The symposium was a sequel to a previous effort which took place in 2007.  Concerning that event, the article notes “‘The Ascending Voice’ debuted at Pepperdine in 2007 — the brainchild of [Darryl] Tippens, who saw it as a way to celebrate and promote a cappella worship in a world of praise bands and recorded music.”

Tippens is the provost of the university.  When asked what he expected to accomplish with the symposium, he said:

“I hope we’re planting a mustard seed here, and that by bringing in people literally from all over the United States and from around the world, we will create a rich new understanding of a cappella music. (I hope) there will be a new fervor about the importance of preserving it, taking it home to our local congregations, sharing what we’ve learned, and in a sense, renewing the tradition.”

While acknowledging there is a doctrinal aspect in play when discussing worship in song, he said:

“But let me also say, in many churches, we have turned a cappella singing into a barrier.  It’s become a wall of separation between us and others. It doesn’t have to be a wall. I think this week the wall has fallen, and it’s become a bridge.”

“A cappella music should be a bridge to all sorts of people in our culture. And if we find it’s a barrier, we’re doing it wrong.”

http://tinyurl.com/35yebyv

While I am pleased whenever worshippers of God are encouraged to sing a capella, there is much in the above quotes that are disturbing to me.

First, it concerns me that praise bands and recorded music have made such inroads among churches of Christ.  The very existence of these innovations clearly indicate that to many, worship is a form of entertainment.  The idea that I can let other, more talented individuals worship God for me, (i.e. worship by proxy), is a concept foreign to scripture.  Worship in song is designed by God to be mutual edification.  Each and every one of us are to be “speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19).

While denominations have long distorted true worship to God with choirs, concerts, plays and shows, it is disheartening to know that so many churches of Christ have digressed to this low point.

Second, while Tippens gives lip service to the idea of doctrine, he makes it clear that what the Bible teaches on the subject of musical worship should not be made a test of fellowship.  He says if a capella music is a barrier to fellowship, “we’re doing it wrong.”

This appeal has a long history.  In fact, it was the attitude taken by the digressives in the late 1800’s when the church first divided over this question.  Those who advocated the use of mechanical instruments in worship did not want it to be a test of fellowship.  They wanted their right to the innovation to be recognized despite the doctrinal objections.  It is again disheartening to see churches of Christ advocating the same position on fellowship that was once opposed.  In contrast, consider the following passage from the pen of John, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).

Finally, Tippens advocates the restoration of a capella music based upon its aesthetic, rather than upon its validity as a God ordained practice.  Do it this way because it is pretty; not because it is a commandment of God!

We should remember that during certain times in her history, Israel’s worship, though correct in form, was nevertheless not pleasing to God.  In Zechariah 7, the Lord asked His people, “When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months during those seventy years, did you really fast for Me — for Me?” (vs. 5).  The principle is simple.  When we worship God, we are to do it in the way we do it because it is the way He said to do it, not because it is what we prefer.  When we sing He asks, “Do you do it ‘for Me — for Me?’”

There is something about poetry set to a pleasant melody which uplifts men.  This fact was recognized by James when he wrote, “Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms” (James 5:13).  We are indeed blessed that God instructs us to edify and uplift one another as we praise Him in song.

It may be noted that the text mentioned above, (Ephesians 5:19), establishes some parameters which must be followed as we sing in worship.  For example, we see that the songs we are to sing are to be “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.”  In Christian worship, our singing must be limited to songs which fit into these categories.  Fortunately, there are many songs that conform to God’s standards.

The term “Psalm” refers to the Old Testament book of Psalms, a common source for singing in the early church.  In the song book “Hymns for Worship”, there are a number of such Psalms which have been set to music (cf. Psa. 19, 439; Psa. 25, 607; Psa. 51, 501, etc).

The term “Hymn” refers to a specific type of spiritual song.  It is defined by Vine as, “a song of praise addressed to God.”  It is appropriate for us to offer up the sacrifice of our lips to the Almighty God of Heaven.  He is worthy of our praise.  Songs such as “A Mighty Fortress”, “Fairest Lord Jesus”, and “How Great Thou Art”, are all well known examples of hymns.

The term “Spiritual Songs” is a bit more broad.  The word “song”, from the Greek ode, is a generic term for a song.  The word Spiritual modifies and limits it to songs which have spiritual sentiment in their message.  Songs such as “Christ Arose”, “The Lord My Shepherd Is”, “I Need Thee Every Hour”, and “Take Time to be Holy”, are familiar and varied examples of spiritual songs.

Every song we sing was at one time new.  Though we love and enjoy the “old standards”, we should be open to learning new songs.  So long as a song contains a spiritual sentiment, teaches truth, and does not promote any sensual or worldly response in the hearer, it is worthy of our consideration in worship to God.

The text of Ephesians 5:19 establishes the instrument we are to use in our musical worship to God.  We are to sing with our voices, and make melody with our hearts.  The New Testament is silent with regard to the use of mechanical instruments of music such as a piano or organ.  As Truman Smith wrote in his recent article entitled “What is Wrong With Instrumental Music?":

“Let’s put this matter in a nutshell:  There are nine passages in the New Testament that teach us to sing:  Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3;16; Heb. 2:12; Jas. 5:13; Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3).  Please observe that none of these passages says anything about mechanical instrumental music.  This simply means that we have authority to sing (vocal music), without the aid of any kind of mechanical instrument of music at all.  Where does this leave the matter?  It simply means that if we go ahead and include the mechanical instrument in our worship, we are adding to that which is written and we are forbidden to add anything or to take anything from the Word of God (2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18-19).  (The Voice, January, 2004).

Men have long subordinated the directives of God to their own will and desires.  Simply put, mechanical instruments exist in modern worship because men want them there, not because God authorized them.

As we seek to worship God “in spirit and truth” (cf. John 4:24), we must heed His will with regard to musical worship offered to Him.  We are privileged by God to “speak [-ing] to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”  As we conform to His will in this, may we have the proper spirit as we praise Him in song.

Gary Mattingly – Christian Church preacher

First and foremost, we must see that there is a fundamental difference in the hermeneutics (This is the interpretation of Scripture) between the two groups. The non-instrumental brethren see the ‘silence of the Scripture’ to be a prohibition. If the scriptures do not have a "thus saith the Lord" on a subject, then, to this group, we must not do it. They feel that the New Testament says nothing about instruments, therefore, they should be refused in worship.

We, within the Christian Church/Church of Christ, use a hermeneutic that says for the most part, if there is silence in Scripture, we can use liberty on the subject. If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt use an instrument in worship’, we find this a liberty. We can use it or not use it. This is the underlying cause for our differences today in the instrumental issue. You must see this clearly before you can talk about this further. This is a must to see!

Silence Of The Scriptures A Prohibition?

First, before we begin, let it be noted that Gary Mattingly has admitted that he can find no scriptural authority for mechanical instruments of music in worship. If he had such authority, he could not argue has he has done in this treatise. If the premises of his reasoning in this essay are true, instrumental music cannot be justified by any reference to Scripture. Forevermore, he has cut himself off from every appeal to the Bible to justify their use. He cannot cite the Old Testament. He cannot reason that the scriptural terms, "sing," "psalms," or "make melody," include the instrument in their meaning. No, he can never make such arguments, for he here contends that the use of such instruments is without a "’thus saith the Lord’."

As we shall see below, he quotes Isaac Errett with approval and agrees with Errett that the use of instrumental music lies "outside of ‘plain precepts’, that is, Scriptural teachings." Unless and until Mr. Mattingly repudiates that assessment, he may never use Scripture to sustain his use of instrumental music. (Be assured that if we have further discussion of this issue with Mr. Mattingly, we shall not let him forget this inescapable conclusion.)

Second, though Gary Mattingly has correctly assessed the positions, his remarks are "incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial." What we "feel" about the silence of the Scriptures, and what the Christian Church practices matters not at all. The issue is, "What does the Bible teach?" Does the word of God show that "if there is silence in Scripture, we can use liberty on the subject," or does it teach that, "If the scriptures do not have a ‘thus saith the Lord’ on a subject, then…we must not do it"? Answering those vital questions shall be the topic of this part of our study, for as Mr. Mattingly has said, "(We) must see this clearly before (we) can talk about this further."

Before we proceed, however, it would be good to hear Gary comment further on his qualifying remark regarding the silence of the Scriptures giving men the right to act. He said, "We, within the Christian Church/Church of Christ, use a hermeneutic that says for the most part, if there is silence in Scripture, we can use liberty on the subject." Did you catch his qualifier? Observe, the phrase, "for the most part." When Mr. Mattingly replies to our remarks, we should like for him to explain what he means by, "for the most part." What limits the freedom to act if the Scriptures are silent? There must be a "brake" or a restraint of some kind on the silence of the Scriptures, for Gary indicates that the freedom to act when Scripture is silent is not absolute. There are limitations, for such is the meaning of "for the most part."

We are interested in the specific rules of Scripture which prohibit certain things when God has been silent about them. The use of instruments is not one of those things, Gary alleges. However, the expression, "for the most part," shows that some things may indeed be excluded by the silence of the Scriptures. What are those things, Gary, and how do we learn from Scripture what they are? (Oh, I almost forgot — If they were mentioned, then Scripture is not silent about them; hence, we cannot "learn from Scripture what they are." So, Gary, just how do you know that some things are forbidden since God has said nothing about them? According to you, Gary, some things must be left off the table, for such is the clear import of "for the most part." We want to know what those things are and how you determine that they must be rejected even though Scripture is as silent about them as it is about the instrument.)

Scripture is silent about making "Groundhog Day" a religious holiday. I suppose Gary would agree that it should not be added to the ecclesiastical calendar. Yet, the Bible is as silent about Easter and Christmas as it is about Groundhog Day. So, what says we may accept one but not the other? The Catholic papacy, priesthood, confessional booth, incense burning, candle lighting, the counting of beads, and infant baptism are other items that come to mind. Perhaps Gary can tell us if those things are excluded by his qualifying words, "for the most part." If so, by what rule does he reject those traditions while accepting the instrument? The Scripture is silent about all of them, yet he accepts the one and refuses the other. Why? How? He needs to tell us.

Gary, why will you bless the instrument but refuse to baptize the infant? Scripture is silent about sprinkling water on an infant, and I suppose that you exclude such an activity under your qualifier "for the most part." Again, though, why the instrument but not the infant? Suppose a Catholic were to tell you that he accepted the papal system of government and infant baptism because, "If there is silence in Scripture, we can use liberty on the subject"? Suppose a Catholic used your own words to sustain the traditions of Catholicism, how would you answer him?

Third, we propose to let the word of God settle this matter of the silence of the Scriptures. Does the silence of the Scriptures grant us the liberty ("for the most part") to decide what we shall do in our worship of the Lord, or does it forbid us to act without a "thus saith the Lord"? To that we now turn our attention.

Old Testament Passages, Principles, and Precepts

Old Testament Passages: Since the Old Testament was written for "our learning," and since a number of Old Testament passages address the issue of the silence of the Scriptures, let us see what it has to say.

"According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it….And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount….And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was showed thee in the mount" (Exodus 25:9, 40; 26:30; Cf. Hebrews 8:5).

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God….Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand nor to the left. Ye, shall walk in the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live….What thing so ever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it" (Deuteronomy 4:2; 5:32, 33; 12:32).

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

Specific Arguments From The Old Testament:

1. Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1, 2). The sons of Aaron "offered strange (foreign) fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not." God directed that the burning of incense should be done with coals from the fire of the altar (Leviticus 6:12, 13; 16:12; Numbers 16:46). No passage says, "Thou shalt not use fire from other sources." Were they, then, free to act? "And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." Since God had specified the fire he wanted used, that precluded them from using fire "which he commanded them not." Likewise, God has spoken with respect to the kind of music he wants in worship, which is "singing" (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).
   
   When God has spoken, when he has told man what he desires, we are not (as the example of Nadab and Abihu clearly reveals) at liberty to presume upon his silence. "But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously…the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandments, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him" (Numbers 15:30, 31).
   
2. David, Uzzah, and the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chronicles 13:2-4, 7-10; 15:2, 13-15). The rectangular wooden box known as the ark of the covenant, which contained Aaron’s rod that miraculously budded, a pot of manna, and the ten commandments, was to be moved only by the Levites (Numbers 3:31; 4:1-5; Deuteronomy 10:8; 31:9). It was to be borne by Levites carrying poles which were inserted through rings by the sides of the ark (Exodus 25:14, 15). The poles were not to be taken from the rings of the ark! If the ark of the covenant were touched, the one touching it would die (Numbers 4:15).
   
   With great flair, David, with the consent of the people, commissioned that the ark should be transported; however, it was carried "in a new cart," not borne by poles in the rings by the sides of the ark. Thus it was that when the oxen stumbled, the ark shuddered and shook as though it would fall, for Uzzah "put forth his hand to hold the ark." When he did so, he died instantly. Though David was "displeased," he later admitted (a) that "none ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites," and (b) that God had smitten Uzzah "for that we sought him not after the due order." That is, they had not moved the ark in the way and manner God had set forth. No plea of "liberty," based on "the silence of the Scriptures," could have saved Uzzah!
   
   Immediately after Uzzah was stricken, David was afraid. He did not know what to do. He did not have the "liberty" or freedom to act without God’s authority, so he put the transportation of the ark on hold until further word was received from God (2 Samuel 6:9-15). Only after he was told what to do did he continue with the moving of the ark of the covenant. Such things were written for our learning and admonition. Will we hear them?
   
3. Trapped At The Red Sea (Exodus 14:10-17). When the children of Israel were trapped at the Red Sea, hemmed in by the waves, the wilderness, and the warriors of Egypt, they had several options. They could attempt to swim across, flee into the wilderness, turn and fight, or surrender. God had not spoken. Should they act as they determined, since God had not told them what to do? No, for Moses said, "Stand still." The absence of direction did not give them discretion to decide. Rather, they were told to wait. Finally, God spoke. "Go forward," he said.
   
   The point is that until God spoke, they were not authorized to act. God’s silence gave them no decision making power. God had not said, "Thou shalt not flee and hide in the wilderness." Every human impulse cried and cringed in fear, but not until God spoke and said, "Go forward," were they free to move. Our friend, Mattingly, needs to see this point.
   
4. Defiled At Passover (Num. 9:1-8). When certain men were defiled by contact with a corpse, they were separated and could not take of the Passover on the appointed date. What should they do? God had not spoken concerning such an event. They had several options since God had been silent on the matter. They could have eaten the Passover and then gone back to their separation. They could have waited until their time was up and then have eaten a belated Passover the day following. They could have simply said, "Oh, well, we will just wait until next year."
   
   However, when they came to Moses with their dilemma, note his response. Did Moses say, "Since God did not say ‘thou shalt not’ take the Passover when defiled, I think it will be alright for you to make an exception"? Did Moses tell them that God’s silence on the matter left it up to them to decide what to do? No, he did not! Hear him: "Stand still, and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you." In other words, they could not presume to act, they could not claim liberty to decide. Rather, they had to await the Lord’s determination.
   
   So it is today. If we do not have authority from heaven, if we don’t have a "thus saith the Lord," we are not free to act. This applies to the playing of an instrument as well as to the burning of incense. If God has not directed the devotion, it is vain and void (Matthew 7:22, 23; 15:8, 9). Therefore, since God has not authorized the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, to do so is to work iniquity and to stand condemned (Matthew 7:21-27; 15:8, 9, 2-14).
   
5. Penalty For Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16). When one of the Israelites "blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed," no one knew what to do with him. Should they severely reprimand him and wash his mouth out with soap? Should they dismiss it as a slip of the lip in the heat of anger? Should they whip him? God had not addressed the issue, so they were not free to settle the matter. Thus, "they put him in ward, that the mind of the Lord might be showed them." Once again, they dared not to presume upon God’s silence. Mattingly does. Moses did not.
   
6. Picking Up Sticks On The Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36). When a man was found in violation of the Sabbath by picking up sticks, "they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him." They could have whipped him with the sticks, which would have been an ironic twist. They could have burned the sticks and made him eat cold food for a week. Yes, since God had not spoken they could have done any number of things, but they did not "because it was not declared" by the Lord "what should be done to him."

If Mr. Mattingly and his Christian Church brethren had been back there, they would not have been bound by the Lord’s silence, but Moses was. So are we (1 Corinthians 4:6).

New Testament Passages

Since the New Testament is our plan and pattern, the rule by which all our words and deeds are to be measured, and since a number of it passages are pertinent to our inquiry, let us see what it has to say about the silence of the Scriptures.

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20).
"Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17).
"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6).

"But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8, 9).
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Colossians 3:17).
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
"Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (2 John 9).

Specific Arguments From The New Testament

1. Inspired Injunction (Acts 15:24). "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, ye must keep the law and be circumcised, to whom we gave no such commandment."
   
   Since the apostles had not spoken, others were not at liberty to speak. Their silence did not authorize others to issue commands. Yet, concerning our worship Mattingly has said, "If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt use an instrument in worship’, we find this a liberty. We can use it or not use it." Well, neither the Scriptures nor the apostles had said, "thou shalt not bind the law or circumcision," either. Still, there was no liberty for them to presume to permit anything else. Why not? Because the apostles had given "no such commandment." When certain ones spoke without apostolic approval and authority, they thereby troubled the brethren and subverted their souls. Thus, it is no small issue with which we are dealing!
   
   We may only observe the things taught by the Lord through the apostles (Cf. Matthew 28:20; Luke 10:16; Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 John 4:6; 2 John 9). When men like Mattingly teach to the contrary, and seek to add the instrument to our worship, they trouble the disciples with words and subvert their souls.
   
2. When "Moses Spake Nothing" (Hebrews 7:11-14). If there were but one Scripture to demonstrate the fallacy of Mr. Mattingly’s argument that silence gives consent, it would be the text of Hebrews 7:11-14: "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Observe, please, these salient points:
   
   (a) The Levitical priesthood was not sufficient. Another was prophesied (Melchisedec), and it came.
   
   (b) Since the law of Moses authorized and recognized only the priesthood "after the order of Aaron," the existence of the priesthood of Christ logically demands "of necessity a change also of the law." But, why is this true?
   
   (c) It is true because Moses only spoke of a priesthood from the issue of Aaron, the Levitical priesthood, but Christ did not come from that tribe, from the tribe of Levi. No, he came from the tribe of Judah.
   
   (d) Consequently, therefore, if a new priesthood exists (and it does!), then a new law also exists since Moses "spake nothing" (was silent) about priests from another tribe.
   

   You will note that the Spirit of God here did not reason as does Gary Mattingly. Mattingly says, "If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt use an instrument in worship’, we find this a liberty." In Hebrews, the Spirit says that since Moses "spake nothing" concerning any tribe, other than that of Levi, then no priest could come from any other tribe. Mattingly would have said, "If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt use another tribe for the priesthood, we find this a liberty."
   
   See the glaring contrast between the two? Mattingly and the Christian Church uses "the hermeneutic" which the Spirit of God rejected in Hebrews 7. If his principle and his understanding of the silence of the Scriptures is correct, I challenge him to apply it and say that priests could arise from some other tribe. Since Moses did not say, "Thou shalt use another tribe for the priesthood," let Mr. Mattingly tell us if the tribe of Judah could serve as priest under the law. He should have no problem telling us directly, for he argues that, "If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt use an instrument in worship’, we find this a liberty." Well, since Scripture does not say "thou shalt use the tribe of Judah in the priesthood," does he find that "a liberty" also? The Spirit did not. Does Mattingly?

