Not only that, but according to your interpretation of psalmoi to mean “playing on a stringed instrument” you suppose to show New Testament authority for playing mechanical instruments. However, is the music you are attempting to defend only offered on stringed instruments? No, it is not. You will use the same argument to defend playing drums, horns, etc. But, according to you, only stringed instruments are approved by psalmoi.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that neither stringed or percussion, nor wind, instruments are approved by the word psalmoi, in this context. While it is true that psalmoi can refer to playing a stringed instrument, that is not its only meaning. Notice, you get psalmoi from “melody” in Eph. 5:19 but in Col. 3:16 (the parallel passage to Eph. 5:19) it doesn’t say “psalmoi” it says “grace.” They are both “in your hearts to the Lord.” One says “melody in hearts to the Lord,” the other says “grace in your hearts to the Lord.” Does “grace” mean “to play on the harp”? Of course it doesn’t. It is referring to praising God from the heart. Where is the “melody,” or psalmoi? In the heart to the Lord! Not on a physical, mechanical, instrument of music!

The word psalmoi can also mean, “to sing songs of praise” (Louw & Nida). According to you, the word required the use of stringed instruments, or authorizes them anyway. However, this word only requires an instrument where one is specified in the context. Otherwise, it is simply referring to “singing praise.” If you were to identify an instrument where the word is used the only thing you would come up with is the human heart, the instrument that God made.

According to you, the use of the psalmoi means that they used stringed instruments in their worship. However, history disagrees. Mechanical instruments of music were not introduced into “Christian” worship until the mid seventh century, when it was mostly rejected. It was reintroduced many years later and was more universally accepted. But, even then, people knew it was not according to the historical pattern of Christian worship. Even among the founders and prominent teachers of several modern denominations, mechanical instruments of music were rejected. Notice, in his lesson on the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, Mark Copeland provides the following quotes:

“All our sources deal amply with vocal music of the church, but they are chary with mention of any other manifestations of musical art… The development of Western music was decisively influenced by the exclusion of musical instruments from the early Christian Church.” – Paul Henry Lang, MUSIC IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION, pp. 53,54

“Only singing, however, and no playing of instruments, was permitted in the early Christian Church.” – Hugo Leichtentritt, MUSIC, HISTORY AND IDEAS, p. 34

“There can be no doubt that originally the music of the divine service was everywhere entirely of a vocal nature.” – Emil Nauman, THE HISTORY OF MUSIC, Vol. 1, p. 177

“We have no real knowledge of the exact character of the music which formed a part of the religious devotion of the first Christian congregations. It was, however, purely vocal.” – Dr. Frederick Louis Ritter, HISTORY OF MUSIC FROM THE CHRISTIAN ERA TO THE PRESENT TIME, p. 28

“Both the Jews in their temple service, and the Greeks in their idol worship, were accustomed to sing with the accompaniment of instrumental music. The converts to Christianity accordingly must have been familiar with this mode of singing…But it is generally admitted, that the primitive Christians employed no instrumental music in their worship.” — Lyman Coleman (Presbyterian), THE APOSTOLIC AND PRIMITIVE CHURCH, pp. 368-369

CATHOLIC – “… the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice.” — CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

GREEK ORTHODOX – “The execution of Byzantine church music by instruments, or even the accompaniment of sacred chanting by instruments was ruled out by the Eastern Fathers as being incompatible with the pure, solemn, spiritual character of the religion of Christ.” — Constantine Cavarnos, BYSANTINE SACRED MUSIC

PRESBYTERIAN – “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, 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 apostle is far more pleasing to Him.” – JOHN CALVIN, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Vol. I, p. 539

METHODIST – “I have no objection to instruments of music, in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.” – JOHN WESLEY (founder)

METHODIST – “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 here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity.” – ADAM CLARKE (commentator)

LUTHERAN – “Martin Luther called the organ an ‘ensign of Baal’.” – MCCLINTOCK & STRONG’S ENCYCLOPEDIA

