preference" and not sin, then neither is infant baptism. I could list other endless deviations but let's stick with this one. How could we argue against pedobaptism when it is not mentioned in scripture? According to your logic, we cannot. You stated, "IF GOD DID NOT WANT INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN THE WORSHIP HOUR, then HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. He didn't say so, as He didn't tell us HOW to go and spread the Gospel." Substitute ANYTHING not explicity forbidden in scripture for "instrumental music" in your words and you can't object to it!

I Corinthians 4:6 most definately has significance. It is true that the entire NT had not yet been written but that does not change what Christ, through Paul, commanded. Later in this letter, chapter 13 to be exact, Paul tells us that "the perfect" will come and to state that this verse would not apply to that is ridiculous. I do not presume to speak for God because He has spoken. You correctly pointed out that there was too much to record in the NT; however, if He had to explictly tell us everything NOT to do - what chance would we have of even being able to read it? How much more would there have been to record?

It is tragic that people are wagering their eternal home on what the Bible does NOT say. I can picture people standing before God whining; "You didn't say not to...". How do you think that He will respond?

Mark Waggoner
Mark:
On one thing you can be sure and are EXACTLY right about. It was about the 5th century that someone spoke up and said that they didn't like instrumental music and thereby began to tab it as sin, which is sin itself. You and others, past and present, take it upon yourself to add to God's Word by listing a sin that was not there before. You nor anyone has a right to do that!!! God will preserve His Word and will not allow that to happen. As I stated before, in the parable of the talents God isn't going to accept anything less than the best. I would hate to see someone come to God on judgement day, and say "Lord, even though I know that I have this talent and I could use it for your Glory but I will "play it safe" and not use it because I don't have a command for it. I know Lord that it is sinful to do such even though you did not say it to be sinful. Lord, yes I know that David, your beloved servant, did give me proper example of loving you and praising you with everything, but he is in the Old Testament.
Mark, in your heart instuments may be UNCLEAN, but to someone else it is not. You condemn someone else for a non-salvation issue. You stand condmened on your own retort.
Also, the issue about the "sacred hour" is legit. We deviate from one cup to many now because of health concerns. Will God punish us Mark because we did??? We have made this hour what we THINK it should be, with our preferrences.
Mark, did God tell you what pants to put on this morning to go to work? Did he tell your congregation what time to worship and have Bible study on Sundays? Did God tell you whom to marry? Did God tell you where to work? Did God tell you how many songs to sing this past Sunday? Did God tell you how many children to have? Did God tell you to have two cars, or perhaps three? Does God instruct your congregation to have one or two services on Sunday?
But somehow, when God tells you to sing you can expand that to mean without instruments. How convenient.
The part also about not having infant baptism is not humorous, and definitely irrelevant. An infant doesn't know sin yet. Why would he need remission of sins?
That goes back to our talk of COMMON SENSE. You could list others??? If baptism is the best one you could come up, then please don't waste yours or my time by listing any others.
Mark, it all goes back to PLAYING IT SAFE, and not using our talents for God, because you think that you KNOW the aboslute truth. Bury that talent because you think that God will be upset with you because that talent surely could be used for something better, right? What would be better than using a God given talent to give it back to Him and praise Him with it?
And it is NOT going past what is written. If you are singing with an instrument, you are doing what God has asked.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

December 9th, 2006, 5:45 pm #12

History shows that the early Christians did not use instruments in their worship at all. The Church in the first four centuries initially and correctly had always rejected instruments as sinful until the fifth century, when what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church first decided to implement instrumental music in worship.

Yet Servant's argument implies that the Church had merrily used instruments all along until the fifth century, when a disgruntled "someone" suddenly decided that such practice was sinful and thus started a centuries-old battle. That is clearly not the case. Somehow, I believe that Servant knows that but deliberately wishes to be argumentative for the sake of sport. It's not the first time that liberal detractors have pulled that kind of stunt.

Quote
Share

Servant
Servant

December 9th, 2006, 9:19 pm #13

Hey Bill:
You said...."History shows that the early Christians did not use instruments in their worship at all. The Church in the first four centuries initially and correctly had always rejected instruments as sinful until the fifth century, when what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church first decided to implement instrumental music in worship."