More Musings From Mattingly

From early Restoration Movement (RM) history two men were on the liberty side of the issue. A Mr. Pendleton was for the instrument, but he felt that using it might cause the weaker Christians to sin. He used the principle found in Romans 14 about the meat sacrificed to idols. Read that section for a reminder. He made a good point. Also, Isaac Errett, founder of the STANDARD, said on June 2, 1868, ‘&ldots;right doing in place of exact thinking and outside of plain precepts, let all acknowledge liberty to all…" he was stating the hermeneutic that it was a liberty to use an instrument because it was outside of ‘plain precepts’, that is, Scriptural teachings. Both of these men thought along with others in the early RM days that instruments were acceptable.

Two men who found the instrument wrong were Mr. McGarvey and Mr. Lard. McGarvey said: Nothing may be introduced into worship that is not explicitly authorized in the N.T. Note again his belief that silence of Scripture forbids. Lard was even more legalistic: Let every preacher resolve to never enter a meeting house in which an organ stands. He felt it was better to not go to church at all than to go where there was an instrument. He even felt that we might as well abandon immersion as accept the instrument. To place the musical instrument issue along the same level as immersion for the remission of sins is poor handling of Scripture.

So, we see the primary reason for the difference is hermeneutical understanding of the silence of Scriptures. This is foundational to the issue. In our early days, two of our magazines took sides and published their thoughts. These being the STANDARD, noted above, and the GOSPEL ADVOCATE, the latter opposing anything ‘new and innovative.’

Romans 14, People, Papers, And Scriptural Authority

First, to eat meat is right before God. Eating meat meets with his approval (1 Timothy 4:1-4; Romans 14:14, 20 — no meat is unclean of itself; all are pure and may be eaten without offense to God). Now, let Mattingly show the same with respect to the use of pianos, guitars, and organs in worship. It is not enough for him to assume and assert it. He must drum up Bible authority for their use. He and I can both show that eating meat is scriptural and that we may do it because God has authorized it. Can he do the same for his instruments?

Second, Mattingly tells us to read Romans 14. Well, I have done so a few times, and I have yet to find the premise, principle, or precept which says, "If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt use an instrument in worship’, we find this a liberty." Yes, there is "liberty" in Romans 14, but not of that nature. If Mattingly finds "liberty" in Romans 14 for using an instrument, how will he answer the Catholic who says he finds "liberty" in Romans 14 for baptizing an infant? Note a parallel:

Christian Church: "If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt use an instrument in worship’, we find this a liberty" which allows us to use it.

Catholic Church: "If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt baptize an infant in worship,’ we find this a liberty" which allows us to baptize them.

I challenge Mr. Mattingly to show that sprinkling water on an infant and enrolling him as a member of the church is not a "liberty" which is granted by Scripture. His argument for the instrument binds him to the infant. They stand or fall together.

The same is true of many other items linked to the work, worship, and organization of the church. Take the Catholic priesthood, for example. Does our friend, Mattingly, oppose a priestly order in the organization of the church? If so, upon what basis?

Christian Church: "If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt use an instrument in worship’, we find this a liberty" which allows us to use it.
Catholic Church: "If the Scripture does not say ‘thou shalt use a priest in worship,’ we find this a liberty" which allows us to use them."

We are not surprised by Mattingly’s appeal to Romans 14 (which appeal, by the way, would not have been made had there been scriptural authority for the instrument). It is an old ploy and plea. It did not work in the 19^th century, and it will not work in any succeeding century, either.

"Those who advanced instrumental music in worship…constantly appealed to Romans 14. When the Gospel Advocate…warned that such practices represented a growing apostasy, Editor Isaac Errett of the Christian Standard retorted that the divinity of Christ and the necessity of baptism were still being preached. Beyond that, we must not ‘dictate where Christ has not dictated,’ he said, but some brethren are guilty of a ‘murderous stifling of free thought and free speech…we insist that Romans xiv. allows A very large liberty which we have no liberty to trench on.’ From 1870 on, a host of liberals made this identical plea in advancing not only instruments and societies, but also open membership, theistic evolution, and various theories renouncing the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Those who opposed liberalism as a perversion of the liberty granted in Romans 14 were accused of ‘intolerant dogmatism.’
"J.B. Briney in debate with W.W. Otey appealed for the toleration of instruments on the basis that the objecting brethren were weak, and instruments could be used where no one objected. ‘I will close the debate in fellowship and love if he will…agree that unless the instrument may hurt somebody else, it may be used if it don’t (sic) lead somebody to sin,’ said Briney. Otey pointed out that Briney must ‘prove conclusively that the use of instrumental music is authorized,’ in keeping with the limits of Romans 14." (Ron Halbrook, "Romans 14 Abused To Accommodate False Doctrine," Guardian Of Truth, January 2, 1992, p. 28).

(Those who believe that Romans 14 will not be used in the 21^st century to justify "open membership, theistic evolution and various theories renouncing the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures," as per the days of Genesis one and the flood, are poor students of the evolution of error among us [2 Timothy 2:16-18; 3:13]. The groundwork for these things is being laid in our day.)

Third, why does Mattingly cite Pendleton, Errett, McGarvey, and Lard? Though they were great men in many respects, they were simply men. What does their preaching and practice prove? Likewise, with respect to the positions of the papers, the Christian Standard and the Gospel Advocate–neither one is our standard, nor our advocate or appeal. The word of God is our rule, our standard; Jesus is our advocate, our appeal in the court of heaven. His law, the gospel, is the constitution of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 28:20; Colossians 3:17; James 4:12; 2 John 9).

It is ironic that he appeals to restoration history, to restoration philosophy. What was the initial call of the men associated with the movement? "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent" (Thomas Campbell; Cf. 1 Peter 4:11). Or, "Speak where the Bible speaks; be silent where the Bible is silent" (1 Corinthians 4:6). Mattingly’s view is more than a liberal slant to that scriptural slogan, it is a clear disavowal of it! When he approves of the instrument, based upon the fact "that (there is) liberty to use an instrument because it was outside of ‘plain precepts’, that is, Scriptural teachings," he has totally abandoned the essential essence of restoration, "Let us speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent." Those who act "outside of…Scriptural teachings" are certainly not being "silent where the Bible is silent"!

Fourth, we acknowledge that Moses Lard said some sharp things with respect to the instrument and fellowship. However, to be fair, and not simply to dismiss Lard as a "legalist," as Mattingly does, note that in the same article wherein he called for dismissal and disassociation of the instrument, he gave the reason for his strong language. After establishing the point that, "As a people we have from the first and continually to the present proclaimed the New Testament and that alone is our only full and perfect rule of faith and practice," he asked, in light of that immutable, indisputable principle, "what defense can be urged for the introduction into some of our congregations of instrumental music? The answer which thunders in my ears from every page of the New Testament is, none. Did Christ ever appoint it? Did the apostles ever sanction it? Or did any of the primitive church ever use it? Never. In what light then must we view him who attempts to introduce it into the churches of Christ of the present day? I answer, as an insulter of the authority of Christ, and as a defiant and impious innovator on the simplicity and purity of the ancient worship. In no other light can we view him, in no other light should he be viewed" (Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Instrumental Music Question, p. 76).

Given Lard’s understanding, he could act and advise no less than he did. Let Mattingly show that Lard was wrong in his understanding of the Bible. When he does, we will join him in his denial of Lard. (Though McGarvey did not join Lard’s call to utterly forsake and abandon those who embraced the instrument, in his later years he acknowledged that he had been mistaken in his course.)

Mattingly Musings On Music And Money

Second, the economy had some influence over the musical question. The high cost of piano and organs left many without the resources before the Civil War to buy them. Before the Civil War, the congregations below the Mason-Dixon line were generally too poor to buy an instrument. We note that the majority of the non-Instrumental congregations were and are today South , i.e., Texas, Tennessee. It became a factor that if you can not afford it, then it may not be good for you. Such reasoning can be a minor factor even today.

Money, Music, And Meetinghouses

An identical argument could be made with regard to meetinghouses, or church buildings. Historically, many churches were too poor to erect buildings. Did those brethren who opposed the piano in worship oppose a place to meet?

Local churches that can afford neither the music nor the meetinghouse generally understand the relationship of the two economic factors.

(a)A church building is authorized by the command for saints to assemble, to come together in one place (Hebrews 10:25; Cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 14:23; 16:2). Whether borrowed or bought, a place of some kind is essential to do what the Lord said do; namely, come together to perform certain acts. If there were no authority for Christians to assemble, whether they could afford them or not, church buildings would exist without scriptural authority.
(b) An instrument of music need not be expensive-homemade drums, a string of Christmas bells, and garage sale guitars will do nicely. However, that is not the issue and never has been. Musical instruments, whether affordable or not, cannot be used in the worship of the church for they are without scriptural authority. Then, why song books? Well, in order to sing, which is authorized, one must either memorize the words or read them. Thus, song books assist in doing what the Lord said do; namely, sing. Musical instruments, on the other hand do not have corresponding authority. There is no authorization to play as there is to "sing" (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).

Conclusion: Find the authority for Christians to meet together and you have found authority for a meetinghouse. Find authority for Christians to sing and you have found the authority for songbooks. Find authority for Christians to play and you will have found authority for pianos, organs, and the accompanying sheet music. Money is not the issue.

Mattingly Muses On Music In "Bars and Theaters"

A third factor for not using the instrument in the Frontier days was that the piano and organ were a mainstay in the bars and theaters. They had the money to buy them. So, the argument was raised that to have such an instrument in worship is guilt by association. Since the piano and organ were associated with evil happenings in bars in the early days of the R.M., we can consider this as a valid point for that time period. This is a mute argument in this day. There is nothing inherently evil in the piano. We might point out that not too many years ago the pool table was considered evil and to go to a pool hall was unthinkable. (Remember: The musical MUSIC MAN: "There’s trouble right here in River City, trouble, that starts with ‘t’ and rhymes with ‘p’ and that stands for pool&ldots;’) We find the pool table in many of our homes today do we not?

Fourth, the claim that the piano would make the church a ‘gay and worldly place’ was proposed in the early days. The GOSPEL ADVOCATE stood firm against all innovations as wrong. Does the piano make it a gay and worldly church? In fact, it may or it may not. There are many factors that would be apparent in a congregation that is worldly. But to flatly say that to use the instrument is worldliness, is wrong. We can find ‘worldly’ churches who either use or do not use the instrument. Such a claim was poorly thought out to say the least.

Listen, we must not confuse culture with orthodoxy. In other words, we must be careful not to condemn something as ‘too fancy’ because it is not within our tastes. Our missionaries had a huge lesson to learn as they traveled to foreign lands and tried to make those churches ‘American’ in their worship styles. Some things in culture are indeed wrong and some are not. Suffice it to say that our personal preferences are not orthodoxy.

Of Pianos And Pool Tables

Anything that exists without divine authority is worldly and those who indulge it are guilty of worldliness, whether or not it is seen as such by the culture of the times (1 John 4:1, 6). The touching, tender, tearful, sweet scene of an infant baptism is of the world; it is spiritual profanity, for it is not of God (Matthew 7:21-27; 15:8, 9). An act need not be viewed as profane by a community to be disdained as worldliness before God. The "abominable idolatries," "lying vanities," and "damnable heresies" denounced by the Spirit were not seen as such by the "spiritual" leaders who advocated them (Cf. Acts 14:11-17). Yet, they were no less worldly than a snake charmer’s, or a Christian church’s, horn.

If the pianos and organs were denounced simply because of their tie to bars and theaters, would that not also eliminate singing? Did they not engage in choruses of raucous songs in such places? So, if pianos and organs were not to be used, would that not also exclude singing on the same basis?

Since Mattingly acknowledges that pianos and pool tables have now undergone a cultural cleansing and that they are now acceptable, and since he uses the piano, let us ask him where the pool table fits in the Christian Church? Since the piano and the pool table have been "sanctified and cleansed," and instruments are now used in worship, where has our friend put the pool table in the Christian Church? What part of worship does it serve? "He does not utilize the pool table in worship," you say? Why not? "It is not part of the worship. God has not placed it in the worship of the church." Ah, now apply that same reasoning to the piano, and, perhaps, we will be making progress in our study!

(Some of our own brethren need to learn that as a culturally cleansed piano is not justified in the worship of the church, neither is a culturally cleansed pool table permitted in the work of the church. Whether in the work or the worship of the church, the authority to "play" is as absent on the one hand as it is on the other.)

End Of Mattingly’s Musings On Music

I have yet to find in the New Testament where it says that we are to sing in worship. Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 are often used to say that we are not to use the instrument in worship. But the context does not allow us to say that the worship hour is pictured. Yet, we sing in worship with no " thus saith the Lord." In Acts 2:42 we find the church gathering for the "apostles" teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayer." No music mentioned. Did they sing? I am sure they did! The PSALMS were sung.
It is a grave concern of mine to hear the musical instrument being put on the same level as, say, immersion for the remission of sins. It is tragedy to make it a ‘test of fellowship.’ IT IS NOT!
My intent is to inform you mainly of the initial stand and confusion on this issue from our RM history. By the way, this debate is not confined to our movement. The Reformers debated it. Calvin thought the instrument worldly – even stained glass windows and hymns were wrong to him. (He only approved of singing the Psalms.) And there are non-instrumental Baptist and Methodist churches. We could go on but this will end our thoughts.

This Will "End Our Thoughts," Too

First, if Mattingly has proved that singing is done without scriptural authority, all he has succeeded in doing is to prove that he does two things which God disapproves; namely, singing and playing. Christians have never said that an assembly is the only way Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 could be fulfilled. However, it is certainly one way saints may "teach and admonish one another." It is one way they may reciprocally speak to one another. Further, the Spirit said, "In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee" (Hebrews 2:12). So, singing (not playing) is done "in the midst of the church." Perhaps, Mattingly will explain just when this is done. It is surely done in the same manner the Lord breaks bread with the disciples in his kingdom (Cf. Matthew. 26:29; Luke 22:28, 29; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17, 21, "communion," [fellowship] at the "table of the Lord" in the church at Corinth).

Thus, we have found Bible authority for singing "in the midst of the church." Now, let Mattingly find "playing" even on the fringes, the border, or the outskirts of the church, and we will accept it "in the midst." Can he do it? No, he cannot, and no one knows it better than Gary Mattingly.

Second, Mattingly says he does not find "singing" listed in Acts 2:42. Well, it is certain he found no piano or organ there, either. However, not only did they continue in fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayers, but they also continued "in the apostles’ doctrine," or teaching. Now, what is part of that teaching, or doctrine? It is that Christians should teach and admonish one another and speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Surely, then, since they continued steadfastly in that doctrine, that teaching, they sang together as that teaching told them to do. So, we have found singing in the apostles’ doctrine, which they "continued steadfastly in." Now, let our friend find a piano or an organ there.

Third, from the same paragraph above, compare these two statements from Mr. Mattingly:

(a) I have yet to find in the New Testament where it says that we are to sing in worship.
(b) No music mentioned. Did they sing? I am sure they did! The PSALMS were sung.

Mattingly has "yet to find in the New Testament" that "we are to sing in worship….No music mentioned." Still, he is "sure they" sang! Can anyone have confidence in one who so reasons (?) from Scripture?

Again, let us apply his logic and use of Scripture to the baptism of babies. Mr. Mattingly, suppose a Catholic priest said to you, "I have yet to find in the New Testament where it says we are to baptize infants. No infant baptism mentioned. Did they baptize infants? I am sure they did! Infants were baptized." How would you answer a priest who argues from the silence of the Scriptures for infant baptism in the same manner as you argue from them for the instrument?

Fourth, Mattingly vehemently protests, "It is a grave concern of mine to hear the musical instrument being put on the same level as, say, immersion for the remission of sins. It is tragedy to make it a ‘test of fellowship.’ IT IS NOT!" All he needs to do is to find a clear statement for the instrument as we can both find for immersion and the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). This he cannot do. Since we are speaking of concerns over tests of fellowship, suppose a Catholic expressed a desire to unite with the congregation where Mattingly ministers. Suppose this Catholic denounced the errors of the papacy and priesthood and said he saw that Catholicism went beyond New Testament teaching. Suppose this Catholic, who had water sprinkled on his forehead when he was an infant, wanted to join the Christian Church where Mattingly preaches on the basis of his infant baptism. Would Mattingly make it "a test of fellowship"? If so, how would he answer the Catholic if he said, "It is a grave concern of mine to hear infant baptism for the remission of sins being put on the same level, as, say, adult immersion for the remission of sins. It is a tragedy to make it a ‘test of fellowship.’ IT IS NOT!"

Mr. Mattingly, how would you answer him? If you attempt to tell us, we shall turn your reasoning against you at every turn on the instrument, too. Try us and see. You cannot logically, consistently, or scripturally deny the Catholic as a member of your church while accepting the instrument. If you deny him, you must deny it. If you accept it, you must accept him.

Why, though, should it be a "grave concern" to Mattingly? Surely, those who make the instrument a "test of fellowship" have the "liberty" to do so! Since "Scripture does not say, ‘Thou shalt make music a test of fellowship," are not those who do so free to "find liberty" for their actions? If silence allows the instrument, as Mattingly avows, why does not silence permit some to make its use a test of fellowship?

Finally, Mr. Mattingly says, "My intent is to inform you mainly of the initial stand and confusion on this issue from our RM history."

While we understand and appreciate his expressed "intent" and purpose, we would be better served if all preachers contented themselves with "the initial stand" of the New Testament on "this issue," or any other that has caused "confusion." "What saith the Scriptures?" What Calvin believed is no more our authority or guide than is the faith of Methodists and Baptists. We care not for any of their beliefs or tenets of faith. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

Happily do we join hearts and hands in the work and worship prescribed of God with all who "in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1 Corinthians 1:2; 4:6, 17; 11:2). However, until we are shown from the Scriptures that instruments of music are authorized as part of the worship of the church, we can have neither part nor lot with them and shall oppose them as we would any other human tradition and innovation (Revelation 22:18, 19).

The question then must be raised, why has he failed to permit or command us to use instrumental music in worship of the New Testament economy? For whatever reason, God knows, he has chosen to remain silent on the subject of using such instruments, but has been more than explicit about the use of one’s heart and voice to sing his praises.

The Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to dissuade us from being filled with wine, but to "be filled with the spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:18-19). Perhaps Peter Frampton came close to making a guitar talk 25 years ago, but in the end, the instrument still had no heart.

A God who could speak life and light into existence and who could describe the beauty of musical worship when rendered in the heart and expressed with the tongue could surely find acceptable language to enable likewise the use of inanimate instruments in worship. But he did not.

This very passage begins by commanding us to understand what the will of the Lord is. The only way we have to understand God’s will is to read, for "when you read, you may understand" (Ephesians 3:4). One can read the New Testament cover to cover and never find the church of Jesus Christ or a single worshiping saint on Earth obscuring the melody of his heart and harmony of his voice with the clanging of cymbals or pounding of piano keys. God knows how to command such a thing but he just did not do it.

In Colossians 3:16, our apostle writes, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Once again, the emphasis rests on the word and the ability of the heart to produce emotion that willfully couples with one’s voice. And once again, no artificial instrument is inserted to duel with the human voice for supremacy in the worship of God. If God wanted it so, he could have made it so with explicit commands or approved examples. Yet he did not.