BAPTIST – “I would as soon attempt to pray to God with machinery as to sing to Him with machinery.” – CHARLES H. SPURGEON

So, though you say the word psalmoi shows they did use it, serious historians all agree that they did not. Even the word that means “to sing without instrumental accompaniment” – i.e. a cappella – is from Latin and originally meant “as the church does” or “in chapel style.” Now, I have the lexicons on my side, I have history on my side and I even have etymology on my side. But, most importantly, I have Scripture on my side. The only thing you have on your side of the argument is your twisting of the text. That is certainly not a position I would want to find myself in on the day of Judgment!

As to the use of lights and pews and buildings, etc., etc., etc. I have answered that tired old, really tired old and feeble, argument far too many times to repeat it here. I would encourage you to read what I have written on that subject under the category of “Authority” here and on BibleQnA.org.

I understand Norm’s argument that if NT doesn’t say TO use them, therefore he should prohibit their use–but the reason that is insufficient logic is because he doesn’t prohibit the use of electric lights in a worship service, or chairs, pews, or benches. There is not a single verse in the NT that instructs Believers to sit during worship. They only used oil lamps because electricity had not been discovered. Nor is there instruction to use a pulpit. Or even a building for that matter. Yet we have them.

I agree with Ryan’s posit that it is not the use or non-use of instrumental accompaniment during congregational singing that is at issue, but the sole count of casting judging on those who DO use instrumentation during worship as being SIN that is at issue.

Sin is disobedience. We are DISOBEDIENT only if we do what we are instructed NOT to do, or do NOT do what we are instructed to do. Other matters are individual matters open for interpretation by believers. Acts 15:10 says “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” Just as the NT church argued over legalistic matters such as circumcision, you have made this a matter of legalism.

Yes, we are to ‘test everything’-but be very careful that you do not misinterpet or lift meaning from scripture that does not exist. That phrase is specific to testing the teaching and prophecies against the scriptures (OT and NT), which IMHO you have not done properly in your assertions that using an instrument is a sin.

Regarding your comment that the early church ‘writings are filled with appeals to the authority of God’s word’—I absolutely agree, but they do not use scripture the way you use it—and specifically they NEVER use it to argue against instruments!

Your comment suggesting that if any practice carried over from the Old Testament then everything would have to carry over is another egregious fallacy. If you follow the narrative plot from Testament to Testament then no one in their right mind could think that we still have temple worship (John 4) or require animal sacrifices (Hebrews 10)! But, unless you’re a Marcionite, it does not follow that everything in the Old Testament is, eo ipso, thrown out.

God certainly does direct us in worship—again this debate is over the level of specificity in the practice of offering praise. We both agree we must sing, we are simply caught in an aporia over whether or not one can embroider that with instruments.

I find you an interesting person to talk to, you appear unable to see around your exaggerated and ill-conceived version of a Calvinist ‘regulative principle of worship’. At least the Calvinists understand the difference between essential and accidental forms of worship…

You say (somewhere else) that if you were doing something in church that is not found in the New Testament scripture that you would stop—well I see no evidence of the early church making sure that every practice was done by book, chapter, and verse (even after the cannon was established). There is no first century Christian who would understand your method of command, example, and necessary inference (which is rarely if ever based on a necessary premises). (II Tim. 3:16 is of course referencing the Old Testament.)

Frankly, you’ve not recovered ‘New Testament Christianity’ any more than a civil war reenactment has reproduced the civil war!
Thanks for the exchange!

I must answer no, there is no verse in the New testament regarding the use of instruments here before the Eschaton.

Ryan, thank you for finally admitting that there is not one verse in the New Testament giving scriptural authority to the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the New Testament church on earth prior to the second coming of Christ (i.e. “Eschaton”). It really doesn’t matter what you say beyond that admission, you have confessed that there is no New Testament authority for it. Therefore, it cannot be said to be done by the authority of Jesus Christ. Though you continue in your attempt to justify the use of something that you admit has no New Testament authority, the fact is – as you have admitted – that it is the doctrine of men and not the doctrine of Christ. I pray that you will now go the second mile and give up the unscriptural worship that includes what is not authorized by Scripture.