Bill, Prove it.
Any proof that what you said is true, and you have facts to back it, let everyone see them.
I don't need to know about when the Catholic church first used them, but show the proof that the first century church did not use them.
This should be good....maybe like sidestepping the truth or using a tangent to go off on another subject.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

December 10th, 2006, 1:39 am #14

Premise: “The early Christians did not use instrumental music in their worship at all.” Surely Servant is not gullible enough to believe that any of us here at CM would make such a statement and NOT be able to present authoritative evidence for it. To give due credit, we must first consider the New Testament itself, which does not authorize the use of mechanical instruments in worship. Rather, Christ through the apostle Paul authorized only vocal music through singing (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16). With such a directive from Christ, the NT had no further need to address instruments. About now, I can imagine Servant scoffing and snickering at such a notion. Well, for those who refuse to abide by the fact that the New Testament does not authorize instrumental music in worship, we can turn to early Church fathers and Church historians who do confirm that early Christians did not utilize instrumental music in their worship. I’ll give just a couple of examples and let discerning, interested readers conduct their own further research. But if these initial examples are not sufficiently convincing of themselves, then presenting 10, 20, 100, or 1,000 additional examples would be a waste of time to those who have long set their hearts against obeying the New Testament.

“The one instrument of peace, the Word alone by which we honour God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute.” (Clement of Alexandria, Church father, A.D. 153-217).

“The Early church did not use instrumental music in its worship.... They considered the practice as pagan or Jewish rather than Christian. Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old, in his work The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship says: ‘As is well known, the ancient church did not admit the use of instrumental music in worship. It was looked upon as a form of worship which like the sacrifices of the Jerusalem temple prefigured the worship in spirit and truth.…’ This concern for the distinctiveness of New Testament worship, and for spirituality as its central feature, was typical of the early Church fathers. In harmony with this, the situation in early Church worship was one of ‘plain’ or unaccompanied singing of psalms.... The use of musical instruments was rejected as contrary to the tradition of the Apostles--a feature of sensuous pagan or Old Testament Jewish worship, but not of the spiritual Christian worship.” (Source: N.R. Needham. “Musical Instruments in Worship: Historical Survey.” In The Presbyterian, issue 32, May 1990, pp. 25, 26.)


Now it's Servant's turn. Let him provide incontrovertible proof that the early Christians DID universally use musical instruments in their worship.

Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

December 10th, 2006, 3:18 pm #15

Servant writes: "God commands us to sing. Does He tell us how to sing? NO!"

Jimmy replies: Servant this is one reason that I hope you did not succeed in you run for elder at your church. Not only does God tell us how to sing in the New Testament but God also tells us what to sing!

Read the Scriptures again. Paul writes: "...I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the understanding." (1 Cor. 14:15) Paul writes of our singing as being "teaching and admonishing" to one another. Paul said that the lyrics we speak are to be from God, Himself, when he writes that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are to be our only teaching and admonishing tools durning this time of praise.

There is no entertaintment mentioned; There are no chosen voices; all are to speak/sing/teach/admonish one another with the Word of God.

Of all the Churches of Christ mentioned in the Bible, none are mentioned in regard to having "great singing." Churches are mentioned for their elders, their deacons, their works, their members but not for their great singing. Great singing, as used by some modern churches, is of recent orgin, i.e. within the last several hundred years.

The Scripture that makes mentions of Paul and Silas sanging praises at midnight and the prisoners heard them has great meaning to it. The meaning being that the prisoners were taught of God! The prisoners were admonished of God! In fact when the gates were opened the prisoners did not even try to leave the unattended prison! Why do you suppose that none of the prisoners left? "All of the doors were opened! Everyone's bands was loosed!"(Acts 16:26) Yet no one left! No, not one! This may be attributed to the teachings of Paul and Silas in the songs they sang. The Bible says that every one heard Paul and Silas.

Servant, if you would do a study of "singing schools" in American towns, you will find they originated in dance halls and beer joints, not in churches. Yet it is churches that promote them today!