The very next verse is an admonition that "whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." It is absolutely impossible to play the piano in worship in the name of Jesus, for where Bible authority lacks, divine sanction is impossible.

Both scripture and history prove that neither Christ and his apostles nor the early church employed anything more complex than their voices in praise to God. It was 670 years later that Pope Vitilian I introduced the organ into Roman Catholic worship. This uninspired innovation threatened to split the Catholic church in two and so it was removed to preserve unity. More than a century later, however, it was brought out again with some opposition, but eventually won incremental approval and finally, widespread acceptance. Another victory for the devil’s strategy of incrementalism.

Most religious groups that trace their history to the Protestant reformation began with an ardent desire to reject all things inherently Catholic and obviously unscriptural. Instrumental music was generally one of these items. But like their corrupted mother, the Protestant churches gradually readopted this practice, while maintaining other Catholic inventions like Christmas and Easter.

Still, many noteworthy Protestant preachers and scholars spoke eloquently, though unconvincingly, about the evil of instrumental music in the worship of God. Consider a few:

• John Calvin (1509-1564): "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of other shadows of the Law" (Calvin’s Commentary on 33rd Psalm).
• Charles Spurgeon (Baptist, 1834-1892): "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it" (Commentary on Psalm 42:4).
• John Wesley (Methodist; 1703-1791): "I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen" (Clarke’s Commentary, Vol. IV, page 686).
• Andrew Fuller (Baptist scholar) finding no example in the Bible or in the first three centuries A.D. of Christians using instruments in religion, said "It is heresy in the sphere of worship" (Works of Andrew Fuller, vol. III, page 520).
• Martin Luther (Catholic; 1483-1546): "An organ in the worship of God is an ensign of Baal" (McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 8, page 739).
• Adam Clarke (Methodist): "I am an old man and a minister; and I declare that I never knew them (mechanical instruments) productive of any good in the worship of God; and I have reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire; but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music and I here register my protest against all such corruption in the worship of the Infinite Spirit who requires his followers to worship him in spirit and in truth" (Clarke’s Commentary, Vol. IV, page 686).
• Thomas Aquinas (Catholic theologian, c. 1225-74): "Our church does not use mechanical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize" (McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 8, page 739).

Apostasy is always gradual and it has taken some time for adherents of these various belief systems to eradicate any memory of an age in which their greatest scholars contended for an abolition or continued dismissal of instrumental music in worship. It is amazing to think that the church of Christ has more in common with Charles Spurgeon in this matter than any Baptist church in town. More importantly, she has it in common with King Jesus.

When confronted with these arguments, many will defend their instruments, but not their hearts, by claiming that since the piano sounds so good, God must accept it. The same argument, though, could be made for any number of things not found in the Bible. Coke tastes so much better than grape juice and pizza tastes so much better than unleavened bread that God must accept them on Christ’s table.

Some who are a little old-fashioned are upset that churches seem to be using more popular instruments like the electric guitar and drum set today. They long for the good old days of the piano and organ, but the same authority that gives you the piano allows for the guitar — human innovation and sin’s tendency to expand incrementally once the door is cracked an inch.

Why must the will of God be made subject to the popular approval of the church? Should not her opinions on worship be subject to the object? Or does she intend to offer God strange fire, in the doomed fashion of Nadab and Abihu, which he did not command?

( Editor’s Note: The following correspondence was initiated with brother Hafley by a man who sought to defend the use of instruments of music in Christian worship. We will limit our identification of the man to his first name, Don. Don’s grammar and punctuation, as well as his sentence construction, lacks formality. We thought it best, however, to retain the form rather than seeking to edit the posts of one with which we disagree. The correspondence is reprinted here for your study on this important subject.)

Don (Post 1):

we better stop praying “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”there are musical instruments in heavenThank You Lord Jesus for filling this brothers heart with Your version of Your word.The Lord won’t agree with my version of “nothin.”Message text written by don

Larry Ray Hafley (Post 1)

Don,Where did you learn that there are “musical instruments in heaven”?Please cite the source of your information.Thanx. Larry

Don (Post 2):

Dear Brother Larry,Rev 5:8, 14:2 harps
Rev 8:13, 9:14 trumpetsI know of 5 other references where there is a musical instrument from God or it is His will to have instruments in heaven.My chief desire for you is that you have all of God;s best for your life and ministry.All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in the hope of glory!Love in Christ,
Don

Larry Ray Hafley (Post 2):

Don ,

Thanks for the information and the passages which you say show that mechanical instruments of music will be in heaven. I, too, want you to have all the blessings of God in Christ Jesus. Now, let me ask some questions about the references you cited.

(1) Revelation 5:8: The passage not only mentions “harps,” but it also mentions “golden” bowls. Will there also be literal golden vials (bowls) in heaven? If so, may we have them in the church today? If we may, how shall we use them in the worship of the church?

(2) Revelation 8:13: Since there are “flying” angels in heaven, are there “flying” angels in the church today? If there are angels that fly in the church today, do they also speak with a “loud voice” in the church as they do in “the midst of heaven”?

(3) Revelation 9:14: Since the “sixth angel” in heaven gave messages to the inhabitants there, does he also give messages to the church today? Since the sixth angel “heard a voice” coming from “the golden altar which is before God,” does he also hear this same voice and communicate the things he hears to the church today (Rev. 9:13)?

(4) Revelation 14:2: Will there be literal water and thunder in heaven? If there is literal thunder in heaven, as we know it, in the church today? If not, how may we utilize such thunder in the worship of the church?

I am curious because it appears that if the passages you cited with respect to musical instruments justifies their use in the church today, then they also authorize the use of the other things that are cited in the same passages. I sincerely would like to hear how we might apply these things in the worship of the church today, as you say we may apply the musical instruments. Thank you for any light you can shed on these matters.

Larry

Don (Post 3):

Dear Brother Larry,You have become a blessing to me. When you said in your last Email: “I sincerely would like to hear how we might apply these things in the worship of the church today….I have had the same desire and request before God for sometime now. The desire seems to be growing in my heart. I will continue to delight myself in Him and be found worshipping God.Ultimately I want worship in heaven. But until then I will agree to His will in worship on the earth as it is in heaven. Can you imagine being in a worship situation as it is in heaven like the Bible describes.Let’s seek Him together for all we can find of His provision for our worship!I’m sure that your questions can be best answered by the Holy Ghost. Have you received Him as your teacher.I will share with you a little of what I have learned while meditating on “our 4 verses”.Rev 5:8 – The bowls contain the prayers of the saints and alot of the worship songs that I’m familiar with are in fact musical prayers or “psalms” it you will. In that context we have the connection with heavenly worship in the church.

Rev 8:13, 9:14 – Angels have been seen and heard in church meetings and I have heard recent reports of such activity. Short of an Angel being manifested in the natural realm it would involve the gifit of the Holy Spirit called discernment of spirits (as the Spirit wills). I have never heard of an Angel manifested in the natural realm in a church meeting.

Rev 14:2- Notice: the voice form heaven as the voice of many waters and as the voice of a great thunder

Here in is described the sound of 144,000 whole hearted, singing, Holy Ghost powered worshippers. The “harpers harping” were heard as well. God believes that we can do that. We just need a few more salvations at my church how about you! I’m sure that youv’e got a sense of humor lurking somewhere in the bullrushes. Amen?

If we had a football stadium size crowd that was behaving like those folks in heaven we would have a similar sound.

The prayers that Paul prayed for the church in Eph. and Col. have been a great help to me. I learned to pray them for my self. They have been what God needed, in part, to increasingly sensitize me to the Holy Ghost. Surely you can see that praying the word of God over yourself, just like the Bible reads, can be efficient.

I will always refer you to the word and the Spirit and admonish you to Seek The Lord. That way we can avoid foolish disputations and pitting our minds against one another.

I grew up in a denomination similiar to yours and I expect that a lot of what I can share will not fit what you are use to. I also have needed abundantly confirmation from the Lord on unfamilar things.

It’s always a pleasure to meet faithful and diligent Christian men such as your self.

Love In Christ,
Don

P.S. We use musical instruments in our worship at church because it seems good to us and the Holy Ghost. Acts 15:28
Larry Ray Hafley (Post 3):

Dan,

I am still curious as to whether there will be literal, physical, material harps in heaven. You have not told me.

If the golden bowls were symbols of the prayers of the saints, is it possible that the harps were symbolic also?

You say that you were raised in a denomination similar to mine. Dan, I am not a member of any denomination. I am simply a Spirit led Christian, a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).

You seem to equate the conditions of heaven with those of the church. Since there will be infants in heaven, are infants also members of the church of which you are a member (2 Sam. 12:23)?

Some things which are in heaven are not in the church, such as angel’s speaking directly. Other things in the church will not be in heaven, such as the Lord’s supper, for it is to be taken only until the Lord comes again (1 Cor. 11:26). It is in the church, but it will not be in heaven. Angels directly speak in heaven but do not do so in the church. Infants will be members of heaven’s citizenship, but are not members of the church. Thus, not everything that is in one place will be in another.

Catholics may have infant membership in their churches because it seems good to them and to the Holy Ghost. They may even cite the fact that infants will be in heaven. Still, that does not prove that we should have babies as members of the Lord’s church (Cf. Acts 8:12–”men and women,” NOT, infants).

Therefore, even if you were to prove that literal harps and trumpets will be in heaven, that would not authorize them for the worship of the church today.

Yes, 144,000 were praising God in Revelation 14:2. I wonder if there are rain and thunderstorms in heaven since many waters and great thunder were also heard? If the many waters and great thunders are symbolic, why aren’t the harps (as per Rev. 5:8). However, if the harps are literal, physical harps, why isn’t the water and thunder also literal? You say that since there were harps there, that we may have them in the church today. Well, do you have “many waters” and a “great thunder” in your church today? If one, why not the others?

How does one “receive the Holy Ghost” as his teacher? Too, what does it mean to be sensitized to the Holy Ghost, and how does prayer accomplish this feat? Please cite the passages on prayer that speak of this sensitization.

Where does the Bible say that “praying the word of God over (ourselves), just like the Bible reads, can be efficient”? Rather, see Acts 20:32; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 2:2)

Don, like you, I am opposed to “foolish disputations.” You certainly agree with me that our exchange does not qualify as such.

You speak as though we should not be “pitting” our minds against one another. Yet, this is exactly what the Holy Ghost encourages us to do (Acts 17:2, 3; 19:8, 9; 28:22-30; Phil. 1:17; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3). So, why would you speak against the direct leading of the Holy Ghost with respect to such exchanges?

I know that the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church seem good to you, but where did you learn that the use of such things is “good” to the Holy Ghost? It will not do for you to cite what the Holy Ghost may approve in heaven, for we are here discussing the worship of the church. So, where did you learn that your instruments are “good” to the Holy Ghost?

If you would like, we can arrange for you or for one of your preachers to address the church here on these topics and show us the way of God more perfectly. We are open to study and consideration for the will of God on all such matters (Jn. 3:20, 21).

I shall look forward to hearing from you again.

Larry

Don (Post 4):

Dear Brother Larry,

You certainly have a well oiled mind. I will prayerfully consider all your questions and statements and respond with what I have from the Lord. This will take a few days.

If I may, I would like to ask you a few questions. Not to challenge you, but to have a little more information as to what you are used to.

1. Can you ask the Lord a question and hear him answer it.
2. How does the Holy Ghost behave when your church is in worship.
3. Is it a normal function of the leadership in your church to know what the Holy Ghost wants to do during the course of a meeting. Can He change directions at will during a meeting.

Brother I need to apologize to you for my opening statement in my first E-mail to you. Looking back at it, it seems insensitive and a little rude. It seems more in the flesh than walking in love and I am sorry for presenting my self to you that way.

Sincerely,
Don

Larry Ray Hafley (Post 4):

Don,

I appreciate your apology. I didn’t take exception to it but noted that it was terse. I thank you for your courtesy. Now, to your questions.

1) If by “hear him answer it” you mean audibly, orally, the answer is no.

God speaks to us today “by his Son” (Heb. 1;1, 2). We are to “hear…him” (Matt. 17:5). We hear the voice of the Son of God the same way that Abraham expected the five brothers of the rich man to hear Moses and the prophets, i.e., through what they had written (Lk. 16:29; Jn. 5:25). Paul said that some in his day could hear the voices of the Old Testament prophets. How could they do so? By reading what the prophets wrote, they “heard” them (Acts 13:27). That is how Moses was preached; that is, by reading what Moses wrote, Moses was preached (Acts 15:21).

When Jesus wanted his audience to hear what God had spoken, he cited them to Scripture, not to an audible voice (Matt. 22:31, 32). When the Hebrew writer called the Holy Spirit to witness on a point, he cited Scripture, therefore, the Spirit witnesses to us through Scripture (Heb. 10:15, 16). Likewise, God speaks to us today through his word.

His word is all sufficient. It is complete (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Jas. 1:25). We now have all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3). We need no more, for the apostles were guided by the Spirit into “all truth” (Jn. 16:13). Thus, there is nothing more for the Lord to add to us today. The faith has been once for all, one time for all time, delivered unto the saints (Jude 3).

2) Would you kindly cite me a passage which tells how the Spirit is supposed to behave when we worship? What verses in the Bible speak of the Spirit’s behavior during the worship of the saints today? Please supply answers to these questions so I can address your question.

Note that the apostles directed us as to how we ought to behave ourselves “in the house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15). They did not speak of the Spirit’s behavior but of how we ought to behave. Should we not do likewise? Why speak of the Spirit’s behavior in the church when the apostles did not do so?

Does the Spirit ever misbehave in your worship? Does the Spirit ever show any direct disapproval of anything that goes on in worship? How do you know? What Scripture shows us how the Spirit is to behave and what Scriptures show us how to recognize when the Spirit is displeased with our worship? Does every church, from charismatic Catholics to praying Pentecostals, have the approval of the Spirit in their work and worship?

Don, the answers to these questions will be helpful to me in replying to your question more completely.

3) First, your wondering about the Spirit’s random change of will would seem to contradict what the Spirit himself said in 1 Corinthians 14:33, 40. If the Spirit indeed changes “directions at will during a meeting,” that would result in confusion and disorder, things of which the Spirit has said he is not the author.

The Holy Spirit has already shown us how he wants us to worship and serve God. As 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, clearly reveals, he has given us everything we need. We have everything which is sufficient for every good work. He has outlined those things for us and given us specific rules by which we are to walk (1 Cor. 4:6, 16, 17; 11:1, 2, 23-26; 14:33, 40; Phil. 3:16, 17). Thus, we know how we ought to walk and to please God (1 Thess. 4:1). We need no further instruction along that line. If so, then 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 is false!

Since Jesus is “the head over all things to the church,” we do not listen to another, not even to an angel from heaven (Gal. 1:8, 9). We listen to Christ and to his will. The church is to be subject unto Christ (Eph. 5:23, 24). He has told us what to do “during the course of a meeting” (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42). Thus, we need not inquire of the Spirit. Jesus, not the Spirit, is the head of the church; therefore, we do what he has commanded, what he has authorized through the word given by the Spirit unto the apostles (Lk. 10;16; 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Jn. 4:6).

Not only shall I anxiously await your reply to this material, but also to the previous note to which you have promised to respond after you give it more thought. Again, if you or one of your teachers should desire to do so, we would be glad for them to speak for us and show us how the Spirit is to behave and lead our worship. We are open to study and are willing to hear others who may disagree with us. We want to know and to do God’s will in all things. Anyone who can help us know the truth more perfectly is our friend (Acts 18:24-26).

Larry

The next post is combined. Brother Hafley’s answers to Don appear in italics.

Dear Brother Larry,I’ve numbered my responses for my own use.

# 1. Heaven is a strictly spiritual place meaning it does not exist in the natural realm. Heaven cannot be perceived with natural human perceptions that are designed for use here in the natural realm on the earth. As the Lord wills He can show heaven to a human but it will be “in the spirt” not in the natural.If we were with John in heaven when he witnessed Rev 5:8, we would have experienced spiritual reality in heaven and observed, with him, the activities there. The harps would have appeared to us as literal, material, physical harps which the beasts and the elders each had when they fell down before the Lamb. Their existence however would be in the spiritual realm.

Don, you’re right! Thus, the harps are not literal instruments as we know them. Therefore, you have not proven that harps will be in heaven; yet, when we began this study, the presence of harps in heaven was your proof that they should be in the worship of the church today. So, you are back to square one. Since literal, material harps are not in heaven, how do you prove that they may be used in the worship of the church today?

#2. The golden bowls were not symbols of the prayers of the saints. They contained odors “which are the prayers of the saints.”

The golden bowls were not literal, material golden bowls, which is what you must find in order to establish that literal, material harps are in heaven, for this, according to your initial argument, would prove that such harps may be used in the worship of the church today. They are not physical, material harps or bowls, therefore, you have not proven that mechanical instruments of music may be used in the worship of the church.

#3. Perhaps I should apologize to you on behalf of the Holy ghost because He is not willing that I respond to your questions and statements as you require.

Don, no man can apologize for the Holy Ghost, or on his behalf, for the Spirit of God cannot sin, cannot err. You say that the Holy Ghost “is not willing that I respond to your questions and statements as you require.” Well, Don, the Holy Ghost told me that he expects you to respond to my questions and statements. He said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” [1Pet. 3:15]. The Spirit said, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” [1 Thess. 5:21]. This is the will of the Holy Ghost as he expressed it in the word of God. Now, you say, “He is not willing that I respond to your questions and statements.” Don, how did you learn this? Why would the Spirit tell you something which contradicts his revealed will as given in the Bible?

I was led by the Spirit to “resign from the debating society” some years ago. I do welcome situations where people are willing to let the Lord use me to minister His word to them. In that case He will.

Don, what is this “debating society” of which you speak? I am not a member of it, and I did not know you once had been a member of it.

When you say you welcome situations “where people are willing to let the Lord use me to minister His word to them,” do you mean by this that you will teach them so long as they do not question or reason with you? Do you mean that you can only “minister” to them so long as they do not respond or object to what you say? If that is not what you mean, then what is your point? Please explain.

We read where the apostles ministered the word of God to people, but they did so with great controversy, with much reasoning, even as our Lord did at age 12 [Lk. 2:46--"both hearing them, and asking them questions." Cf. Acts 17:2, 3]

Further, if you resigned from “the debating society,” why have you been engaging in this exchange with me? This very reply of yours, which I am now reviewing is in debate form. If it is not, what do you mean by debating?

Generally, Don, I have found that folks resign from “the debating society” when they find they cannot sustain their doctrine from the Bible. Up to this point, you have been engaged in a written discussion with me. Now, you inform me that you cannot respond to me, though you tell me this as you respond to certain of my “questions and statements,” even numbering them as you make your response!! Can you not see your inconsistency here?

When I wrote against “pitting our minds against one another, I was referring to the verses that say: …”the man of God must not strive”, and “we wrestle not against flesh and blood”. I struggled for years in my discipleship while striving with people combined with leaning to my own understanding of the Bible. The truth that set me free from this difficulty is that God can use who He wants, the way He wants, when He wants and it will never be based on my understanding. Period! Jesus became Lord of my understanding when previously, in part, my understanding was Lord.