I did answer your questions, whether you accept my answers or not is another matter. I said that the very fact that you could point to those things with a book, chapter and verse next to them shows that the Bible is not silent on those things. In addition to that, you are referring to things from a time when Scripture was not in completion, as it now is (Jude 3). As far as how early Christians read the scriptures, their writings are filled with appeals to the authority of God’s word. For example, in Clement’s (30-100 AD) letter to Corinth he appeals to the authority of Scriptures repeatedly in exhorting them to faithfulness. He quoted from numerous of the epistles to establish the authority of what he wrote. They may not have used the same terms that we use today but they most definitely appealed to the authority of the Scriptures. Not only that, but the New Testament prophesied a great apostasy (1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). I wouldn’t expect to find many appealing to the authority of the Scriptures during the development of the Great Apostasy following the death of the apostles. There are so many passages stating the requirement for biblical authority that I know you can’t be referring to those who were the first recipients of the letters (Matt. 7:21-23; Jn. 8:31; 15:5-8; 2 Jn. 9-10; 1 Jn. 2:24-25; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Col. 3:17; Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19; 1 Cor. 4:6; et. al.). So, once again, you are simply wrong in your statement. The people of God have always turned to his word to receive his authority for guiding their conduct in every walk of life, including worship. I would also like to point out to the reader the contrast between my comments and yours. I have consistently given book, chapter and verse for the authority of what I am presenting here. Scriptural references for your comments are conspicuously lacking. You can call it prooftexting if you want to but I call it establishing Scriptural authority for what I am saying.

Now that you have admitted that you can’t find New Testament authority for what you do in worship in the New Testament dispensation, you are going to attempt to use Old Testament authority for what you are doing. The claim that God doesn’t change and, therefore, still accepts the same elements of worship that he always accepted is indeed a very old argument. It is not only old, it is feeble too. Old and tired and feeble! When Malachi 3:6 says, “For I am the Lord, I do not change,” it is clearly not talking about worship! It is his righteous character that does not change. But if you are going to say that because he accepted mechanical instruments in Old Testament worship then that means he still accepts it, why not go ahead and bring in the feast days also? If God doesn’t change in what he requires in worship then we need to be planning our next trip to Jerusalem. Or, are you just going to pick out instrumental music as the one aspect of Old Testament worship where God has not changed? What about the animal sacrifices? What about the living in booths? What about the Temple? What about the sabbaths? What you will do is show the New Testament anti-type to all those things, but you won’t do the same for mechanical instruments of music.

Of course you see a difference between the two testaments in “how specific God has been in telling us how we are to worship him.” Because you are doing something for which you have no New Testament authority whatsoever, by your own admission, and you are not willing to give it up. So, since you can’t justify the practice by pointing to a book, chapter and verse, you are going to say, “Well, the New Testament isn’t so specific.” How absurd! Would you have my readers to believe that God has given us his word to guide us in every aspect of our lives (Ps. 119:105), except worship! Ridiculous!

It is because I want to “draw near to God” (James 4:8) that I will do what he has said in his word and not try to argue my way around doing whatever I want, even when I have no word from him that he wants it (1 Jn. 5:3). Your arguments are not at all based in Scripture. They are entirely based in self-willed desires and a refusal to humbly submit to God’s revealed will. Usually, when people get to the point you are at in your arguments defending what is not there to defend, they will say, “well, what difference does it make whether we use instruments or not?” The difference it makes is evidencing whether or not a person is truly living in subjection to God or if they are faking it (1 Jn. 2:3-5). How can a person say that they are living according to the will of God when they can’t show where what they are doing is according to God’s will?

Feel free to respond if you like. But, I don’t really see what more you can say.