In Christ,
Jimmy
Since the history of the Church is so jam-packed with evidence that the early Christians did NOT use instrumental music in their worship, I thought it best to present a few more examples, just in case there might be a doubter or two lurking nearby:

“One of the features which distinguishes the Christian religion from almost all others is its quietness; it aims to repress the outward signs of inward feeling. Savage instinct, and the religion of Greece also, had employed the rhythmic dance and all kinds of gesticulatory notions to express the inner feelings . . . The early Christians discouraged all outward signs of excitement, and from the very beginning, in the music they used, reproduced the spirit of their religion--an inward quietude. All the music employed in their early services was vocal” (Frank Landon Humphreys, Evolution of Church Music, p. 42).

“It is not, therefore, strange that instrumental music was not heard in their congregational services..... In the early church the whole congregation joined in the singing, but instrumental music did not accompany the praise” (W.D. Killen, The Ancient Church, pp. 193, 423).

“At first the church music was simple, artless, recitative. But rivalry of heretics forced the orthodox church to pay greater attention to the requirements of art. Chrysostom had to declaim against the secularization of church music. More lasting was the opposition to the introduction of instrumental music” (John Kurtz, Lutheran Scholar, Church History, Vol 1, p. 376).

“All our sources deal amply with vocal music of the church, but they are chary with mention of any other manifestations of musical art . . . The development of Western music was decisively influenced by the exclusion of musical instruments from the early Christian Church” (Paul Henry Lang, Music in Western Civilization, p. 53-54).

“The general introduction of instrumental music can certainly not be assigned to a date earlier than the 5th and 6th centuries; yea, even Gregory the Great, who towards the end of the 6th century added greatly to the existing church music, absolutely prohibited the use of instruments. Several centuries later the introduction of the organ in sacred service gave the place to instruments as accompaniments for Christian song, and from that time to this they have been freely used with few exceptions. The first organ is believed to have been used in the Church service in the 13th century. Organs were however, in use before this in the theater. They were never regarded with favor in the Eastern Church, and were vehemently opposed in some of the Western churches” (McClintock and Strong, Enyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, Vol. 6, p. 759).

“While the Greek and Roman songs were metrical, the Christian psalms were antiphons, prayers, responses, etc., were unmetrical; and while the pagan melodies were always sung to an instrumental accompaniment, the church chant was exclusively vocal” (Edward Dickinson, History of Music, p. 54).

“The church, although lapsing more and more into deflection from the truth and into a corrupting of apostolic practice, had not instrumental music for 1200 years (that is, it was not in general use before this time); The Calvinistic Reform Church ejected it from its service as an element of popery, even the church of England having come very nigh its extrusion from her worship. It is heresy in the sphere of worship” (John Giradeau, Presbyterian professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, Instrumental Music, p. 179).

“Yet there was little temptation to undue elaboration of hymnody or music. The very spirituality of the new faith made ritual or liturgy superfluous and music almost unnecessary. Singing (there was no instrumental accompaniment) was little more than a means of expressing in a practicable, social way, the common faith and experience. . . . The music was purely vocal. There was no instrumental accompaniment of any kind. . . . It fell under the ban of the Christian church, as did all other instruments, because of its pagan association” (E.S. Lorenz, Church Music, pp. 217, 250, 404).


Such examples should forever silence any further debate about whether early Christians utilized instruments of music in their worship, for they most certainly did NOT. However, I would imagine that from now until Doom's Day, the spiritually obtuse will continue to pitch their useless arguments.











Quote
Share

Ken Sublett
Ken Sublett

December 10th, 2006, 7:09 pm #16

Thanks, Dr. Crump: You are correct about the word METRICAL. I have too many times used "metrical" without distinguishing what arose AFTER the Reformation when the organs and choirs were ejected in those churches now owned by the CIVIL STATE and the local authorities gave permission to remove them. That was primarily because the organs were increasingly used for "after church" entertainment and led to the same debauchery seen when women--and especially men--are aroused to the "musical" state where hands and feet and other body parts are involved. I will correct those dozens of articles. Heard this morning that the EFFETES are destroying Christianity and 60% of the members are FEMALE. Those who have turned "musical" probably have fewer males. I proudly claim to be a pioneer in using my FEET and my COMPUTER to flee Babylon and OUT the "law of preaching, law of giving and law of singing."