Don, when the Bible says not to strive, is it forbidding such a Bible study and discussion as we are having? If so, then Paul sinned in Acts 28:22-31 when he invited folks in and studied and reasoned from the Scriptures. If not, what is your point? No, we are not to engage in angry quarrels and strife, but that is not what you and I are doing. At least, I am not. We are commanded to “earnestly contend for the faith,” and Paul said he was “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17; Jude 3). Surely, you believe you must do as the Holy Ghost instructs you to do; that is, to dispute the Scriptures with those who are lost in error [Acts 9:29; 17:2, 3, 16, 17; 18:4; 19:8, 9].

You are correct in saying that we are not to lean on our own understanding, for that is what the Holy Ghost says [Prov. 3:5-7]. However, the Holy Ghost commands us to “understand” what the will of the Lord is, and he says we can do that when we read the New Testament [Eph. 3:4; 5:17]. I assume you believe those words of the Holy Ghost. Thus, you are bound by the Holy Ghost to share your understanding with others [2 Tim. 2:2, 15].

You cited Ephesians 6:12, where it says we are not to wrestle against flesh and blood. In that text, the Spirit is not telling us we may not reason with others. If so, he would contradict what he said elsewhere–”Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” [Jas. 5:19, 20]. Further, if in saying that “‘we wrestle not against flesh and blood’” the Holy Ghost is saying we should not reason with those in error, why did He say, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them” [Eph. 5:11]? See the problem? In one place, the Spirit tells us to expose or reprove error by taking “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,” but in the same context, according to you, he tells us not to reason with others with respect with what we understand the Scriptures to teach [Eph. 5:11; 6:12, 17].

Don, either the Holy Ghost contradicted himself, or you have misapplied Ephesians 6:12. Please explain.)

The only version of the word of God that He will agree to is His; the version that the Holy Ghost teaches. One Old timer said: “Some read the Bible in Hebrew and some read it in Greek, but I read it in the Holy Ghost”.

Don, would you please be so kind as to type me some “Holy Ghost” Scripture without using Hebrew, Greek, or English, etc.? I would love to read Scripture in that Holy Ghost version, so if you could please e-mail me some of it, I would like to see it. Thanks in advance.

In the New Testament, Jesus quoted from the Septuagint [Greek translation of O.T., Hebrew Scripture]. May we not do as the Lord did? Surely, Jesus could have used that Holy Ghost version of which you spoke, yet, he, like us, quoted from a Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture. Again, what is wrong with us doing as he did?

Paul ministered against unbelief with revelation knowledge that he received from the Lord. His “speech and preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.”

Right you are, Don, and when we read what he wrote, we are reading “the commandments of the Lord” as given by the Holy Ghost [Cf. 1 Cor. 2:12, 13; 14:37]. When we refer to what the Spirit recorded in the Bible, we are speaking as the oracles of God and are not using the enticing words of man’s wisdom but are using the wisdom of God as revealed in the word of God, the Bible [2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2, 15; 4:2-4; 1 Pet. 4:11].

The anointing of God coming from within Paul (from his spirit) effected the listener’s spirits and those that were able to receive would be changed into believers by this ministry.

Don, “faith cometh by hearing” the word of God as expressed by the apostles. We believe through their word which they received from the Spirit [Jn. 16:13; 17:20; Rom. 10:17].

Nothing that originates with me is of any value in ministry of the word. If I cannot speak, what I hear the Holy Ghost gives me to say to you, then I am of no value to the lord as a vessel. I would just be an “information booth” reciting my understanding. You would never get Jesus from me you would only get Don the earthen vessel.

No one, certainly not me, wants to hear Don’s wisdom. However, I do want to hear you “preach the word” and “sound out the word of the Lord” as given by the Spirit in the Bible. Now, if your paragraph above is saying you cannot answer my “questions and statements,” why have you done so anyway? Why have you given me your understanding of certain passages in the book of Revelation and Ephesians? Were you being an “‘information booth’” in this note of yours, or were you attempting to help me to know and understand the will of God?

Is this the way you deal with evolutionists and other infidels? Do you refuse to try to teach them and convert them because you would be giving them your word, and because you would be just “an ‘information booth’ reciting [your own] understanding” to them? Is that how you deal with your friends and neighbors who are not Christians? Do you refuse to study with them and show them the truth as you understand it from the word of God? No, it is not! Likewise, then why not treat me the same way?

Again, no one wants anything that “originates with” you. I certainly do not. However, I want you to show me where pianos, organs, harps, and other such instruments of music “originated” in the New Testament for the worship of the Lord’s church. Do not give me your own understanding, give me the passages that “originate” such things for the worship of the church. Will you do it? Can you do it?

#4. If I made an incorrect assumption about my coming from a denomination similar to yours, then I ask your forgiveness. The church that I grew up in was called the 1st Church of Christ. My understanding back then was that it was the same as the Church of Christ across town except that they believed against using musical instruments in church and we called them “The non musical Church of Christ”. The church that I was in was real strong on accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior and making a public confession of your faith. They ministered a lot on baptism by immersion in water. At the age of nine I was born again and baptized in water. They seemed to be opposed to any thing that might come under the heading of Charismatic or Pentecostal activities.

Don, there is no offense taken about your assumption regarding the church. I am simply a Christian [Acts 11:26]. I have been saved by grace through faith [Eph. 2:8, 9; Cf. Acts 19:5). The Lord redeemed me by his blood [1 Pet. 1:18, 19]. He did this when I repented and was “baptized…in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” [Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16]. At this point, I was “baptized into one body,” the church [1 Cor. 12:13].

I note that you say you were “born again and baptized in water.” Don, where does the Bible teach, where does the Holy Ghost say, that one is born again before he is baptized? I would like to know. Or, did that idea “originate” with you?

#5. “Praying the Word” refers to an approach to prayer that focuses what the Bible says on the need. For example: I have 6 young children at home. The oldest is eleven. In the last year I would estimate that around 15 times it came to my attention that one or more of the children had symptoms of sickness on their body. Stomach ache, nausea, congestion, coughing etc.,. etc. Any of these symptoms could develop into something more serious of not checked.

In this type of situation I will pray after this fashion: Thank You Heavenly Father for your word that says: by his stripes ye were healed, thank you for your word that says Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses, thank you for your word that says Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law (which includes every plague and sickness not written in the book of this law, Gal 3:13 and Deut 28:61)

I ask You Father in the Name of Jesus to watch over your Holy Word and perform it in this child’s body. Thank You Heavenly Father for healing my child in Jesus Name.

Satan! In the mighty Name of Jesus I command you and every demon of sickness and disease and infirmity to go from this house. Jesus gave me authority over you all and made me the head of this house. Get off of my property. Now! In Jesus Name I said Go!!!

Usually all symptoms disappear within hours

Don, I thought you said you were opposed to being an “information booth.” I thought you did not want to present things that “originates with me.” You said, “Nothing that originates with me is of any value in ministry of the word.” Yet, immediately above, you have done just that. You have given your testimony, your own understanding. In so doing, you have misapplied what the Holy Ghost said. Surely, you know that Galatians 3:13 has nothing to do with physical healing! Surely, you know that Jesus “fulfilled” Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:16, 17, and that miraculous, divine healing is not incorporated in the promise of Isaiah 53:4 for believers today.

I am puzzled by your use of the word, “usually,” when you said, “Usually all symptoms disappear within hours.” What do you mean, “usually”? Does God occasionally fail in fulfilling his promises? If not, why the word, “usually”? Further, “young children” the age of yours often have such maladies as you describe and they disappear “within hours.” The same thing happens in the homes of atheists and unbelieving Jews and Muslims. So, that is not a miraculous fulfillment of Scripture.

May I correctly assume, given your testimony above, that your house contains no cold remedy, cough syrup, aspirin, or stomach medicine of any kind?

# 6. If I were to pray the Word over you like Paul did the church in Ephesians it would be after this fashion: I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto Larry Ray Hafley the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of Larry’s understanding being enlightened; that Larry may know what is the hope of Your calling, Father, and what the riches of the glory of Your inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of Your power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of Your mighty power, Which You wrought in Christ, when You raised him from the dead, and set him at Your own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

Don, I thank you for your sincere concern for my growth in the Lord. Perhaps you would do well to cite what Paul told the Ephesians as the means to fulfill his prayer for them–”I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” [Acts 20:32]. In order for the Ephesians to receive the benefit of the prayer for them, they were told to “read, [that] ye may understand” [Eph. 3:4]. That is how that prayer will be fulfilled today [1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 2:2].

After I prayed this way for my self consistently, (for a season) it became obvious that the spirit of wisdom and revelation was operating freely in my life. I became able to look at most any place in the bible and began to receive increased understanding or revelation knowledge from the Holy Ghost. I became able to minister with the Holy Spirit much more accurately and efficiently.

(Don, if this is so, why, then, have you made so many blunders in this response of yours? Several of your errors and misapplications of Scripture have been pointed out in this reply. Surely, you do not blame the Holy Ghost for leading you astray! To illustrate the charge, you state that through prayer you received ” increased understanding.” However, the Holy Ghost says that such understanding comes from reading and studying the word of God [Acts 20:32; Eph. 3:4; 1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 2:2, 15; 1 Pet. 2:2]. Why do you say that you received understanding one way, through prayer, directly from the Holy Ghost, while the Bible says such understanding comes through reading and study? Please explain.)

One man that benefitted the same way that I have from this said: It’s amazing that the deacons didn’t come and pull me in out of the rain. Before, I was preaching like I had no sense.

Don, the above paragraph is some more of your “‘information booth’” religion. It is from you, not from the Holy Ghost, not from the Bible. Earlier you said, “If I cannot speak, what I hear the Holy Ghost give me to say to you, then I am of no value to the lord as a vessel.” If that is so, why did you give me the last two paragraphs? You see, they conflict with your earlier statements.

If you and that other gentleman were “preaching like [you] had no sense,” does that mean you were not preaching from the word of God? Were you ignoring the Bible when you preached like you had “no sense”? It’s possible for men to preach like they have no sense, and it is possible for them to do so while they pervert Scripture. Which scenario describes you during the time you were “preaching like [you] had no sense”?

What is revealed by the spirit of wisdom and revelation is God’s understanding of His Word. It is uncontaminated by the wisdom of man, man’s intellect, man’s ego, logical deductions and all that seems right to a man. The pure, blessed, Holy mind of Christ is made available.

Don, did you not know that, “The pure, blessed, Holy mind of Christ is made available” to us in the Bible? Paul said he had “the mind of Christ” [1 Cor. 2:16; 7:40]. When we read what he and the others wrote, we, too, have access to “the mind of Christ” [1 Cor. 14:37; Eph. 3:4]. As shown above, this knowledge comes through study and reading, not directly through prayer.

Your statement immediately above says there is God’s word, the Bible, and then there is “God’s understanding of His Word.” This understanding is, you say, revealed through prayer. Don, would you please read a passage from the Holy Ghost that says this? Where does the Spirit of God speak of the revelation of the word of God and also the revelation of the understanding of that word? You speak of it, you make that distinction in the paragraph above, but, like you said, your word is nothing. The word of God is all that matters. Therefore, I should like to see that distinction taught by the Holy Ghost. Can you produce it? Did the idea “originate” with you or with the Holy Ghost? I should like to know. Will you show me from the Bible?

We become sensitized to the Holy Spirit who Is enabled by our praying of His Word to open the scriptures up for us; not unlike Jesus opening the scriptures for His disciples.

Don, where does the Bible teach what you just said in the paragraph above? Or, did this idea “originate” with you? Where did you learn that “the Holy Spirit…is enabled by our praying of His Word to open the scriptures up for us”? Remember, “Nothing that originates with me is of any value in ministry of the word.”

Yes, the Lord opened the understanding of the disciples, but note that he did so on that occasion through teaching and instruction [Lk. 24:27; Acts 1:2, 3]. He did not do so by telling them to “pray through the word” or “through the Holy Ghost, as you tell me to do. Rather, he taught them. Don, why does the practice of the Lord differ from what you are telling me? How can you say you have a direct knowledge and enlightenment from the Holy Ghost when you keep making mistakes like this?

This is not a substitute for worship, prayer and fasting, seeking God, intimacy with God, praying in the Holy Ghost and all the time needed for preparation to minister.

#7. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Don, John 14:26 cannot be a promise to you. Note that is was made to those who had been with Jesus “from the beginning” [Jn. 15:27]. That certainly does not describe you [Acts 1:21, 22]! Further, note that the passage says Jesus will remind those to whom he was speaking of “all things…whatsoever I have said unto you.” Now, Don, just what things are there that Jesus spoke to you that he needs to remind you of? You see, Don, Jesus was speaking to those disciples, to the men to whom he had spoken and instructed [Acts 1:2, 3]. He promised them, NOT you and me, that he would remind them of things he had said. He could not make such a promise to you, for he has never spoken to you as he did to them. Thus, the passage is not a promise to you.

If I want to pray in agreement with this scripture I might pray: Dear Holy Ghost, Jesus said that You are the teacher of all things and I ask in the Name of Jesus that You would be my teacher and that you would enable me by your grace, mercy, wisdom, knowledge,help and unction to be one of your excellent students. From this day forward You are my teacher and I am learning what ever you are teaching. In Jesus Holy Name

I pray, Amen.

Bless your heart, Don, but would you please read to me where the Holy Ghost ever originated such a prayer as that? Where does the word of God exhort us to say a prayer like that? Really, though, why is such a prayer necessary? In the paragraph above this one, you said that Jesus promised to give you such miraculous wisdom and understanding through the Holy Ghost. Is that promise, which you say is intended for you, contingent upon your prayer? If so, where does the Bible say so?

When Paul commended the Ephesian elders to the word of God and when he told the Ephesians to “read,” he failed to tell them of the prayer you just gave me [Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 14:37; Eph. 3:4] . Why is that? Why didn’t the apostles give the advice you gave? Why did they say, “study” and “read” when it would have been so much easier for us if they had told us to simply pray for that knowledge as you advise me to do? Would you please explain why they told us to “read” while you say we ought to “pray” and let God give it to us through the Holy Ghost?

It is not the exact wording that is important but praying in agreement with the Spirit and The Word, believing in your heart and confession in agreement with it. Refer to the principles found in Rom 10:9,10. Very simply, I believe what Jesus said about it and the Holy Ghost is my teacher.

Don, Romans 10:9,10, gives no principle which we may apply to your teaching. It says to confess and believe. It says nothing about prayer. Further, just seven verses later, the Spirit says “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” So, the faith of verses 9 and 10 does not come by prayer, but by hearing. But to fit and apply to your doctrine, it ought to say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and since that faith in him comes after you pray through the Holy Ghost, then you must pray through the word to get it.” That is not what the text says; hence, it does not apply to your doctrine.

For a man who is supposed to be giving me, not his word, but the very word of the Holy Ghost, you surely are managing to be in conflict with the word of the Holy Ghost in the Bible.)

#8. Rev 14:2- Notice:
1 the voice from heaven
2 as the voice of many waters
3 and as the voice of a great thunder

Here in is described the sound of the 144,000. The “harpers harping” were heard as well. The harpers had to be producing a very loud volume to be heard along with the 144,000.

There is a pattern here that God likes to see in church meetings.

1. Large number of strong singers worshiping.
2. Singing a new song
3. Harpers harping (stringed instruments) at an appropriate volume

Don, Revelation 14:2 says absolutely nothing about the church, or the worship of the church on earth today. Why, then, do you say it ” is a pattern…that God likes to see in church meetings”? I suspect this idea “originated” with you, and not with the Holy Ghost, for he has given no such pattern as you describe. Again, though, if the voice of harpers harping with their harps justifies harps in the worship of the church today, does the voice as the voice of a great thunder mean there are thunderstorms in heaven? In your opening paragraph, you said that the harps of Revelation 5 were “spiritual,” not material, physical harps. Are the harps here also “spiritual” in their nature and composition? If so, then you still have not found a material harp to justify the use of material, mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church today. I am still looking for that proof. Perhaps you ought to pray a little harder through the word and ask the Holy Ghost to show you where the authorization for such things may be found.

#9. We need to unconditionally open our selves up unto God. And cry out to Him for His version of our lives, our gifts, our ministries, our home, our church. It is far more important for God to find us worshipping Him privately than it is to struggle with our understanding about instruments in church. It would be wrong for me to say that you should have musical instruments in your church because that could be a stumbling block for your whole church, at present. I want you to have God’s best and I have shared with you some of what I have to that end.

Don, where does the Bible teach that, “It is far more important for God to find us worshipping Him privately than it is to struggle with our understanding about instruments in church”? That is what you said, but where does the Holy Ghost say it? Your word is not sufficient; it is not my guide. So, if you will direct me to where the Holy Ghost said such a thing, I will believe it.

Jesus did not think that our private worship was “far more important” than our understanding of certain doctrines. He did not teach that “worshiping him privately” “is far more important” than our public doctrines or teachings. He said that when we draw near to him (whether privately or publicly) and we do so while keeping our own human traditions, that our worship is “in vain,” void [Matt. 15:8, 9, 13, 14; Cf. 7:21-27]. Again, Don, your advice, judgments, and pronouncements are shown to contradict what the Holy Ghost and Jesus said. If what I said kept on proving to be different from what the word of God says, I believe I would have to back up and take a look at myself in the mirror of God’s word. “Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith” [2 Cor. 13:5].

You state that, “It would be wrong for me to say that you should have musical instruments in your church because that could be a stumblingblock for your whole church, at present.” Is that how you approach infant baptism or sprinkling for baptism? Do you believe one can continue to practice infant baptism and sprinkling because the removal of those doctrines and practices would be “a stumblingblock”?

It was “a stumblingblock” to remove the moneychangers and them that sold doves from the temple, but the Lord did it anyway. It was “a stumblingblock” to add circumcision to the will of God, but that did not justify those who thought it was acceptable to bind circumcision. The worship of the church is not decided by what would prove “a stumblingblock,” but by a “thus saith the Lord” (Matt. 28:20; Col. 3:17).

You are a wonderful brother Larry and I thank God for you.

Sincerely, Don.

I appreciate your kind attitude toward me. However, I fear that our vast differences show that we are not in spiritual fellowship with one another. I do not say that to be unkind, but to cause you to think and consider what has been said in the light of God’s word. Please write again and feel free to respond to what I have written. I will be glad to study or discuss Scripture with you or with one of your teachers or preachers.
Sincerely, Larry

Editor’s Note: The following is an email discussion between Larry Hafley and a man by the name of Donald M. Haas. In order to preserve the exact discussion, the exchange is published as received by brother Hafley, with no attempt made to correct spelling, grammar or punctuation errors.

—–0—–0—–0—–0—–0—–

we better stop praying “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”

there are musical instruments in heaven

Thank You Lord Jesus for filling this brothers heart with Your version of Your word.

The Lord won’t agree with my version of “nothin.”

Message text written by donald m haas

—–0—–0—–0—–0—–0—–

Don,

Where did you learn that there are “musical instruments in heaven”?

Please cite the source of your information.

Thanx. Larry

—–0—–0—–0—–0—–0—–

Dear Brother Larry,

I have a blood brother named Larry.

Rev 5:8, 14:2 harps

Rev 8:13, 9:14 trumpets

I know of 5 other references where there is a musical instrument from God or it is His will to have instruments in heaven.

My chief desire for you is that you have all of God’s best for your life and ministry.

All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in the hope of glory!