You, on the other hand, have conveniently avoided my two questions: Did the early church read the bible in the manner you present, looking for ‘authority’? No they didn’t! And who authorized the various ‘additions’ that the bible records (listed above)?

You see, I can’t answer your question, “show me where the Scriptures give direct authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship”, because I don’t see any exclusive authority in how the NT exhorts us to sing. It’s like going to McDonalds–if I ask for a BigMac, then I’m also not asking for everything else on the menu. This should be clear. The problem is that the NT (in contradistinction to the OT) does not provide this list of ways to worship such that the verses calling us to sing exclude the other items on the list.

The difference is in the context of the verses you site. While you do a great job of offering prooftexts, without context they become merely a pretext for your particular tradition of Christianity.

This issue is an old one, and all we have done is retrace many of the old arguments. But in the end this comes down to theology–would do we believe the nature of God. In particular we differ over the differences and similarities between the Old Testament and the New Testament. For I trust that the same God who loved and accepted instruments in the OT has not changed, yet I see a difference between the two testaments in how specific God has been in telling us how we are to worship him–that as we have grown in our knowledge of Him and in closeness to Him that he offers less rules and expects his adopted children to know what he wants and what he doesn’t.
You, on the other hand, seem to take the exact opposite tack–that while God accepted instruments in the past, he changed His mind. And that there is no difference to the way and to the exactness to which God tells us how and by what means we are to worship Him.

The difference then boils down further to your seemingly distant God who metes out arbitrary laws, or a relational God who in light of the revelation of the cross has attenuated the direct rules for corporate worship under the principles of love, intelligibility, and edification.

Ryan, just tell the readers whether you have found a verse in the New Testament that you could point to and say “here is New Testament authority for the use of mechanical instruments in the worship of the New Testament church.”

You seem to be really hung up on arguing against a proposition that I have not made. I have several articles and videos, both here on “Norm’s Notes” and on “Bible Q-n-A” addressing the subject of biblical authority and I have not made the proposition of prohibitive specificity in any of them. The only time you find me referring to specificity at all is in the context of levels of biblical authority, i.e. specific and generic. I could just as easily call it direct authority and indirect authority. I do not believe you will find in any of my writing or preaching where I appeal to specificity as prohibitive authority. If you do then I will correct it.

Yes, I am asking you to show me where the Scriptures give direct authority for the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. If you cannot then there is no indirect authority for any kind of mechanical instruments being used in worship at all. Without direct authority there is no indirect authority. For example, the use of song leaders, song books, lyrics on a screen, etc., is authorized indirectly by the direct authority to sing words of instruction and admonishment in our praise of God congregationally (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12). There is nothing about the use of those things that alters or adds to what is directly authorized. Church building and pews are indirectly authorized by the direct authority to assemble (Heb. 10:25; Acts 20:7). PA systems, projectors, web sites, radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts are indirectly authorized by the direct authority to go and teach (Matt. 28:19, 20). These things that have indirect authority rely upon and are subservient to direct authority. Without direct authority there can be no indirect authority. So, again, where is the direct authority to use mechanical instruments of music? It cannot be the direct authority to sing because singing and playing are two completely different things and are independent of one another. That is, singing doesn’t facilitate playing and playing doesn’t facilitate singing. They are two completely different activities that are not reliant upon one another at all. The use of a song book doesn’t alter or add to the act of singing but the use of a piano does – it is then singing and playing. So, if it is singing and playing, there must be direct authority for both of those independent activities. I can show you direct authority for singing but you can’t show me direct authority for playing. Again, and again and again and again, playing is not prohibited because the Scriptures say to sing, playing is prohibited because the Scriptures don’t say to play. If you can’t find one single passage in the New Testament that gives direct authority to the addition of playing mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the New Testament church, how could you possibly say that it is being done by the authority of Jesus Christ? All it would take is one word! Just show where that one word is and you will have won the day.