The Psalms--and much of the Bible--is written in a style which promotes LEARNING. The "notes" were called CANTILLATION and the "pitch" was a clearly defined MARK OF EMPHASIS and it was not metrical as in "singing" in the modern sense. Nor was it similar to that of the prostitutes and Sodomites who intended to seduce. If church is SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE then you have to wonder about anyone insisting that you go back--as I have been challenged--and prove that there was not ONE congregation which musicated.

<font color=blue>"The chant of ancient Hebrews was rhythmical, but probably free of fixed meter.
Perhaps the only exceptions were the dancing songs of WOMEN, usually accompanied by percussion instruments."
(Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, p. 466).

"The Fathers of the early Church were virtually unanimous in their hostility toward musical instruments" and to the notion that this was based upon its use in the various cults, he says: "The fact that instruments were not used, however, is related to the positive Christian attitude toward music which was characterized by an enthusiastic fostering of psalmody, a type of music performed unmetrically and without instrument." (McKinnon, quoted by Bales, p. 260).

"All the music employed in their early services was vocal, and the rhythmic element and all gesticulation were forbidden" (Frank L. Humphreys, The Evolution of Church Music, p. 42).</font>

The Catholic church did not sing METRICALLY but the chants were similar to Hebrew Cantillation. In fact, the word ODE further defines PSALMOS as in "Hebrew cantillation" which is defined as a READING style and not a singing style. Nor did the singer chant WHILE the organ played preludes, interludes and recessionals. NOR did any Catholc 'congregation' sing with instrumental accompaniment.

It was the Reformation--which was a political TURF battle--which had to pharaphrase the Psalms to MAKE them metrical but not then "musical" in the modern perverted style:

<font color=blue>"One of the developments in which Beza was of great assistance was in Reformed psalmody. Zwingli had opposed music in public worship and it was a century or so after his death before the Reformed Churches in which his influence was strong departed from that precedent. Calvin did not go as far as Zwingli, but confined the use of music to congregational singing in unison of metrical versions of the Psalms and Canticles." (Kenneth Latourette, History of the Christian Church.p. 760).</font>

Latourette was a Baptist Pastor who was--like most Baptists--opposed to any form of 'musical' styles. d. 1968

We know that there was open hostility when musicians put the Psalms in a metrical form and added harmony. So, those who justify their WHOLE EXISTENCE by the RACA words of "legalistic, sectarian, patternist" claiming that churches of Christ ADDED the NOT ADDING of instruments and refused to be FORCED into the Denomination, will also STEAL your TITHES and OFFERINGS by lying about Paul and most church history. If they turn out the lights, try to get you to hold hands, sing and clap and chant Kum Ba Ya be sure that you wear rubber gloves.
Quote
Share

Servant
Servant

December 11th, 2006, 3:50 pm #17

Premise: “The early Christians did not use instrumental music in their worship at all.” Surely Servant is not gullible enough to believe that any of us here at CM would make such a statement and NOT be able to present authoritative evidence for it. To give due credit, we must first consider the New Testament itself, which does not authorize the use of mechanical instruments in worship. Rather, Christ through the apostle Paul authorized only vocal music through singing (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16). With such a directive from Christ, the NT had no further need to address instruments. About now, I can imagine Servant scoffing and snickering at such a notion. Well, for those who refuse to abide by the fact that the New Testament does not authorize instrumental music in worship, we can turn to early Church fathers and Church historians who do confirm that early Christians did not utilize instrumental music in their worship. I’ll give just a couple of examples and let discerning, interested readers conduct their own further research. But if these initial examples are not sufficiently convincing of themselves, then presenting 10, 20, 100, or 1,000 additional examples would be a waste of time to those who have long set their hearts against obeying the New Testament.

“The one instrument of peace, the Word alone by which we honour God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute.” (Clement of Alexandria, Church father, A.D. 153-217).