Love in Christ,

Don

—–0—–0—–0—–0—–0—–

Don ,

Thanks for the information and the passages which you say show that mechanical instruments of music will be in heaven. I, too, want you to have all the blessings of God in Christ Jesus. Now, let me ask some questions about the references you cited.

(1) Revelation 5:8: The passage not only mentions “harps,” but it also mentions “golden” bowls. Will there also be literal golden vials (bowls) in heaven? If so, may we have them in the church today? If we may, how shall we use them in the worship of the church?

(2) Revelation 8:13: Since there are “flying” angels in heaven, are there “flying” angels in the church today? If there are angels that fly in the church today, do they also speak with a “loud voice” in the church as they do in “the midst of heaven”?

(3) Revelation 9:14: Since the “sixth angel” in heaven gave messages to the inhabitants there, does he also give messages to the church today? Since the sixth angel “heard a voice” coming from “the golden altar which is before God,” does he also hear this same voice and communicate the things he hears to the church today (Rev. 9:13)?

(4) Revelation 14:2: Will there be literal water and thunder in heaven? If there is literal thunder in heaven, as we know it, in the church today? If not, how may we utilize such thunder in the worship of the church?

I am curious because it appears that if the passages you cited with respect to musical instruments justifies their use in the church today, then they also authorize the use of the other things that are cited in the same passages. I sincerely would like to hear how we might apply these things in the worship of the church today, as you say we may apply the musical instruments. Thank you for any light you can shed on these matters. Larry

—–0—–0—–0—–0—–0—–

Dear Brother Larry ,

You have become a blessing to me. When you said in your last Email: “I sincerely would like to hear how we might apply these things in the worship of the church today….

I have had the same desire and request before God for sometime now. The desire seems to be growing in my heart. I will continue to delight myself in Him and be found worshipping God. Ultimately I want worship in heaven. But until then I will agree to His will in worship on the earth as it is in heaven. Can you imagine being in a worship situation as it is in heaven like the Bible describes.

Let’s seek Him together for all we can find of His provision for our worship!

I’m sure that your questions can be best answered by the Holy Ghost. Have you received Him as your teacher.

I will share with you a little of what I have learned while meditating on “our 4 verses”.

Rev 5:8 – The bowls contain the prayers of the saints and alot of the worship songs that I’m familiar with are in fact musical prayers or “psalms” it you will. In that context we have the connection with heavenly worship in the church.

Rev 8:13, 9:14 – Angels have been seen and heard in church meetings and I have heard recent reports of such activity. Short of an Angel being manifested in the natural realm it would involve the gifit of the Holy Spirit called discernment of spirits (as the Spirit wills). I have never heard of an Angel manifested in the natural realm in a church meeting.

Rev 14:2- Notice: the voice form heaven as the voice of many waters and as the voice of a great thunder. Here in is described the sound of 144,000 whole hearted, singing, Holy Ghost powered worshippers. The “harpers harping” were heard as well. God believes that we can do that. We just need a few more salvations at my church how about you! I’m sure that youv’e got a sense of humor lurking somewhere in the bullrushes. Amen?

If we had a football stadium size crowd that was behaving like those folks in heaven we would have a similar sound.

The prayers that Paul prayed for the church in Eph. and Col. have been a great help to me. I learned to pray them for my self. They have been what God needed, in part, to increasingly sensitize me to the Holy Ghost. Surely you can see that praying the word of God over yourself, just like the Bible reads, can be efficient.

I will always refer you to the word and the Spirit and admonish you to Seek The Lord. That way we can avoid foolish disputations and pitting our minds against one another. I grew up in a denomination similiar to yours and I expect that a lot of what I can share will not fit what you are use to. I also have needed abundantly confirmation from the Lord on unfamilar things.

It’s always a pleasure to meet faithful and diligent Christian men such as your self.

Love In Christ,

Don

P.S. We use musical instruments in our worship at church because it seems good to us and the Holy Ghost. Acts 15:28

—–0—–0—–0—–0—–0—–

Don,

I am still curious as to whether there will be literal, physical, material harps in heaven. You have not told me.

If the golden bowls were symbols of the prayers of the saints, is it possible that the harps were symbolic also?

You say that you were raised in a denomination similar to mine. Dan, I am not a member of any denomination. I am simply a Spirit led Christian, a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).

You seem to equate the conditions of heaven with those of the church. Since there will be infants in heaven, are infants also members of the church of which you are a member (2 Sam. 12:23)?

Some things which are in heaven are not in the church, such as angel’s speaking directly. Other things in the church will not be in heaven, such as the Lord’s supper, for it is to be taken only until the Lord comes again (1 Cor. 11:26). It is in the church, but it will not be in heaven. Angels directly speak in heaven but do not do so in the church. Infants will be members of heaven’s citizenship, but are not members of the church. Thus, not everything that is in one place will be in another.

Catholics may have infant membership in their churches because it seems good to them and to the Holy Ghost. They may even cite the fact that infants will be in heaven. Still, that does not prove that we should have babies as members of the Lord’s church (Cf. Acts 8:12–”men and women,” NOT, infants).

Therefore, even if you were to prove that literal harps and trumpets will be in heaven, that would not authorize them for the worship of the church today.

Yes, 144,000 were praising God in Revelation 14:2. I wonder if there are rain and thunderstorms in heaven since many waters and great thunder were also heard? If the many waters and great thunders are symbolic, why aren’t the harps (as per Rev. 5:8). However, if the harps are literal, physical harps, why isn’t the water and thunder also literal? You say that since there were harps there, that we may have them in the church today. Well, do you have “many waters” and a “great thunder” in your church today? If one, why not the others?

How does one “receive the Holy Ghost” as his teacher? Too, what does it mean to be sensitized to the Holy Ghost, and how does prayer accomplish this feat? Please cite the passages on prayer that speak of this sensitization.

Where does the Bible say that “praying the word of God over (ourselves), just like the Bible reads, can be efficient”? Rather, see Acts 20:32; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 2:2)

Don, like you, I am opposed to “foolish disputations.” You certainly agree with me that our exchange does not qualify as such.

You speak as though we should not be “pitting” our minds against one another. Yet, this is exactly what the Holy Ghost encourages us to do (Acts 17:2, 3; 19:8, 9; 28:22-30; Phil. 1:17; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3). So, why would you speak against the direct leading of the Holy Ghost with respect to such exchanges?

I know that the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church seem good to you, but where did you learn that the use of such things is “good” to the Holy Ghost? It will not do for you to cite what the Holy Ghost may approve in heaven, for we are here discussing the worship of the church. So, where did you learn that your instruments are “good” to the Holy Ghost?

If you would like, we can arrange for you or for one of your preachers to address the church here on these topics and show us the way of God more perfectly. We are open to study and consideration for the will of God on all such matters (Jn. 3:20, 21).

I shall look forward to hearing from you again.

Larry

—–0—–0—–0—–0—–0—–

Dear Brother Larry,

You certainly have a well oiled mind. I will prayerfully consider all your questions and statements and respond with what I have from the Lord. This will take a few days.

If I may, I would like to ask you a few questions. Not to challenge you, but to have a little more information as to what you are used to.

1. Can you ask the Lord a question and hear him answer it.
2. How does the Holy Ghost behave when your church is in worship.
3. Is it a normal function of the leadership in your church to know what the Holy Ghost wants to do during the course of a meeting. Can He change directions at will during a meeting.

Brother I need to apologize to you for my opening statement in my first E-mail to you.

Looking back at it, it seems insensitive and a little rude. It seems more in the flesh than walking in love and I am sorry for presenting my self to you that way.

Sincerely,

Don

—–0—–0—–0—–0—–0—–

Don,

I appreciate your apology. I didn’t take exception to it but noted that it was terse. I thank you for your courtesy. Now, to your questions.

1) If by “hear him answer it” you mean audibly, orally, the answer is no.

God speaks to us today “by his Son” (Heb. 1;1, 2). We are to “hear…him” (Matt. 17:5). We hear the voice of the Son of God the same way that Abraham expected the five brothers of the rich man to hear Moses and the prophets, i.e., through what they had written (Lk. 16:29; Jn. 5:25). Paul said that some in his day could hear the voices of the Old Testament prophets. How could they do so? By reading what the prophets wrote, they “heard” them (Acts 13:27). That is how Moses was preached; that is, by reading what Moses wrote, Moses was preached (Acts 15:21).

When Jesus wanted his audience to hear what God had spoken, he cited them to Scripture, not to an audible voice (Matt. 22:31, 32). When the Hebrew writer called the Holy Spirit to witness on a point, he cited Scripture, therefore, the Spirit witnesses to us through Scripture (Heb. 10:15, 16). Likewise, God speaks to us today through his word.

His word is all sufficient. It is complete (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Jas. 1:25). We now have all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3). We need no more, for the apostles were guided by the Spirit into “all truth” (Jn. 16:13). Thus, there is nothing more for the Lord to add to us today. The faith has been once for all, one time for all time, delivered unto the saints (Jude 3).

2) Would you kindly cite me a passage which tells how the Spirit is supposed to behave when we worship? What verses in the Bible speak of the Spirit’s behavior during the worship of the saints today? Please supply answers to these questions so I can address your question.

Note that the apostles directed us as to how we ought to behave ourselves “in the house of God, which is the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15). They did not speak of the Spirit’s behavior but of how we ought to behave. Should we not do likewise? Why speak of the Spirit’s behavior in the church when the apostles did not do so?

Does the Spirit ever misbehave in your worship? Does the Spirit ever show any direct disapproval of anything that goes on in worship? How do you know? What Scripture shows us how the Spirit is to behave and what Scriptures show us how to recognize when the Spirit is displeased with our worship? Does every church, from charismatic Catholics to praying Pentecostals, have the approval of the Spirit in their work and worship?

Don, the answers to these questions will be helpful to me in replying to your question more completely.

3) First, your wondering about the Spirit’s random change of will would seem to contradict what the Spirit himself said in 1 Corinthians 14:33, 40. If the Spirit indeed changes “directions at will during a meeting,” that would result in confusion and disorder, things of which the Spirit has said he is not the author.

The Holy Spirit has already shown us how he wants us to worship and serve God. As 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, clearly reveals, he has given us everything we need. We have everything which is sufficient for every good work. He has outlined those things for us and given us specific rules by which we are to walk (1 Cor. 4:6, 16, 17; 11:1, 2, 23-26; 14:33, 40; Phil. 3:16, 17). Thus, we know how we ought to walk and to please God (1 Thess. 4:1). We need no further instruction along that line. If so, then 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 is false!

Since Jesus is “the head over all things to the church,” we do not listen to another, not even to an angel from heaven (Gal. 1:8, 9). We listen to Christ and to his will. The church is to be subject unto Christ (Eph. 5:23, 24). He has told us what to do “during the course of a meeting” (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42). Thus, we need not inquire of the Spirit. Jesus, not the Spirit, is the head of the church; therefore, we do what he has commanded, what he has authorized through the word given by the Spirit unto the apostles (Lk. 10;16; 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Jn. 4:6).

Not only shall I anxiously await your reply to this material, but also to the previous note to which you have promised to respond after you give it more thought. Again, if you or one of your teachers should desire to do so, we would be glad for them to speak for us and show us how the Spirit is to behave and lead our worship. We are open to study and are willing to hear others who may disagree with us. We want to know and to do God’s will in all things. Anyone who can help us know the truth more perfectly is our friend (Acts 18:24-26).

Larry

—–0—–0—–0—–0—–0—–

(Editor’s Note: In this section, Donald Haas’ post and Larry Hafleys reply are combined. Larry’s reply to each point is contained in parenthesis. Haas’ material has been italicized to make it easier to deliniate between the two. )

Dear Brother Larry,

I’ve numbered my responses for my own use.

1. Heaven is a strictly spiritual place meaning it does not exist in the natural realm. Heaven cannot be perceived with natural human perceptions that are designed for use here in the natural realm on the earth. As the Lord wills He can show heaven to a human but it will be “in the spirt” not in the natural. If we were with John in heaven when he witnessed Rev 5:8, we would have experienced spiritual reality in heaven and observed, with him, the activities there. The harps would have appeared to us as literal, material, physical harps which the beasts and the elders each had when they fell down before the Lamb. Their existence however would be in the spiritual realm.

(Don, you’re right! Thus, the harps are not literal instruments as we know them. Therefore, you have not proven that harps will be in heaven; yet, when we began this study, the presence of harps in heaven was your proof that they should be in the worship of the church today. So, you are back to square one. Since literal, material harps are not in heaven, how do you prove that they may be used in the worship of the church today?)

2. The golden bowls were not symbols of the prayers of the saints. They contained odors “which are the prayers of the saints.”

(The golden bowls were not literal, material golden bowls, which is what you must find in order to establish that literal, material harps are in heaven, for this, according to your initial argument, would prove that such harps may be used in the worship of the church today. They are not physical, material harps or bowls, therefore, you have not proven that mechanical instruments of music may be used in the worship of the church.)

3. Perhaps I should apologize to you on behalf of the Holy ghost because He is not willing that I respond to your questions and statements as you require.

(Don, no man can apologize for the Holy Ghost, or on his behalf, for the Spirit of God cannot sin, cannot err. You say that the Holy Ghost “is not willing that I respond to your questions and statements as you require.” Well, Don, the Holy Ghost told me that he expects you to respond to my questions and statements. He said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” [1Pet. 3:15]. The Spirit said, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” [1 Thess. 5:21]. This is the will of the Holy Ghost as he expressed it in the word of God. Now, you say, “He is not willing that I respond to your questions and statements.” Don, how did you learn this? Why would the Spirit tell you something which contradicts his revealed will as given in the Bible?)

I was led by the Spirit to “resign from the debating society” some years ago. I do welcome situations where people are willing to let the Lord use me to minister His word to them. In that case He will.

(Don, what is this “debating society” of which you speak? I am not a member of it, and I did not know you once had been a member of it.

When you say you welcome situations “where people are willing to let the Lord use me to minister His word to them,” do you mean by this that you will teach them so long as they do not question or reason with you? Do you mean that you can only “minister” to them so long as they do not respond or object to what you say? If that is not what you mean, then what is your point? Please explain.

We read where the apostles ministered the word of God to people, but they did so with great controversy, with much reasoning, even as our Lord did at age 12 [Lk. 2:46--"both hearing them, and asking them questions." Cf. Acts 17:2, 3]

Further, if you resigned from “the debating society,” why have you been engaging in this exchange with me? This very reply of yours, which I am now reviewing is in debate form. If it is not, what do you mean by debating?

Generally, Don, I have found that folks resign from “the debating society” when they find they cannot sustain their doctrine from the Bible. Up to this point, you have been engaged in a written discussion with me. Now, you inform me that you cannot respond to me, though you tell me this as you respond to certain of my “questions and statements,” even numbering them as you make your response!! Can you not see your inconsistency here?)

When I wrote against “pitting our minds against one another, I was referring to the verses that say: …”the man of God must not strive”, and “we wrestle not against flesh and blood”. I struggled for years in my discipleship while striving with people combined with leaning to my own understanding of the Bible. The truth that set me free from this difficulty is that God can use who He wants, the way He wants, when He wants and it will never be based on my understanding. Period! Jesus became Lord of my understanding when previously, in part, my understanding was Lord.

(Don, when the Bible says not to strive, is it forbidding such a Bible study and discussion as we are having? If so, then Paul sinned in Acts 28:22-31 when he invited folks in and studied and reasoned from the Scriptures. If not, what is your point? No, we are not to engage in angry quarrels and strife, but that is not what you and I are doing. At least, I am not. We are commanded to “earnestly contend for the faith,” and Paul said he was “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17; Jude 3). Surely, you believe you must do as the Holy Ghost instructs you to do; that is, to dispute the Scriptures with those who are lost in error [Acts 9:29; 17:2, 3, 16, 17; 18:4; 19:8, 9].

You are correct in saying that we are not to lean on our own understanding, for that is what the Holy Ghost says [Prov. 3:5-7]. However, the Holy Ghost commands us to “understand” what the will of the Lord is, and he says we can do that when we read the New Testament [Eph. 3:4; 5:17]. I assume you believe those words of the Holy Ghost. Thus, you are bound by the Holy Ghost to share your understanding with others [2 Tim. 2:2, 15].

You cited Ephesians 6:12, where it says we are not to wrestle against flesh and blood. In that text, the Spirit is not telling us we may not reason with others. If so, he would contradict what he said elsewhere–”Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” [Jas. 5:19, 20]. Further, if in saying that “‘we wrestle not against flesh and blood’” the Holy Ghost is saying we should not reason with those in error, why did He say, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them” [Eph. 5:11]? See the problem? In one place, the Spirit tells us to expose or reprove error by taking “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,” but in the same context, according to you, he tells us not to reason with others with respect with what we understand the Scriptures to teach [Eph. 5:11; 6:12, 17].

Don, either the Holy Ghost contradicted himself, or you have misapplied Ephesians 6:12. Please explain.)

The only version of the word of God that He will agree to is His; the version that the Holy Ghost teaches. One Old timer said: “Some read the Bible in Hebrew and some read it in Greek, but I read it in the Holy Ghost”.

(Don, would you please be so kind as to type me some “Holy Ghost” Scripture without using Hebrew, Greek, or English, etc.? I would love to read Scripture in that Holy Ghost version, so if you could please e-mail me some of it, I would like to see it. Thanks in advance.

In the New Testament, Jesus quoted from the Septuagint [Greek translation of O.T., Hebrew Scripture]. May we not do as the Lord did? Surely, Jesus could have used that Holy Ghost version of which you spoke, yet, he, like us, quoted from a Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture. Again, what is wrong with us doing as he did?)

Paul ministered against unbelief with revelation knowledge that he received from the Lord. His “speech and preaching was not with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.”

(Right you are, Don, and when we read what he wrote, we are reading “the commandments of the Lord” as given by the Holy Ghost [Cf. 1 Cor. 2:12, 13; 14:37]. When we refer to what the Spirit recorded in the Bible, we are speaking as the oracles of God and are not using the enticing words of man’s wisdom but are using the wisdom of God as revealed in the word of God, the Bible [2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2, 15; 4:2-4; 1 Pet. 4:11].)

The anointing of God coming from within Paul (from his spirit) effected the listener’s spirits and those that were able to receive would be changed into believers by this ministry.

(Don, “faith cometh by hearing” the word of God as expressed by the apostles. We believe through their word which they received from the Spirit [Jn. 16:13; 17:20; Rom. 10:17].)

Nothing that originates with me is of any value in ministry of the word. If I cannot speak, what I hear the Holy Ghost gives me to say to you, then I am of no value to the lord as a vessel. I would just be an “information booth” reciting my understanding. You would never get Jesus from me you would only get Don the earthen vessel.

(No one, certainly not me, wants to hear Don’s wisdom. However, I do want to hear you “preach the word” and “sound out the word of the Lord” as given by the Spirit in the Bible. Now, if your paragraph above is saying you cannot answer my “questions and statements,” why have you done so anyway? Why have you given me your understanding of certain passages in the book of Revelation and Ephesians? Were you being an “‘information booth’” in this note of yours, or were you attempting to help me to know and understand the will of God?

Is this the way you deal with evolutionists and other infidels? Do you refuse to try to teach them and convert them because you would be giving them your word, and because you would be just “an ‘information booth’ reciting [your own] understanding” to them? Is that how you deal with your friends and neighbors who are not Christians? Do you refuse to study with them and show them the truth as you understand it from the word of God? No, it is not! Likewise, then why not treat me the same way?