When you say that God did not specify New Testament worship in the same way he did Old Testament worship, you are completely wrong. I can, and do, provide New Testament authority for everything I do in worship to God. When I ask someone to show me in the Bible where they have authority to do what they are doing, I am not saying that because one thing is specified another thing is prohibited. I’m saying show me where the New Testament says to do that. It is because it is not there that it is prohibited, not because something else is there. If you ask me why we take the Lord’s Supper in our worship, I will show you the verses (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 23f; 16:1, 2). If you ask me why we take a collection in our worship, I will show you the verses (1 Cor. 16:1, 2). If you ask me why we have preaching in our worship, I will show you the verses (Acts 2:42; 20:7). If you ask me why we have prayer in our worship, I will show you the verses (Acts 2:42). If you ask me why we have singing in our worship, I will show you the verses (Heb. 2:12). But, if I ask you why you use mechanical instruments of music in your worship, you will not show me a single verse.

You can say I’m asking two questions at the same time, but the readers only see one question that you, as of yet, have refused to answer – Where is the verse authorizing the use mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the New Testament church?

From this point, my responses to anything you say will be very short. Do you have a verse for it, or not?

You are right that we are to do everything in the name of Jesus (Col 3:17), but this does not imply that we must find proof-texts for everything we do. We can and must draw biblical principles and use our God given reason. Whether it be a blessing or a curse, God has chosen NOT to specify New Testament worship in the manner he did in the Old Testament.

Perhaps this would make more sense if we take this issue further in the direction of being more specific. For some hold fast to the tradition of singing only psalms contained in the bible. For them, they see all other music as of human origins and without authority. Certainly polyphonic music, with our modes and harmonies is an addition since the times of the early church, so where is the authority to make this change?

People will usually retort back that the verses in the NT referencing to sing allow generic authority for our contemporary hymns, but this is an assumption on our part. We need to discern the level of specificity in these verses. It still remains to be shown how even one of the biblical exhortation to sing implies the exclusion of other accidental things like instruments.

Certainly I appreciate the worry of vain worship. I, too, am very distressed over entertainment and overly sentimental, insipid worship. However, if you think that God condemns worship solely on the grounds of there being an instrument present, then you are the one who has added to scripture and are in danger of judgment!

How is the “sing-only,” as you put it, “groundless,” when all I’m asking for is that someone please show where the New Testament authority is found for its use? We both agree that the “specificity” argument has some problems. But I don’t use, nor do I need to use and/or rely upon, the specificity arguments. Mechanical instruments of music is not prohibited in New Testament worship because the text says “sing,” they are prohibited because the text doesn’t say “play,” either by explicit statement, necessary inference or approved example. If there is another way that Scripture gives authority please let me know.

I think that fact that you can give references to things from Holy Spirit inspired Scripture is pretty good indication that Scripture is not silent on those things. Don’t you? Silence of the Scriptures means that there is nothing said about it. Passages like Col. 3:17; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 1 Thess. 5:21, et. al., show the necessity to have expressed biblical authority for what we do. Likewise, the absence of such expressed biblical authority would be prohibitive. Otherwise, how could you demonstrate that what you are doing is according to the doctrine of Christ? (cf. Jn. 15:1-8, esp. 7).

In your previous comment you made a reference to the separation between secular and spiritual activity in such a way as to indicate that my position is that Scripture authorizes our spiritual activities, i.e. worship, but not our secular activities. However, that is not true. Col. 3:17, among others, shows that it is whatever we do in word or deed that must have the authority of Christ. Of course, there is the necessity to be able to discern generic authority also. Someone would say, not you of course , but some might say “where is the authority to mow your lawn.” Of course there are no biblical passages stating that we should keep our lawn well groomed. However, by generic authority we apply the principles of good stewardship and good influence, among others, and the principles involved in those doctrines guide us in a generic way in living our Christian lives.

The major problem today is the inability to correctly discern biblical authority and apply it in a practical manner to our daily Christian living.