“The Early church did not use instrumental music in its worship.... They considered the practice as pagan or Jewish rather than Christian. Dr. Hughes Oliphant Old, in his work The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship says: ‘As is well known, the ancient church did not admit the use of instrumental music in worship. It was looked upon as a form of worship which like the sacrifices of the Jerusalem temple prefigured the worship in spirit and truth.…’ This concern for the distinctiveness of New Testament worship, and for spirituality as its central feature, was typical of the early Church fathers. In harmony with this, the situation in early Church worship was one of ‘plain’ or unaccompanied singing of psalms.... The use of musical instruments was rejected as contrary to the tradition of the Apostles--a feature of sensuous pagan or Old Testament Jewish worship, but not of the spiritual Christian worship.” (Source: N.R. Needham. “Musical Instruments in Worship: Historical Survey.” In The Presbyterian, issue 32, May 1990, pp. 25, 26.)


Now it's Servant's turn. Let him provide incontrovertible proof that the early Christians DID universally use musical instruments in their worship.
No No Bill...you are painting yourself in a corner. I asked you to give evidence that musical instruments were NOT used....which you didn't, because I have never seen legitimate proof that there were not used. I don't have to prove that they were used and I did not say they were. I have no evidence that they were or were not used. You still haven't shown proper evidence that they were not used, which is your contention.

By the way, I thought that you were going to mention Clemente....you do notice that his earliest time frame mentioned there was 153 AD, which means that he wasn't living during the time of the apostles.

If Clemente had ANY wrtitings from the apostles that showed that they did not use instruments (which he never has) I am sure he would have listed them. Again, and sadly used.... preferrence during his time does not make predated history. Clemente must have avoided them personally, but he does not have any writing to conclude that they were not used in the first century churches.
Hey Bill, Dr. Hughes said that the first century church did not use instruments. Just because a man issues such statement, he would be thought a fool if he did not show proof or support to back such a statement.
You can show me evidence where Dr. Hughes has this proof, right Bill?
I will await your reply.

Quote
Share

Servant
Servant

December 11th, 2006, 3:58 pm #18

Since the history of the Church is so jam-packed with evidence that the early Christians did NOT use instrumental music in their worship, I thought it best to present a few more examples, just in case there might be a doubter or two lurking nearby:

“One of the features which distinguishes the Christian religion from almost all others is its quietness; it aims to repress the outward signs of inward feeling. Savage instinct, and the religion of Greece also, had employed the rhythmic dance and all kinds of gesticulatory notions to express the inner feelings . . . The early Christians discouraged all outward signs of excitement, and from the very beginning, in the music they used, reproduced the spirit of their religion--an inward quietude. All the music employed in their early services was vocal” (Frank Landon Humphreys, Evolution of Church Music, p. 42).

“It is not, therefore, strange that instrumental music was not heard in their congregational services..... In the early church the whole congregation joined in the singing, but instrumental music did not accompany the praise” (W.D. Killen, The Ancient Church, pp. 193, 423).

“At first the church music was simple, artless, recitative. But rivalry of heretics forced the orthodox church to pay greater attention to the requirements of art. Chrysostom had to declaim against the secularization of church music. More lasting was the opposition to the introduction of instrumental music” (John Kurtz, Lutheran Scholar, Church History, Vol 1, p. 376).

“All our sources deal amply with vocal music of the church, but they are chary with mention of any other manifestations of musical art . . . The development of Western music was decisively influenced by the exclusion of musical instruments from the early Christian Church” (Paul Henry Lang, Music in Western Civilization, p. 53-54).

“The general introduction of instrumental music can certainly not be assigned to a date earlier than the 5th and 6th centuries; yea, even Gregory the Great, who towards the end of the 6th century added greatly to the existing church music, absolutely prohibited the use of instruments. Several centuries later the introduction of the organ in sacred service gave the place to instruments as accompaniments for Christian song, and from that time to this they have been freely used with few exceptions. The first organ is believed to have been used in the Church service in the 13th century. Organs were however, in use before this in the theater. They were never regarded with favor in the Eastern Church, and were vehemently opposed in some of the Western churches” (McClintock and Strong, Enyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, Vol. 6, p. 759).

“While the Greek and Roman songs were metrical, the Christian psalms were antiphons, prayers, responses, etc., were unmetrical; and while the pagan melodies were always sung to an instrumental accompaniment, the church chant was exclusively vocal” (Edward Dickinson, History of Music, p. 54).