Again, no one wants anything that “originates with” you. I certainly do not. However, I want you to show me where pianos, organs, harps, and other such instruments of music “originated” in the New Testament for the worship of the Lord’s church. Do not give me your own understanding, give me the passages that “originate” such things for the worship of the church. Will you do it? Can you do it?)

4. If I made an incorrect assumption about my coming from a denomination similar to yours, then I ask your forgiveness. The church that I grew up in was called the 1st Church of Christ. My understanding back then was that it was the same as the Church of Christ across town except that they believed against using musical instruments in church and we called them “The non musical Church of Christ”. The church that I was in was real strong on accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior and making a public confession of your faith. They ministered a lot on baptism by immersion in water. At the age of nine I was born again and baptized in water. They seemed to be opposed to any thing that might come under the heading of Charismatic or Pentecostal activities.

(Don, there is no offense taken about your assumption regarding the church. I am simply a Christian [Acts 11:26]. I have been saved by grace through faith [Eph. 2:8, 9; Cf. Acts 19:5). The Lord redeemed me by his blood [1 Pet. 1:18, 19]. He did this when I repented and was “baptized…in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” [Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16]. At this point, I was “baptized into one body,” the church [1 Cor. 12:13].

I note that you say you were “born again and baptized in water.” Don, where does the Bible teach, where does the Holy Ghost say, that one is born again before he is baptized? I would like to know. Or, did that idea “originate” with you?)

5. “Praying the Word” refers to an approach to prayer that focuses what the Bible says on the need. For example: I have 6 young children at home. The oldest is eleven. In the last year I would estimate that around 15 times it came to my attention that one or more of the children had symptoms of sickness on their body. Stomach ache, nausea, congestion, coughing etc.,. etc. Any of these symptoms could develop into something more serious of not checked. In this type of situation I will pray after this fashion: Thank You Heavenly Father for your word that says: by his stripes ye were healed, thank you for your word that says Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses, thank you for your word that says Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law (which includes every plague and sickness not written in the book of this law, Gal 3:13 and Deut 28:61) I ask You Father in the Name of Jesus to watch over your Holy Word and perform it in this child’s body. Thank You Heavenly Father for healing my child in Jesus Name. Satan! In the mighty Name of Jesus I command you and every demon of sickness and disease and infirmity to go from this house. Jesus gave me authority over you all and made me the head of this house. Get off of my property. Now! In Jesus Name I said Go!!!

Usually all symptoms disappear within hours

(Don, I thought you said you were opposed to being an “information booth.” I thought you did not want to present things that “originates with me.” You said, “Nothing that originates with me is of any value in ministry of the word.” Yet, immediately above, you have done just that. You have given your testimony, your own understanding. In so doing, you have misapplied what the Holy Ghost said. Surely, you know that Galatians 3:13 has nothing to do with physical healing! Surely, you know that Jesus “fulfilled” Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:16, 17, and that miraculous, divine healing is not incorporated in the promise of Isaiah 53:4 for believers today.

I am puzzled by your use of the word, “usually,” when you said, “Usually all symptoms disappear within hours.” What do you mean, “usually”? Does God occasionally fail in fulfilling his promises? If not, why the word, “usually”? Further, “young children” the age of yours often have such maladies as you describe and they disappear “within hours.” The same thing happens in the homes of atheists and unbelieving Jews and Muslims. So, that is not a miraculous fulfillment of Scripture.

May I correctly assume, given your testimony above, that your house contains no cold remedy, cough syrup, aspirin, or stomach medicine of any kind?)

6. If I were to pray the Word over you like Paul did the church in Ephesians it would be after this fashion: I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto Larry Ray Hafley the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of Larry’s understanding being enlightened; that Larry may know what is the hope of Your calling, Father, and what the riches of the glory of Your inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of Your power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of Your mighty power, Which You wrought in Christ, when You raised him from the dead, and set him at Your own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

(Don, I thank you for your sincere concern for my growth in the Lord. Perhaps you would do well to cite what Paul told the Ephesians as the means to fulfill his prayer for them–”I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” [Acts 20:32]. In order for the Ephesians to receive the benefit of the prayer for them, they were told to “read, [that] ye may understand” [Eph. 3:4]. That is how that prayer will be fulfilled today [1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 2:2].)

After I prayed this way for my self consistently, (for a season) it became obvious that the spirit of wisdom and revelation was operating freely in my life. I became able to look at most any place in the bible and began to receive increased understanding or revelation knowledge from the Holy Ghost. I became able to minister with the Holy Spirit much more accurately and efficiently.

(Don, if this is so, why, then, have you made so many blunders in this response of yours? Several of your errors and misapplications of Scripture have been pointed out in this reply. Surely, you do not blame the Holy Ghost for leading you astray! To illustrate the charge, you state that through prayer you received ” increased understanding.” However, the Holy Ghost says that such understanding comes from reading and studying the word of God [Acts 20:32; Eph. 3:4; 1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 2:2, 15; 1 Pet. 2:2]. Why do you say that you received understanding one way, through prayer, directly from the Holy Ghost, while the Bible says such understanding comes through reading and study? Please explain.)

One man that benefitted the same way that I have from this said: It’s amazing that the deacons didn’t come and pull me in out of the rain. Before, I was preaching like I had no sense.

(Don, the above paragraph is some more of your “‘information booth’” religion. It is from you, not from the Holy Ghost, not from the Bible. Earlier you said, “If I cannot speak, what I hear the Holy Ghost give me to say to you, then I am of no value to the lord as a vessel.” If that is so, why did you give me the last two paragraphs? You see, they conflict with your earlier statements.

If you and that other gentleman were “preaching like [you] had no sense,” does that mean you were not preaching from the word of God? Were you ignoring the Bible when you preached like you had “no sense”? It’s possible for men to preach like they have no sense, and it is possible for them to do so while they pervert Scripture. Which scenario describes you during the time you were “preaching like [you] had no sense”?)

What is revealed by the spirit of wisdom and revelation is God’s understanding of His Word. It is uncontaminated by the wisdom of man, man’s intellect, man’s ego, logical deductions and all that seems right to a man. The pure, blessed, Holy mind of Christ is made available.

(Don, did you not know that, “The pure, blessed, Holy mind of Christ is made available” to us in the Bible? Paul said he had “the mind of Christ” [1 Cor. 2:16; 7:40]. When we read what he and the others wrote, we, too, have access to “the mind of Christ” [1 Cor. 14:37; Eph. 3:4]. As shown above, this knowledge comes through study and reading, not directly through prayer.

Your statement immediately above says there is God’s word, the Bible, and then there is “God’s understanding of His Word.” This understanding is, you say, revealed through prayer. Don, would you please read a passage from the Holy Ghost that says this? Where does the Spirit of God speak of the revelation of the word of God and also the revelation of the understanding of that word? You speak of it, you make that distinction in the paragraph above, but, like you said, your word is nothing. The word of God is all that matters. Therefore, I should like to see that distinction taught by the Holy Ghost. Can you produce it? Did the idea “originate” with you or with the Holy Ghost? I should like to know. Will you show me from the Bible?)

We become sensitized to the Holy Spirit who Is enabled by our praying of His Word to open the scriptures up for us; not unlike Jesus opening the scriptures for His disciples.

(Don, where does the Bible teach what you just said in the paragraph above? Or, did this idea “originate” with you? Where did you learn that “the Holy Spirit…is enabled by our praying of His Word to open the scriptures up for us”? Remember, “Nothing that originates with me is of any value in ministry of the word.”

Yes, the Lord opened the understanding of the disciples, but note that he did so on that occasion through teaching and instruction [Lk. 24:27; Acts 1:2, 3]. He did not do so by telling them to “pray through the word” or “through the Holy Ghost, as you tell me to do. Rather, he taught them. Don, why does the practice of the Lord differ from what you are telling me? How can you say you have a direct knowledge and enlightenment from the Holy Ghost when you keep making mistakes like this?)

This is not a substitute for worship, prayer and fasting, seeking God, intimacy with God, praying in the Holy Ghost and all the time needed for preparation to minister.

6. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

(Don, John 14:26 cannot be a promise to you. Note that is was made to those who had been with Jesus “from the beginning” [Jn. 15:27]. That certainly does not describe you [Acts 1:21, 22]! Further, note that the passage says Jesus will remind those to whom he was speaking of “all things…whatsoever I have said unto you.” Now, Don, just what things are there that Jesus spoke to you that he needs to remind you of? You see, Don, Jesus was speaking to those disciples, to the men to whom he had spoken and instructed [Acts 1:2, 3]. He promised them, NOT you and me, that he would remind them of things he had said. He could not make such a promise to you, for he has never spoken to you as he did to them. Thus, the passage is not a promise to you.)

If I want to pray in agreement with this scripture I might pray: Dear Holy Ghost, Jesus said that You are the teacher of all things and I ask in the Name of Jesus that You would be my teacher and that you would enable me by your grace, mercy, wisdom, knowledge,help and unction to be one of your excellent students. From this day forward You are my teacher and I am learning what ever you are teaching. In Jesus Holy Name I pray, Amen.

(Bless your heart, Don, but would you please read to me where the Holy Ghost ever originated such a prayer as that? Where does the word of God exhort us to say a prayer like that? Really, though, why is such a prayer necessary? In the paragraph above this one, you said that Jesus promised to give you such miraculous wisdom and understanding through the Holy Ghost. Is that promise, which you say is intended for you, contingent upon your prayer? If so, where does the Bible say so?

When Paul commended the Ephesian elders to the word of God and when he told the Ephesians to “read,” he failed to tell them of the prayer you just gave me [Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 14:37; Eph. 3:4] . Why is that? Why didn’t the apostles give the advice you gave? Why did they say, “study” and “read” when it would have been so much easier for us if they had told us to simply pray for that knowledge as you advise me to do? Would you please explain why they told us to “read” while you say we ought to “pray” and let God give it to us through the Holy Ghost?)

It is not the exact wording that is important but praying in agreement with the Spirit and The Word, believing in your heart and confession in agreement with it. Refer to the principles found in Rom 10:9,10. Very simply, I believe what Jesus said about it and the Holy Ghost is my teacher.

(Don, Romans 10;9, 10, gives no principle which we may apply to your teaching. It says to confess and believe. It says nothing about prayer. Further, just seven verses later, the Spirit says “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” So, the faith of verses 9 and 10 does not come by prayer, but by hearing. But to fit and apply to your doctrine, it ought to say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and since that faith in him comes after you pray through the Holy Ghost, then you must pray through the word to get it.” That is not what the text says; hence, it does not apply to your doctrine.

For a man who is supposed to be giving me, not his word, but the very word of the Holy Ghost, you surely are managing to be in conflict with the word of the Holy Ghost in the Bible.)

• 1 the voice from heaven
  2 as the voice of many waters
  3 and as the voice of a great thunder
  1. Large number of strong singers worshiping.
  2. Singing a new song
  3. Harpers harping (stringed instruments) at an appropriate volume

7. Rev 14:2- Notice:

Here in is described the sound of the 144,000. The “harpers harping” were heard as well. The harpers had to be producing a very loud volume to be heard along with the 144,000.

There is a pattern here that God likes to see in church meetings.

(Don, Revelation 14:2 says absolutely nothing about the church, or the worship of the church on earth today. Why, then, do you say it ” is a pattern…that God likes to see in church meetings”? I suspect this idea “originated” with you, and not with the Holy Ghost, for he has given no such pattern as you describe. Again, though, if the voice of harpers harping with their harps justifies harps in the worship of the church today, does the voice as the voice of a great thunder mean there are thunderstorms in heaven? In your opening paragraph, you said that the harps of Revelation 5 were “spiritual,” not material, physical harps. Are the harps here also “spiritual” in their nature and composition? If so, then you still have not found a material harp to justify the use of material, mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church today. I am still looking for that proof. Perhaps you ought to pray a little harder through the word and ask the Holy Ghost to show you where the authorization for such things may be found.)

8. We need to unconditionally open our selves up unto God. And cry out to Him for His version of our lives, our gifts, our ministries, our home, our church. It is far more important for God to find us worshipping Him privately than it is to struggle with our understanding about instruments in church. It would be wrong for me to say that you should have musical instruments in your church because that could be a stumbling block for your whole church, at present. I want you to have God’s best and I have shared with you some of what I have to that end.

(Don, where does the Bible teach that, “It is far more important for God to find us worshipping Him privately than it is to struggle with our understanding about instruments in church”? That is what you said, but where does the Holy Ghost say it? Your word is not sufficient; it is not my guide. So, if you will direct me to where the Holy Ghost said such a thing, I will believe it.

Jesus did not think that our private worship was “far more important” than our understanding of certain doctrines. He did not teach that “worshiping him privately” “is far more important” than our public doctrines or teachings. He said that when we draw near to him (whether privately or publicly) and we do so while keeping our own human traditions, that our worship is “in vain,” void [Matt. 15:8, 9, 13, 14; Cf. 7:21-27]. Again, Don, your advice, judgments, and pronouncements are shown to contradict what the Holy Ghost and Jesus said. If what I said kept on proving to be different from what the word of God says, I believe I would have to back up and take a look at myself in the mirror of God’s word. “Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith” [2 Cor. 13:5].

You state that, “It would be wrong for me to say that you should have musical instruments in your church because that could be a stumblingblock for your whole church, at present.” Is that how you approach infant baptism or sprinkling for baptism? Do you believe one can continue to practice infant baptism and sprinkling because the removal of those doctrines and practices would be “a stumblingblock”?

It was “a stumblingblock” to remove the moneychangers and them that sold doves from the temple, but the Lord did it anyway. It was “a stumblingblock” to add circumcision to the will of God, but that did not justify those who thought it was acceptable to bind circumcision. The worship of the church is not decided by what would prove “a stumblingblock,” but by a “thus saith the Lord” (Matt. 28:20; Col. 3:17).

You are a wonderful brother Larry and I thank God for you.
Sincerely, Don.

(I appreciate your kind attitude toward me. However, I fear that our vast differences show that we are not in spiritual fellowship with one another. I do not say that to be unkind, but to cause you to think and consider what has been said in the light of God’s word. Please write again and feel free to respond to what I have written. I will be glad to study or discuss Scripture with you or with one of your teachers or preachers. Sincerely, Larry)

Editor’s Note: This article is the final article brother Larry Hafley will write under the heading “Queries and Explications.” Question and Answer columns are common in magazines, and Q&A formats are common on the internet as well. However, we have found that utilizing the column format on the internet in this way to be rather unworkable. Too often the questions sent in were not conducive to answering in this format. Some thought that the feature was a research tool, and used it to request information we could not supply. One visitor who obviously had not read any of our articles asked for a list of denominations with predominately black memberships in the Philadelphia area! Others were simply asking for advice from Larry. Many expected that every query would receive a response, something that is obviously not possible due to Larry’s time constraints. The intention was to supply a list of questions that could be answered from month to month in this forum. So, though this noble experiment is coming to an end, we are by no means saying goodbye to Larry. He will continue to write a monthly column which will come out under another name beginning with the March issue. Too, we will depend on his prodigious pen to complement our magazine with other materials from time to time. This will free Larry from the constraints of a Q&A column, and allow him to write on those issues he feels are greatest in importance.

Because such things were done in the Old Testament, in a physical, military kingdom, does not mean that we may do them today. No, the weapons of our warfare “are not carnal” or worldly weapons (2 Corinthians 10:3-5; Ephesians 6:10-17). Just so, we cannot use the Old Testament to sanction our worship today.

David had seven wives and the Old Testament says he “took more” (2 Samuel 3:4; 5:13). Ask your friends if it would be pleasing to God for a man today to have seven or eight wives. Since David did, can we do likewise? If the Old Testament justifies their mechanical instruments, does it also justify multiple marriages (Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4)?

When folks appeal to the Old Testament for authority for their musical instruments, they admit two things: (1) They need to find authority for them. (2) They cannot find authority for them in the New Testament. Therefore, show them that we are not under the Old Testament law. Instruct them that we are “under the law to Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21).

Study carefully, Romans 7:1-7. Paul shows we are “dead to the (Old Testament) law” (v. 4). That law said, “Thou shalt not covet” (v. 7). Now, which law was it that said, “Thou shalt not covet” (Exodus 20:17)? It was the Old Testament law. Paul says we are “dead” and “delivered from the law,” the Old Testament law.

Is it wrong to covet? Yes, but it is wrong, not because the Old Testament says so, but because the New Testament says so (Ephesians 5:3-5). Likewise, with the instruments of music. Yes, they are authorized in the Old Testament, but we are “dead to” and “delivered from” that law. If those instruments are still authorized, one will have to find authority for them in the New Testament. This he cannot do. It is not there.

Again, remember, if there were authority for instruments in the New Testament, they would not be going back to the Old Testament.

Study carefully, Galatians 5:1-4. What is the condition of a man who seeks to justify circumcision by appealing to the authority of the Old Testament? He is “fallen from grace” (v. 4). Now, instead of circumcision, put mechanical instruments in those verses. If one uses the Old Testament to justify the instruments, he is a “debtor to do the whole law” (v. 3). That is, if he binds the instruments, he must also bind the burning of incense, Sabbath keeping, circumcision, the priesthood of Aaron, and all the rest of the Old Testament.

God once spoke unto men by the Old Testament prophets, but now he speaks unto us “by his Son” (Hebrews 1:1, 2). We no longer appeal to quaking, shaking Sinai, but unto the heavenly Mt. Zion (Hebrews 12:18-28). We no longer hear Moses who spake on earth but our Lord who speaketh from heaven. The voice from the earth, the Old Testament, spoke of both incense and the instrument. The one who speaketh from heaven speaks of neither.

Simply tell those who make the arguments to speak as the oracles of God; that is, speak as those who are divinely appointed speak (1 Peter 4:11). Keep the verses before them that show that we are to “sing”and make melody in our hearts to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Continue to impress those verses upon their minds.

Did you know that although there are some references to the introduction of organs or harps, etc. as early as the 7th Century in Catholic historical documents here and there, it was rare and was so innovative as to be considered as heretical for nearly a thousand years after this? One fairly early, highly quoted and well known Catholic writer, Thomas Aquinas wrote in the 13th Century, “Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize” (Bingham’s Antiquities, Vol. 3, page 137).

To further emphasize the view that most more careful Catholic scholars opposed the introduction of instrumental music in worship note the words of Erasmus, a beloved scholar of King Henry VIII of England in the 16th Century: “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” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:19).

With this being the attitute of “the Catholic Church greats” of the time we need to think about this phrase in a new light, don’t we? Let us think about “a capella” for a moment. We see how this phrase got into common usage in the Catholic Church, don’t we? Obviously, when teaching music and directing a choral group it was taught that some music is appropriate for worship and everything else is not. Music fit for worship is to be “a capella,” as music is done in church. Many in the Catholic Church tried for nearly a thousand years to enforce this view but eventually lost this battle in that denomination. It is interesting to note that the Eastern Orthodox (some think of it as the Eastern Catholic Church) which split from the Catholic Church in the 7th Century has never to this day allowed mechanical instruments of music in its worship. They are very strict traditionalists and staying faithful to tradition they have never bowed to the winds of change that most other denominations have. They still literally believe in music that is truly “a capella.”