Now, with that said, can you show me the New Testament passage authorizing mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the New Testament church? When you can do that then I will be the first one advocating the bandstand in the auditorium.

The argument from silence is a difficult argument to sustain. The writer of Hebrews is not arguing from what is not said, since much WAS said about who could be priests and who could not. This is a rhetorical element, not an example of how a lack of a verse against something is equivalent to there being one.

Silence doesn’t say anything. For instance, what if I was looking for the authority to ‘not use mechanical instruments in worship’–well, since the bible is silent, then I should be prohibited from ‘not using mechanical instruments in worship’. But this too is obviously not how authority works!!

The question of whether silence if prohibitive or permissive is a false dichotomy, used on both sides of the spectrum to control the interpretation. Some think that if the bible doesn’t say ‘not to’, then we can do whatever we want–likewise, some want the mindless rigidity and control of saying that unless it says we must then we can’t. Proper exegesis on practical matters, though, requires a little more nuance than either of these options.

If it is true that silence is always prohibitive, then a good portion of the bible itself is on shaky ground. Where then is the authority for David to build the temple (II Sam. 7:7)? Where is the authority for the feast of Purim (Esther 9)? Where is the authority for the synagogues? I could go on…who authorized the Feast of Dedication (John 10:23)? Where is the authority to worship Jesus with Palm branches?

Is it true that ‘all silence is permissive’? NO! But good logic would then state that the opposite of this proposition is not that ‘all silence is not permissive’, but that ‘some silence is not permissive’. This is basic logic.

On your other two points regarding vain worship and losing fellowship, instruments does not necessarily imply vain worship–for one could offer vain worship by singing-only. To suggest that instruments necessarily entails vain worship is to beg the original question. Also regarding losing fellowship, again to answer this begs the original question.

My position is that if we truly care about the bible–that God has spoken to us–and that if we want to really hear what God has said, then we need to avoid the extremes on both sides, of saying that either anything goes or that we can only copy lockstep the account of the early church given in the New Testament. While it is good to be biblical and to have a book chapter and verse for everything we do, we must also make sure that we are asking the bible the right questions!

I’m wondering if you read the article above or if you are responding to arguments you have heard from others. Where did I attempt to make my case from the standpoint of specificity? I personally believe that making arguments from the standpoint of specificity is not the right way to approach this discussion. My major point in the article above is the prohibitive authority of silence in the Scriptures. Are you saying that is a fallacious proposition? Are you saying that where the Bible is silent on any matter then it is permissive? I would really love to get your response to that question. Or, in other words, is the statement – “The Bible doesn’t say not to” – a valid point in defending ones activities. That is, “The New Testament doesn’t say not to use mechanical instruments,” so that would make it alright?

Please let me know where my points in the article above are “bad logic.”

• “The number one reason we do not use mechanical music in worship is because the Bible doesn’t tell us that we can.”
• Another reason we do not use mechanical instruments of music in our worship is that we don’t want to offer God vain worship.”
• “We do not use mechanical instruments in worship to God because we do not want to loose our fellowship with Christ.”

I gave Scriptural references for every one of those points in the article. Would you mind showing where I have misused any of those verses?

Again, I didn’t even use Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 from the standpoint of specificity. I simply showed from those verses where the scriptural pattern for singing in worship is congregational singing. I do think someone would have a very hard time explaining how the activity described in these verses could be accomplished with the inclusion of mechanical instruments. But that is not the same thing as appealing to specificity. My appeal was to silence. Again, it all comes down to one very simple question: Can you show me one single verse in the New Testament giving an explicit statement, approved example or necessary inference of mechanical instruments of music being used in the worship of the New Testament church? If you cannot then the simple fact of the matter is that there is no authority from Christ, the Head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23), to do it. And, if there is no authority from Christ then it cannot be the doctrine of Christ. Which means it is, by definition, the doctrine of men. Now, if that is fallacious logic please point out where I have gone astray.