“The church, although lapsing more and more into deflection from the truth and into a corrupting of apostolic practice, had not instrumental music for 1200 years (that is, it was not in general use before this time); The Calvinistic Reform Church ejected it from its service as an element of popery, even the church of England having come very nigh its extrusion from her worship. It is heresy in the sphere of worship” (John Giradeau, Presbyterian professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, Instrumental Music, p. 179).

“Yet there was little temptation to undue elaboration of hymnody or music. The very spirituality of the new faith made ritual or liturgy superfluous and music almost unnecessary. Singing (there was no instrumental accompaniment) was little more than a means of expressing in a practicable, social way, the common faith and experience. . . . The music was purely vocal. There was no instrumental accompaniment of any kind. . . . It fell under the ban of the Christian church, as did all other instruments, because of its pagan association” (E.S. Lorenz, Church Music, pp. 217, 250, 404).


Such examples should forever silence any further debate about whether early Christians utilized instruments of music in their worship, for they most certainly did NOT. However, I would imagine that from now until Doom's Day, the spiritually obtuse will continue to pitch their useless arguments.










Bill:
Funny part about all of this...you guys have one Ken Sublett who posts quite regular and who does NOT even believe that "SING" means to make music.
You do know that, right Bill?
You and others here Bill prefer acapella music. You consider Ken as a legitimate authority on music history. HOWEVER, you ignore him when he says that you and the crew here are WRONG even to make music by singing.
You do realize how ridiculous that looks, right?
Quote
Share

Servant
Servant

December 11th, 2006, 8:37 pm #19

Jimmy Joe: Let me repeat, repeat, repeat, the SYNAGOGUE was a school of the Bible. There was no preaching other than what Paul ocmmanded Timothy. There was no praise service. The Psalms were used as part of the TEXTPOOK and history notes that the 'Psalms were sung as a schoolboy READS the hallel" (those hallel psalms were the ONLY hymns).

Paul used the word SPEAK and put both the singing AND melody in the place of the HEART or mind: they plucked heart strings all the time in the literature. Singing in an exciting sense was intended to PSALLO the literal heart meaning to BREAK it to induce fear. Paul outlawed that as SELF-PLEASING in Romans 15 where he gives the TOTAL DEFINITION of the assembly or synagogue.

"Singing" as a RITUAL of the public assembly arrived close to the year 400 AFTER they introduced preaching and self-composed songs. This was a product of pagan priests who shifted over to the church long after Constantine first paid preachers. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that they brought MUSIC because it was "common to all pagan cults."

The word SPEAK as in the LOGOS or word EXCLUDES music of any form. This was to outlaw singing which made LEARNING impossible and the mental affliciton of the infirm (Romans 14). Speak is what you do when you TEACH and ADMONISH "one another" using "that which is written" or scripture. There is no role for the IDOLATRY OF TALENT and the church Jesus founded and defined perfectly has NO ROLE for human skill: that would be LEGALISTIC, you know.

All history knows that when you shift from SPEAK or SAY to sing (even the non musical form) it is both a MARK and a CAUSE of growing effeminancy. I have posted some research notes on the Richland forum and have no intention of responding. Under Farmer's Branch Running Dry I will prove to those with ears and eyes that the PUSH for music is a gender problem or ALL known history is wrong:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/177121/

Under Farmer's Branch Runs Dry.
Yet, there are some who reject both the seventh and tenth century dates and place the introduction of the instrument as far back as the third, fourth, or fifth century. Though this would be too early a date for the organ, it is argued that the lute and/or lyre were used in the worship.

To support this claim an appeal is made to Clement of Alexander. He wrote around 200 A.D. He said, "And even if you wish to sing and play to the harp or lyre, there is no blame."


When Was The Instrument Of Music First Introduced Into Christian Worship?

Brooks Cochran
Memphis, Tennessee

you know the crazy thing about it is....there are those who want to say, to this day, that Clemente wasn't speaking of the worship service, but probably a feast or festival.

NO BLAME gents....NONE
straight from the mouth of Clemente himself.