Of course, in our time it is popularly thought that instruments of music were always used in worship. Our friends among the denominations often reveal this as their common belief. It is eye opening for many to see just what early religionists thought about this subject. Listed below are a few quotes on the use of musical instruments in worship according to some of the earliest authorities:

(1) John Girardeau, a Presbyterian, said, The church, although lapsing more and more into defection from the truth and into a corruption of apostolic practice, had no instrumental music for 1,200 years (that is it was not in general use before this time); the Calvinistic Reformed Church ejected it from its services as an element of popery, even the Church of England having come very nigh to its extrusion from her worship. It is heresy in the sphere of worship” (Instrumental Music, page 179).

(2) John Bingham, Episcopalian, said “Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music not so” (Works, Vol. 3, page 137).

(3) John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, said, “I have no objection to the instruments being in our chapels, provided they are neither seen nor heard.”

(4) Theodore H. Spurgeon, (1834-1892), one of the greatest preachers and most prolific writers of the Baptist faith, said, “…What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it” (Commentary on Psalms 42:4).

(5) One more quote and this one is from Sir Richard Terry (Director of Music for nearly 25 years at Westminister Cathedral) who gives a little historical remembrance in the following quote from his native Scotland when this was written in the late 1920′s: “The history of Scottish music is full of paradoxes. Most of us are old enough to have caught echoes of the furious opposition to instrumental music in the Kirk (“kirk” is Scot. for “church”). This was supposed to be a protest against ‘Popish practices’ and it is only in modern times that Scottish church music has ceased to be exclusively vocal” (quoted by Percy A. Scholes, The Puritans and Music in England and New England, Oxford at the Clarendon Press: 1934; reprinted 1969, page 220).

The point of giving these quotes from such persons is to show that instrumental music as used in worship is a relatively new thing and was always opposed when introduction was proposed. It took many centuries for it to gain final acceptance from even these religions that were originated by men. Yes, it did finally come to be accepted, as we all know into virtually every denomination but it is satisfying to us to realize that as an innovation it was at least resisted by many.

The truth is that the New Testament ONLY mentions VOCAL music. I would suggest that you read the following Scriptures: Mt. 26:30; Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 5:13; Heb. 2:12; and Heb. 13:15. Please notice specifically that only singing, i. e. vocal music is mentioned. It would be displeasing to our Lord to use any other means of musical expression than with the voices He created within each and every one of us. Eph. 5:19, “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (NKJ)

M.C. Kurfees Louisville, Ky., March, 1898

Many skeptics attempt to throw discredit upon the Bible because its religion is purely a religion of faith. They tell us we have never seen the joyous “summer land,” nor heard the enchanting music of angels in sweet vibrations “beyond the river,” but that it all rests on faith. But the same may be said of other things founded on faith whose credibility, in the estimation of skeptics, is not affected by this circumstance. The fact that in sowing and reaping, boarding a railway car for transportation, or carrying on commercial intercourse with each other, men can only believe success will crown their efforts as it has the efforts of others in the past, is never urged as a reason for not acting. On the contrary, it only shows that men act on the principle of faith, and that they act in proportion as the evidence is strong and convincing. Hence, as a matter of fact, it is not unreasonable to act where action rests exclusively on faith; and hence, the objection has no force against the Bible.

But, not only is Christianity, as a system, purely a system of faith (Gal. iii. 23), but, in order to its acceptableness, all service, which we render to God, must be of faith. No proposition is more clearly established in the Word of God than this. Not only is it plainly declared that “we walk by faith,” but in Heb. xi. 6, is the explicit statement that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Any act of religious worship, therefore, however great or small, must be of faith in order to please God. This does not mean that every act of man outside of religious service must be of faith. Man may follow his own wisdom or reason in the management of his own affairs, but in the service or worship of God, the only legitimate use of man’s wisdom or reason is to acquiesce in whatever divine wisdom has revealed, and to thus “walk by faith.” In the management of all affairs exclusively his own, man has the unquestionable right to follow his own judgment, provided he contravenes no principle of moral propriety or righteousness. In other words, beyond the regulation of man’s conduct in all spheres of action by principles of moral integrity and righteous dealing, God has no where legislated for man, except in the service to be rendered exclusively to Him. In this sphere, however, God has legislated. He has ordained the worship to be rendered to Him, and human wisdom must neither add to, take from, nor in any way modify what He has prescribed, otherwise those who do so are walking by their own judgment, and not by faith. Hence, that we may see the principle on which all acceptable service to God must be rendered, let us now consider-

I. Faith Defined in Distinction From Opinion.

Two questions properly answered will present this distinction in its true light.

1. What is it to walk by faith? In Rom. x. 17, Paul declares: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” This settles it as to how faith comes; it comes by hearing the Word of God. Accordingly, where there is no Word of God there can be no faith; and if no faith, then no walking by faith. This is not the opinion of any man or set of men; it is the unquestionable teaching of God’s Word. Hence, if hearing the Word of God is the way faith comes, then where the Word of God is, there can be faith, but none beyond that. If, therefore, the Word of God says nothing concerning a given course, there can be no faith in pursuing that course, for faith comes by hearing the word of God. And hence, since we are to “walk by faith,” and “without faith it is impossible to please God,” it follows that in any matter whatsoever in which we are not directed by the Word of God, we are neither walking by faith, nor pleasing God. This prepares us for the second question:
2. What is it to walk by opinion? In Jno. iii. 1, 2, we have the words: “There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; the same came to Jesus by night and said unto Him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” But, you are ready to ask, what has such a passage to do with the question before us? Let us see. There are two questions in connection with this famous conversation to which I wish to call attention: (1) Did Nicodemus come to Jesus by night? The universal and unanimous response from all believers in the Bible of every class and distinction is, that he did. But what is the cause of this perfect unity of sentiment? Simply because the Bible says he came by night, and there is always union where all follow what the Bible says. (2) Why did he come by night, and not by day? It would be easy to find an answer to this question among the theologians. But the trouble with this class of wise men is, that to attempt to follow their guidance in such matters is like the attempt to ride two horses in opposite directions at the same time. One class of them tells us Nicodemus acted in this instance through fear of his colleagues in the Jewish Sanhedrim, choosing the curtain of night behind which to converse unobserved with the Great Teacher. Others tell us it was not through fear, but to avoid the crowds that gathered about Jesus during the day, the eminent ruler of the Jews preferring the stillness of the night that he might converse undisturbed with the Galilean Reformer. Now, one or the other of these views may be correct; but, as the Bible does not say one word about it, no mortal can know why he came by night. And this is precisely what is true of all the learned theologians. They only tell what they think about it; that is, they express their opinion. The word opinion signifies what one thinks, and in religious matters, it means what men think concerning matters on which the Bible is silent. The distinction, therefore, between faith and opinion is perfectly clear. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God; opinion is what men think where the Word of God does not speak. Hence, when men introduce as worship to God, as service to be rendered to Him, things on which His Word is silent, they walk by opinion and not by faith. And now, that the essentiality of walking by faith in all religious matters, and never by opinion, may still more clearly appear, let us examine-

II. The Fundamental Principle Laid Down by Jesus in His Definition of Vain Worship.

This principle is found in Matt. xv. 9, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Here is a plain statement of two undeniable facts: 1. These Scribes and Pharisees were worshipping God. I am aware that what they were doing was condemned by Jesus, but it was worship, nevertheless, for Jesus himself so pronounced it. 2. But it was vain worship, because they were doing, as religious service, things which God had not commanded. Even the small matter of washing the hands was among the things severely condemned by Jesus; but is it wrong to wash hands? No, if it is done outside of religious service; but yes, emphatically yes, if it is done in religious service when there is no command of God for it. Here is a fact, then, that should be thoroughly and indelibly impressed upon every heart, that according to Jesus, an act, such as washing the hands, which is wholly sinless outside of religious service, is, nevertheless, sinful when performed in religious service in the absence of any command of God. Hence, although engaged in worshipping God, men may, at the same time, be under the condemnation of Jesus, because they are doing that which is ordered by man, and not by the Lord, which Jesus says is vain worship.

Much of the worship in the religious world of to-day is vain worship. We are now prepared to notice-

III. The Application of These Principlies in the Light of God’s Dealings with Man.

First of all, the inspired Scriptures clearly set forth the fact that whenever and wherever persons attempted to do as service to God, either what He had forbidden or what He had not commanded, it was rejected. Through Samuel the prophet, the Lord issued a command to king Saul in the following words: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” 1. Sam. xv. The record informs us that Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur, but that he and the people took Agag the king alive, and spared the best of the sheep and oxen. That is, they followed their own wisdom in the matter. Further on, we will see why Saul did this, and that he has many successors and imitators today. When he and Samuel met, the disobedient king addressed Samuel thus: “Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” Samuel replied: “What meaneth, then, the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” Hoping to make amends for his wrong by offering a sacrifice, which had not been commanded, Saul replied: “The people spared the best of the sheep and oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God,” adding further on, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me;…but the people took of the spoil to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal.” The prophet of God replied: “Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,” showing that obedience consists in doing what is commanded, and that all service not commanded, though it be the sacrifice of the cattle upon a thousand hills, is vain worship. God’s Word clearly reveals the fact that no kind of service which man may render to the Lord is acceptable, unless the Lord himself has ordered it. Gratuitous service is never acceptable to God. Seeing his great mistake, Saul now gives out the secret of his departure from the will of God in the following open confession: “I have sinned; I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and thy word; because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.” There it is. Saul yielded to the will of the people instead of maintaining loyalty to the will of God. The same spirit is abroad today. To keep abreast of denominational fashions, the people clamor for departures from the will of God, while lax and latitudinarian leaders in the pulpit yield to the popular demand. Instead of leading the people along the pathway of loyalty to the Lord, they are themselves led by the people to copy after the denominations around them. One divine purpose in placing elders over a church is to guard against false teaching (Acts xx. 28-31; Tit. i. 7-11), but unfortunately in many instances, instead of maintaining a loyal stand by the Word of God, thus showing the young and uninstructed that it is wrong to follow the wisdom of men, the elders themselves yield to the imperious demand of the young people.

The schismatic and subversive scheme of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Num. xvi, is another illustration in point. God’s order was that Aaron and his sons should burn incense, while the Levites, to whom Korah and his company belonged, had other duties assigned them. Becoming tired of God’s order, they protested to Moses that he and Aaron were assuming too much authority, and that they had as much right to burn incense as Aaron and his sons. To carry out their scheme more effectively, they gathered together “two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown.” Here were two hundred and fifty of the most prominent men among the people taking counsel against the Lord’s rule. Seeing they were determined to carry out their purposes, Moses told them to get ready with their censers, and then added: “Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind: if these men die the common death of all men,…then the Lord hath not sent me; but if…the earth open her mouth and swallow them up,…then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the Lord.” No sooner had Moses delivered this loyal speech, than the earth clave asunder and swallowed up Korah and all his company. The Lord had just spoken words of warning to Moses and Aaron, and through them to the congregation, saying, “separate yourselves from among this congregation;…depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men,…lest ye be consumed in all their sins,” thus teaching the solemn lesson that, when men deliberately depart from the will of God, we should separate ourselves from them. Through Paul, in Rom. xvi. 17, the New Testament enjoins the same duty: “I beseech you, brethren, mark them who are causing divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned, and turn away from them.” This is the commandment of an inspired apostle of Christ.

Thus, we see there are but two ways, in general terms, to treat God’s order–either obey it, or disobey it. Obedience consists in doing what God says, no more and no less. Disobedience consists in any departure from God’s order, whether it be doing what He forbids, omitting all or a part that He commands, doing as religious service what He does not command, or in any modification of His will.

Let us now view this principle in the light of New Testament facts. According to the teaching of Jesus, the same principle holds good in the service of God today. It is still true that whenever and wherever men do, as religious service, what they are not commanded to do, it is rejected. But there is a broad distinction between doing a thing as religious service, and doing the same thing outside of religious service. As already observed at another point, an act wholly harmless in itself when done outside of religious service, may be very harmful when done in religious service. In the light of some specifications, the correctness of this principle will clearly appear.

1. Washing the hands. In this, there is nothing wrong in the mere act itself, as all can see, and yet it is one of the very acts which Jesus condemned in the strongest terms (Mark vii. 3, 7). But why did he condemn it? Look at the question from every possible point of view, and the only correct answer is, it was condemned because they were doing, as religious service, something which, although right itself, had not been commanded.
2. Eating meat. Is it wrong to eat meat? You answer, no. Then, suppose we place it on the Lord’s table with the bread and wine? You are ready to say, that would not be right. Why not? You can neither say, it is because the act is wrong in itself, nor because it is forbidden; for we not only know it is not wrong to eat meat, but that God has no where said we must not eat it on His table. As in the former case, so here, there is only one correct answer, and that is, the wrong consists in the fact that the Lord has not told us to do so.
3. Infant baptism. Is it wrong to baptize infants? If so, why? Certainly not because it is wrong to apply water to infants, nor to dip them in water. It is true, God has commanded believer’s baptism, but, notwithstanding this fact, it would still be right to practice both, as has been done, if God had commanded it. The practice is wrong, therefore, not because the act itself is sinful apart from religious service, but because there is no divine authority for the act in religious service.
4. Instrumental music. Is it wrong to play on musical instruments? Here again we must reply, there is nothing wrong in the act itself outside of religious service. The opposition to instrumental music in the worship is misunderstood by many good people. They often say: “Instrumental music is so attractive and entertaining in its effect that we can not see why anyone should oppose it.” If this were the criterion of judgment, the opposition would cease at once. Its use in the worship of God is not opposed on the ground that there is no taste for the music itself. The bewitching strains of the organ, piano, violin, etc., are equally as pleasing and attractive to many of the opponents as they are to any who advocate its use. Why, then, oppose it? Simply because God has not appointed it in His worship, but has appointed music of another kind. God has no more plainly said, eat bread on the Lord’s table than He has said use vocal music in the worship. In Eph. v. 19, Paul says: “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord”; and in Col. iii. 16: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God”; and Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Matt. xxvi. 30. Hence, by both precept and example, vocal music is appointed in the worship of God. It is sometimes argued from Rev. v. 8, and xiv. 2, that there will be instrumental music in heaven; but what of it? There will be infant membership there, too; and the same passage speaks of “golden bowls of incense.” If the Lord provides for infant membership and instrumental music in heaven, it will be right for them to be there; but if He excludes both from the church on earth, we should do the same. God’s will should be man’s guide.

But it is claimed that the Lord has not forbidden instrumental music. Neither has He forbidden meat on the Lord’s table, except by telling us to eat something else; and in the same way He has forbidden instrumental music by telling us to use another kind. If specifying what we are to eat on the Lord’s table excludes everything else, then specifying what kind of music we are to use in worship, excludes every other kind. If not, why not? Here, then, are four distinct acts–washing the hands, eating meat, dipping an infant in water, and playing on musical instruments all of which are sinless in themselves, but wrong when done as religious acts, because there is no divine authority for it. The worship of God was not appointed as an aesthetical performance to please and gratify man’s taste, but to please and honor God by loyalty to His Word. We are to walk by faith.

Further, we ought not to think that the current trends among all too many brethren will not lend help to the introduction of instrumental music into worship. There are three false doctrines now being promoted which, when combined, will lead to the fellowship of those who use instrumental music (and will then soften attitudes of others toward this perversion of worship).

• First, there is the twisted doctrine that each congregation is “autonomous” to a degree not prescribed by the Scripture. We affirm that congregations are independent and autonomous from others in the way God commands (1 Pet. 5:1-4). That is, when they follow God’s word, no one has the right to try and force them to bend to his personal, human will. For example, when a congregation is following the New Testament pattern, no one outside of that church can dictate who their elders should be, or which deacon should look after the money, or where to rent, purchase, or build a building. However, when a congregation has erred from the truth, gone astray from God’s teaching, harbored sin and iniquity, then others have the right and obligation to rebuke, upbraid, and expose them as apostates from the faith (1 Cor.; Gal.; 3 Jn.). This is something being denied by some of our brethren, even some supposed veterans of the faith!
• Second, there is the evil teaching that says a man cannot be labeled as a “false teacher” unless he is morally corrupt, purposely deceitful, and knowingly teaching error for his own gain. Yet, the BIBLE says that we are to mark and avoid those who teach error (Rom. 16:17-18). Paul gives us an example of this in 2 Timothy 2:16-18. We are taught to refuse one who brings a different gospel, regardless of his character, disposition, or personality–it could even be an angel (Gal. 1:6-9).
• Third, there is the false doctrine that we can fellowship a man who teaches error on the basis of Romans 14. The attempt has been made to put seasoned preachers who teach error on divorce and remarriage into a chapter that discusses matters indifferent to God, and that are clean, good, and pure (Rom. 14:1-6, 14, 16, 20). Again, we are told to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness and turn away those who do not bring the doctrine of Christ (Eph. 5:11; 2 Jn. 9-11).

Therefore, if the false teaching of false teachers is accepted on these three points, we could not condemn a congregation which uses instrumental music, because of their supposed super-autonomy. We could not refuse to fellowship the preacher of that congregation, nor call him a false teacher, as long as he was “sweet” and “full of honey.” Can you see how this would help to propel instrumental music into the worship of many other congregations?

Brethren, “we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away” (Heb. 2:1). We exhort you “brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught” by the gospel (2 Thes. 2:15).

[A second sermon from M.C. Kurfees which shows testimony from many men on the origin of instrumental music in worship follows. We commend it to you.]

In this passage, we have a clear and explicit statement that it was the supreme desire of Jesus to do His Father’s will: “For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.” There is one recorded instance (Luke xxii. 42) in which his will clashed with that of the Father, but even then He submissively bowed to the Father’s will, uttering the famous words, “Not my will, but thine be done.” Thus, He set the example for all men that they should seek to do, not their own will, but the will of the heavenly Father. Peter says: “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps.” 1 Pet. ii. 21. Hence, in all matters of work and worship, those who respect the example of Jesus will not seek to have their own will carried out, but will be satisfied to follow the Father’s will as expressed in His Word.