Quote
Share

Donnie Cruz
Donnie Cruz

December 12th, 2006, 3:55 am #20

Servant writes: "God commands us to sing. Does He tell us how to sing? NO!"

Jimmy replies: Servant this is one reason that I hope you did not succeed in you run for elder at your church. Not only does God tell us how to sing in the New Testament but God also tells us what to sing!

Read the Scriptures again. Paul writes: "...I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing with the understanding." (1 Cor. 14:15) Paul writes of our singing as being "teaching and admonishing" to one another. Paul said that the lyrics we speak are to be from God, Himself, when he writes that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are to be our only teaching and admonishing tools durning this time of praise.

There is no entertaintment mentioned; There are no chosen voices; all are to speak/sing/teach/admonish one another with the Word of God.

Of all the Churches of Christ mentioned in the Bible, none are mentioned in regard to having "great singing." Churches are mentioned for their elders, their deacons, their works, their members but not for their great singing. Great singing, as used by some modern churches, is of recent orgin, i.e. within the last several hundred years.

The Scripture that makes mentions of Paul and Silas sanging praises at midnight and the prisoners heard them has great meaning to it. The meaning being that the prisoners were taught of God! The prisoners were admonished of God! In fact when the gates were opened the prisoners did not even try to leave the unattended prison! Why do you suppose that none of the prisoners left? "All of the doors were opened! Everyone's bands was loosed!"(Acts 16:26) Yet no one left! No, not one! This may be attributed to the teachings of Paul and Silas in the songs they sang. The Bible says that every one heard Paul and Silas.

Servant, if you would do a study of "singing schools" in American towns, you will find they originated in dance halls and beer joints, not in churches. Yet it is churches that promote them today!

In Christ,
Jimmy
<font size=3>Source: http://www.bible.ca/H-music.htm </font>

_______________________________


<font color=red size=5 face=times new roman>
What did early Christians believe about...?
</font>

<font color=blue size=3 face=times new roman>
(Before 300 AD)
</font>

<font color=green size=4 face=times new roman>
Uninspired records of how early Christians worshipped and what doctrine they believed!
</font>

<font color=red size=5 face=times new roman>
Using instrumental music in worship???
</font>


<font color=black size=3 face=times new roman>AQUINAS "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." (Thomas Aquinas, Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137)

AUGUSTINE "musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)

CHRYSOSTOM "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)

CLEMENT "Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men. The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet," for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high-sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words. Then to all mankind He calls out, 'Let every spirit praise the Lord,' because He rules over every spirit He has made. In reality, man is an instrument arc for peace, but these other things, if anyone concerns himself overmuch with them, become instruments of conflict, for inflame the passions. The Etruscans, for example, use the trumpet for war; the Arcadians, the horn; the Sicels, the flute; the Cretans, the lyre; the Lacedemonians, the pipe; the Thracians, the bugle; the Egyptians, the drum; and the Arabs, the cymbal. But as for us, we make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace by whom we a homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute which those trained for war employ." (Clement of Alexandria, 190AD The instructor, Fathers of the church, p. 130)

CLEMENT "Moreover, King David the harpist, whom we mentioned just above, urged us toward the truth and away from idols. So far was he from singing the praises of daemons that they were put to flight by him with the true music; and when Saul was Possessed, David healed him merely by playing the harp. The Lord fashioned man a beautiful, breathing instrument, after His own imaged and assuredly He Himself is an all-harmonious instrument of God, melodious and holy, the wisdom that is above this world, the heavenly Word." … "He who sprang from David and yet was before him, the Word of God, scorned those lifeless instruments of lyre and cithara. By the power of the Holy Spirit He arranged in harmonious order this great world, yes, and the little world of man too, body and soul together; and on this many-voiced instruments of the universe He makes music to God, and sings to the human instrument. "For thou art my harp and my pipe and my temple"(Clement of Alexandria, 185AD, Readings p. 62)

ERASMUS "We have brought into our churches certain operatic and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words as I hardly think was ever in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes, and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them. Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time learning these whining tones." (Erasmus, Commentary on I Cor. 14:19)

EUSEBIUS "Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms." (commentary on Psalms 91:2-3) </font>

___________________________

[To be continued…]
Quote
Share