What, then, is the divine will in Christian worship? First of all, the worship of God prescribed in the New Testament is marked by great simplicity. It consisted in reading the Scriptures (Col. iv. 16; 1. Thess. v. 27; 1. Tim. iv. 13), Prayer (Acts iii. 1; 1. Thess. v. 17; 1. Tim. ii. 8), Exhortation (1. Tim. iv. 13; Heb. iii. 13), the Lord’s Supper (Acts xx. 7; 1. Cor. xi. 17-31), Singing (Matt. xxvi. 30; Eph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16), and the Contribution to aid the poor and spread the Gospel (Acts ii. 42; 1. Cor. xvi. 1, 2). This is all very simple, but it is an expression of the divine will. Hence, a church of Christ could assemble on the Lord’s day and engage by divine authority in reading the Scriptures, mutual exhortation (the exhorting was not all done by one man- 1. Cor. xiv. 26-33.), singing God’s praises, prayer and thanksgiving, partaking of the Lord’s supper, and giving as God had prospered the worshippers. This is the worship which God ordained; but, in after ages, as history shows, man became tired of this simple worship, turned away from it, and arranged the worship according to his own wisdom and taste. Departures, however from the original, simple worship were at first gradual. Even in the fourth century, as Mosheim informs us, it could still be said: “The Christian worship consisted in hymns, prayers, the reading of the Scriptures, a discourse addressed to the people, and concluded with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.” Mosheim, Vol. I., p. 303. But in the second and third centuries, the seeds of a general perversion of God’s order were sown, the “mystery of iniquity,” which began to work in Paul’s day (2 Thess. ii. 7), became more manifest, and the way was opened for the establishment of legislative councils in the church. Soon the arrogant claim was set up that the church through its councils had the authority to change and make laws for the regulation of religious affairs. Acting upon this bold assumption of authority, it only required time for the establishment by law of any measure which the caprice of religious leaders might demand. Accordingly, without attempting a detailed account of the many modifications of the divine order, we may here observe the plain fact of history that man, by his own assumption of authority, introduced infant baptism, sprinkling and pouring to be substituted for baptism, burning incense, auricular confession, and instrumental music. It is an unquestionable fact of history that all these things originated with man, and not with God. Man chose to follow his own will and to make the service of God, in large measure, an external show for the entertainment of the people. Before the close of the fourth century, Mosheim informs us, “The public prayers had now lost much of that solemn and majestic simplicity, that characterized them in the primitive times, and which were, at present, degenerating into a vain and swelling bombast.” Vol. I., p. 304. During the same century, alluding to departures from the mutual exhortation taught in the New Testament, Fisher says: “The sermon in the fourth century became more rhetorical. Its brilliant thoughts or witty expressions were sometimes received with loud applause.” Church Hist. p. 120. And, to show the progress which will-worship had made by the sixteenth century, Mosheim says: “The public worship of the Deity was now no more than a pompous round of external ceremonies, the greatest part of which were insignificant and senseless, and much more adapted to dazzle the eyes than to touch the heart.” Vol.. III., p. 22. Such is man’s tendency to follow his own will instead of the will of God.

But, in the midst of the many perversions of the divine order, the special purpose now before us is to inquire into the origin of instrumental music in Christian worship. Did it originate with man, or with God? The only way to settle the question is to appeal to the facts in the case. The testimony is both clear and abundant; but, before introducing it, let us notice some important facts:

1. There is not a solitary instance of it in the worship of any church of the New Testament period.
2. Church historians, such as Eusebius, Neander Mosheim, Jones, Schaff, and Fisher, make no mention of it for hundreds of years after Christ.
3. Today, however, it is found in many places in Christian worship. When, and by whose authority, was it introduced? We now call upon eminent witnesses to testify in the case.

I. THE AMERICAN CYCLOPEDIA

“Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of Western Europe, about 670; but the earliest trustworthy account is that of the one sent as a present by the Greek emperor Constantine Copronymus to Pepin, king of the Franks, in 755.” Vol. 12, p. 688.

II. CHAMBER’S ENCYCLOPEDIA

“The organ is said to have been first introduced into church music by Pope Vitalian I in 666. In 757, a great organ was sent as a present to Pepin by the Byzantine emperor, Constantine Copronymus, and placed in the church of St. Corneille at Compiegne. Soon after Charlemagne’s time organs became common.” Vol. 7, p. 112.

III. ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA

“Though the church from time to time appropriated the secular art-forms from their rise to their maturity, its chief authorities were always jealous of these advances, and issued edicts against them. So in 1322 Pope John xxii denounced the encroachments of counterpoint, alleging that the voluptuous harmony of 3ds and 6ths was fit but for profane uses.” Vol.. 17, p. 84, Art. Music.

IV. SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA

“In the Greek church the organ never came into use. But after the eighth century it became more and more common in the Latin church; not, however, without opposition from the side of the monks. * * * The Reform Church discarded it; and though the church of Basel very early introduced it, it was in other places admitted only sparingly and after long hesitation.” Vol. 2, p. 1702.

V. FESSENDEN’S ENCYCLOPEDIA

“1. Vocal music. This species, which is the most natural, may be considered to have existed before any other. It was continued by the Jews and it is the only kind that is permitted in the Greek and Scotch churches or with few exceptions, in dissenting congregations in England. The Christian rule requires its use both for personal and social edification, Eph. v, Col. iii. The vocal music of the imperial choristers in St. Petersburg incomparably surpasses in sweetness and effect the sounds produced by the combined power of the most exquisite musical instruments. 2. Instrumental music is also of very ancient date, its invention being ascribed to Tubal, the sixth descendant from Cain. That instrumental music was not practiced by the primitive Christians, but was an aid to devotion of later times, is evident from church history.” P. 852, Art Music.

VI. LONDON ENCYCLOPEDIA

“Pope Vitalianus in 658 introduced the organ into the Roman churches to accompany the singers. Leo II in 682 reformed the singing of the psalms and hymns, accommodating the intonation of them to the manner in which they are sung or performed at the present day.” Vol. 15, p. 280, Art Music.

The unanimity with which the learned authorities of this class testify, there being but slight variation as to exact dates, is worthy of note. But others, equally noted in their spheres, shall speak.

VII. THOMAS AQUINAS, surnamed the Angelic Doctor, one of the most learned scholastic doctors produced by the church of Rome in the thirteenth century, and a voluminous writer, says:

“Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize.”Bingham’s Ant., Vol. 3, p. 137.

VIII. ERASMUS (DESIDERIUS), a contemporary of Martin Luther and the most renowned classical scholar of his age, who is represented by high authority as “the most gifted and industrious pioneer of modern scholarship,” says:

“We have brought into our churches a certain operose and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words as I hardly think was ever heard 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 in learning these whining tones.”Com. on 1 Cor. xiv. 19.

IX JOHN CALVIN, the illustrious founder of the Presbyterian denomination, says:

“Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to Him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1. Cor. xiv. 16) …What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?”Com. on Psa. xxxiii.

X. THEODORE BEZA, the great Genevan scholar and translator, who was a friend and coadjutor of Calvin, says:

“If the apostle justly prohibits the use of unknown tongues in the church, much less would he have tolerated these artificial musical performances which are addressed to the ear alone, and seldom strike the understanding even of the performers themselves”Girardeau’s Ins. Music p. 166.

XI. THE ENGLISH CONVOCATION, an ecclesiastical body in the church of England composed of bishops and clergy with Upper and Lower houses, is an important witness in the case:

“In the beginning of the year 1562,” says Hetherington, “a meeting of the Convocation was held, in which the subject of further reformation was vigorously discussed on both sides. [Here is one alteration that was proposed] That the use of organs be laid aside. When the vote came to be taken, on these propositions, forty-three voted for them and thirty-five against; but when the proxies were counted, the balance was turned, the final state of the vote being fifty-eight for and fifty-nine against. Thus, it was determined by a single vote, and that the proxy of an absent person who did not hear the reasoning that the Prayer-Book should remain unimproved, that there should he no further reformation, that there should be no relief granted to those whose consciences felt aggrieved by the admixture of human inventions in the worship of God.”Hetherington’s Hist. Westmin. Assem. of Divines, p.30.

Thus the church of England was at one time on the verge of excluding instrumental music from the worship, the practice being retained by a single vote.

According to Dr. Lightfoot, President of the Westminster Assembly of Divines from 1643 to 1649, sprinkling and pouring for baptism were voted on in precisely the same way, the practice in this instance also being retained by a single vote. This is a remarkable coincidence in the history of these two Romish relics.

XII. JOSEPH BINGHAM, the well known author of “Antiquities of the Christian Church” and said to be one of the most learned men the Church of England has ever produced, says:

“Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music not so.”Works, Vol. 3, p. 137.

XIII. LYMAN COLEMAN an accurate scholar and Presbyterian author, says:

“The tendency of this [instrumental music] was to secularize the music of the church, and to encourage singing by a choir. Such musical accompaniments were gradually introduced; but they can hardly be assigned to a period earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries. Organs were unknown in church until the eighth or ninth century. Previous to this they had their place in the theatre, rather than in the church. They were never regarded with favor in the Eastern church, and were vehemently opposed in many places in the West.”Primitive Church, pp. 376, 377.

XIV. CONYBEARE and HOWSON, two scholars of high repute in the Church of England, commenting on Eph. v. 19, say:

“Let your songs be, not the drinking songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns; and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the melody of the heart.” Life and Epis. of Paul Vol. 2, p. 408.

XV. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, commenting on the use of instrumental music in Christian worship, says:

“That all persons who have no spiritual discernment, taste or relish for spiritual meditations, consolations and sympathies of renewed hearts, should call for such aid is but natural. Pure water from the flinty rock has no attraction for the mere toper or wine-bibber. A little alcohol, or genuine Cognac brandy, or good old Madeira is essential to the beverage to make it truly refreshing. So to those who have no real devotion or spirituality in them, and whose animal nature flags under the oppression of church service, I think that instrumental music would be not only a desideratum, but an essential pre-requisite to fire up their souls to even animal devotion. But I presume to all spiritually minded Christians, such aids would be as a cowbell in a concert.”Mill. Har., Series iv., Vol. 1, p. 581, in Mem. of A. Campbell, p. 366.

XVI. PROF. JOHN GIRARDEAU, a Presbyterian and Professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, says:

“The church, although lapsing more and more into defection from the truth and into a corruption of apostolic practice, had no instrumental music for 1200 years [that is, it was not in general use before this time];…the Calvinistic Reformed Church ejected it from its services as an element of Popery, even the Church of England having come very nigh to its extrusion from her worship…. It is heresy in the sphere of worship.”Instrumental Music, p. 179.

This list of witnesses might be extended, but the number introduced is sufficient to place the question of the origin of instrumental music in Christian worship beyond all doubt. But, along with these sixteen independent and reliable authorities, some of them world-renowned, I introduce one more witness as weightier than all the others combined. This witness comes in the person of Christ and His Inspired Apostles; and their testimony is found in the unanswerable fact that, notwithstanding instrumental music was used in the Jewish worship on up to their time, yet they deliberately set it aside and left it out of Christian worship. In this fact there is an undeniable expression of the will of God; and this of itself ought to settle the question. But, in addition to this significant fact, we now have the unanimous testimony of a half dozen encyclopedias and of leading scholars in different ages, all testifying to the historic fact that instrumental music in Christian worship originated with man, and not with God. If it is possible to settle any question by an appeal to facts, then this one is unquestionably settled.

1. That there is no specific command for carpets, pews, pulpits, baptisteries, chandeliers, and such like and if it is not wrong to have these things, neither is it wrong to have instrumental music. But, the fact that these things are not named in the Bible is certainly no proof that something else not named therein is allowable; and, since some things not specifically named are, nevertheless, necessarily implied, it does not follow that because one thing not so named is allowable, therefore, another is. Be it distinctly understood, however, that if these things, like instrumental music, were a part of the worship, as we shall see further on that the latter is, it would be equally wrong to have them. It is wrong to do any thing as worship to God which He does not command. But the cases are by no means parallel. The act performed in a baptistery is an act which God commands; but the act performed in playing on a musical instrument is an act which God does not command. Moreover, the act of baptism performed in a baptistery is the same act whether performed in a baptistery, a river, a lake, or a pond; but the act performed on a musical instrument is not the same act which is performed in singing, and which God commands. Singing and playing are two distinct acts; each can exist without the other, and God commands the one, but not the other. Those who play on musical instruments in Christian worship are, therefore, doing what God has no where commanded them to do. But, whether we baptize in a baptistery, preach the Word in a pulpit, listen to it while sitting in a pew with or without as “many lights” burning as when Paul preached in Troas (Acts xx. 8), or sing God’s praises while the feet rest on a carpeted or carpetless floor, we are in each case performing the act which God commands; but, in playing on a musical instrument we are not performing an act which God commands. In other words, we can not baptize in a baptistery, preach the Word in a pulpit, listen to it in a pew, or sing God’s praises in a house with or without a carpet or lights, without doing in each case what God commands; but we can play on a musical instrument without doing any thing which God commands. If it be said we can not sing psalms accompanied by a musical instrument without doing what God commands, I reply, this would not only be doing what God commands, but more than He commands; and if it be further claimed that in singing psalms accompanied by an instrument we are no more doing more than is commanded than when we preach in a pulpit, I reply that the cases are not parallel for the reason that the pulpit or its equivalent–a place to occupy while preaching–is necessarily implied in the command to preach, since this command can not be obeyed without being obeyed in some place; but neither a musical instrument nor its equivalent is implied in the command to sing, since this command can be obeyed without playing on an instrument or doing anything equivalent to it. Place is a necessary incidental in obeying the commands to preach, hear preaching, baptize, and sing; but instrumental music is not a necessary incidental in obeying the command to sing. It is another kind of music which may or may not accompany vocal music. In preaching, we are not compelled to have a pulpit, but we are compelled to have its equivalent–a place to occupy; in hearing preaching we are not compelled to have pews, but we are compelled to have their equivalent–a place to occupy; we are not compelled to have a carpeted floor, but we are compelled to have some kind of a floor wherever we worship, and no kind is specified either with or without a carpet; we are not compelled to have a baptistery, but we are compelled to have its equivalent–a place in which to baptize. Such things are not explicitly, but implicitly, commanded. The only reason, therefore, that these things or their equivalents are contended for is because they are necessarily implied in what is commanded, and we are compelled to have them; but instrumental music is not implied in the command to sing, and we are neither compelled to have it nor anything equivalent to it. The attempt to classify these things together is, therefore, a pitiable subterfuge.
2. It is objected that musical instruments are on a par with tuning forks, note-books, and hymnbooks, and that they all stand or fall together. Here again the cases are not parallel as is clearly shown by an examination of the office filled by each. For instance, the tuning-fork stops before the singing or act of worship begins. If an organ were only used to pitch the tune, there would be nothing wrong in its use, because we are commanded to sing, and we can not sing without pitch. Whatever is essential to doing a command is involved in the command, but pitching the tune is essential to doing the command to sing; therefore, pitching the tune is involved in the command to sing. No difference whether it be pitched with the voice, a tuning-fork, a pitch-pipe, or any other way, the thing that is done, viz., pitching the tune, is involved in the command to sing. Moreover, when a tuning fork is used to pitch the tune, nothing is done in singing that is not done without it, pitching the tune being the only thing done with the tuning-fork, which is done in singing without the fork, for it is impossible to sing without pitching the tune. But when a musical instrument is used with the singing, something is done that is not done without it, viz., another kind of music is made simultaneously with that made by the human voice. It is praising God with two kinds of music where God himself has chosen and appointed only one kind.

   The same principle applies to the use of notebooks. In using notes, no act is performed that is not performed without them, and nothing accompanies the singing that does not also accompany it without them; but in using musical instruments, an act is performed that is not performed without them, and something does accompany the singing, viz., instrumental music, which does not accompany it without them. By no sort of reasoning can it be shown that playing on an instrument and singing are so related that singing involves playing, or its equivalent; but it can be shown that musical notes and singing are so related that singing involves either the notes or their equivalent. This is seen in the following reasoning: We are commanded to sing; but we can not sing without a tune; therefore, the tune is involved in the command to sing. Again: a tune can not be sung without length and pitch of tones are indicated; but notes, or their equivalent, are essential to indicating length and pitch of tones; therefore, notes or their equivalent are essential to singing a tune. If it be said that many persons sing who do not know the notes, it is sufficient to reply that they learned the tune either directly or indirectly from some one who got it from the notes. The principle is the same whether the tune be learned directly or remotely from the notes. A tune can not exist without notes or their equivalent. The notes simply indicate length and pitch of tone which are essential to either vocal or instrumental music. If it be objected that the instrument gives the tune to the ear just as the notes do to the eye, I reply, this is a mistake. The instrument has to get the tune from the notes just as does the leader of the singing. This is an artful sophism, founded on an egregious blunder. The tune exists before it is played on the instrument. But, it may be asked, if a tune were improvised on an instrument, would not that be a case of the ear getting the tune from the instrument? By no means. Though a multitude of ears might hear it, it could only be an instrumental solo, no one knowing the tune but the performer, from whose soul comes the tune, and not from the instrument. If it could be said of musical instruments as it can be of musical notes, that their use results in nothing but singing, there would be nothing wrong in using them, for we are commanded to sing; but their use produces another kind of music which we are not only not commanded to have, but which the Lord excluded from Christian worship. That the two cases are not parallel, those who will open their eyes to the facts can plainly see.

   As to hymn-books, we are commanded to sing hymns, and the hymn-book is simply the hymns, just as your bound-Bible is the Word of God. Hymns are none the less hymns whether they are in manuscript or in a printed volume, just as the Word of God is none the less the Word of God whether it is in manuscript or in a printed volume. In each case, you have what God commands.

3. It is further objected that instrumental music, like some of the things just mentioned, is only an aid to and not a part of the worship. But God’s Word plainly and forever settles this point. However, let us first inquire, What is done with the instruments in worship today that was not done with them in the Jewish worship? Nothing whatever. They enter into the worship today just as they did then, and are used with other parts of the worship just as they were then. Now let us hear the decision of God’s Word in the case. Under the old dispensation where instruments were used, we have the following: “And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began also, and the trumpets, together with the instruments of David, king of Israel; and all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded; and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished” 2 Chron. xxix. 27, 28. Thus, some were offering the sacrifice, others were singing, and others were sounding the instruments of music; but God through the inspired record says they were all worshipping. What shall we say? Under the same dispensation, David said: “Upon the harp will I praise thee, O God, my God.” Psa. xliii. 4; and among the closing words of the book of Psalms, we have the following: “Praise him with the sound of the trumpet; praise him with the psaltery and harp; praise him with stringed instruments and the pipe.” Psa. cl. 3, 4. Thus, God’s Word simply declares that when instrumental music is used in the worship, it is a part of that worship, and no cunning sophism can conceal the fact. Moreover, according to the teaching of Jesus, it is vain worship today, because it is not commanded by the Lord. Those who introduce it with other human devices into the worship of God claim to be advanced thinkers, and that the progressive age in which we are living makes it necessary to be thus “progressive” in religious worship. This would all do, if God had left the worship to be variously arranged according to the pleasure of man in different ages; but this He has not done. On the contrary, God has not only arranged the worship Himself for His people in every age, stating explicitly what they shall do in that worship, but He has also plainly said: “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God,” 2 Jno. 9, Rev. Vers. Thus, while progression is right within the limits of God’s Word, it is wrong to “go onward” beyond that Word; and Paul specifically declares that what he wrote concerning divisions in the church at Corinth, was that Christians “might learn not to go beyond the things which are written.” I Cor. iv. 6, Rev. Vers. Let us abide by this decision.

Thus, by an array of historic facts and scholarly testimony from various sources, we have now seen that instrumental music in Christian worship is a human device introduced hundreds of years after Christ; that, although it was tolerated in the Jewish worship, it was excluded from Christian worship by Christ and inspired inspired apostles; that it is one of the many relics of Rome adopted by the Romish hierarchy in the absence of any authority from the New Testament; that its introduction was to gratify the desire for pleasure and entertainment; and that the practice was vehemently opposed by pious and learned men, and did not become general till after the thirteenth century. And yet, in the face of such overwhelming and irresistible testimony, we are not only confronted with the sad spectacle of churches introducing this practice when they know it is an obstacle in the way of union; but, those who decline to follow this and similar departures from the Word of God, choosing to render simply the worship prescribed in the New Testament, are often denounced in unbrotherly terms by advocates of this innovation. May God help them to see their mistake.

Finally, one thing is incontrovertibly settled: those who adopt this practice are, to that extent, guided by the wisdom of man, and not by the wisdom of God; and they thus openly violate the plain and positive requirement of the Lord that His followers shall walk by faith.