A. Its Use Does Not Respect The “Silence” of Scriptures (1 Peter 4:11).

1. The oracles of God have been revealed (Jude 3; Hebrews 1:1-2; 2 John 9; Ephesians 3:1-6; 1 Corinthians 2:1-13).

2. The New Testament is called the “Perfect Law of Liberty,” (James 1:25). In the N. T. we find no mention of mechanical instruments, so, they cannot be used and still “speak as the oracles of God.” Likewise, we cannot claim to believe in the “perfect law of Christ” while using something unauthorized therein (Luke 6:46)! See (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:3).

3. Mechanical instruments in worship cannot be defended as a part of the revelation Jesus called “all truth” (John 16:12-13), because they aren’t mentioned therein!

4. The will of Christ is based on what it says, not on what it does not say (Hebrews 7:14)! Why no priests from the tribe of Judah under O.T.? Because “Moses spoke nothing about such, that’s why! Men must learn to respect the silence of God as well as when and what He says.

B. Its Use Violates The Principle of “Walking by Faith” (2 Cor. 5:7.

1. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Romans 10:17; John 6:44-45; Matthew 28:19-20; Romans 10:14-15).

2. Since not one passage of Scripture authorizes the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship, it cannot be an act of faith. Paul says “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). No act can possibly be an act of faith without any Scriptural instruction. See? (2 John 9).

3. The N.T. authorizes singing: (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26; Acts 16:25; Romans 15:9; 1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 2:12; Hebrews 13:14; James 5:13). Singing is vocal music. Playing is instrumental music. That is adding another kind of music. It is impossible to obey the Lord’s commands in the above passages by playing a mechanical instrument! One must however sing to do what is commanded in them. Don’t forget Cain as well as Nabad and Abihu as you consider your actions in this matter. (See Revelation 22:18-19; Leviticus 10:1-4).

C. Mechanical Instruments Violate Principle of Promoting Unity Among Followers of Christ.

1. All Christians are encouraged to “have the mind of Christ” within us (Philippians 2:5). If in fact we do, we will desire and work for unity among His followers based on His apostle’s words just as He prayed we should in (John 17:17, 20-21). We will be content to “abide in the apostle’s doctrine..” as did early disciples (Acts 2:42). Paul an inspired apostle admonishes us to “..all speak the same thing and have no divisions among us.. (1 Corinthians 1;10). He calls man made divisions a sign of “carnality,” not of spirituality in (1 Corinthians 3;1-3).

A. Wherever the instrument has been introduced into assemblies among brethren it has caused division. Those among us who opt for its use admit that the Scriptures are silent about its use. They also admit that we are scriptural not to use it. They still, however, attempt to justify its use as an expedient. Some equate it with a song leader, lights, notes, the parts such as bass, alto, tenor or soprano. The fact is that when we use all of those things which are indeed aids to singing, all we have done is to SING! When an instrument is added, you have another kind of music. See? There are three rules by which we may determine an expedient:

1. It must be lawful (2 John 9; Colossians 3:17).
2. It must not destroy the faith of brethren (1 Cor. 1:8-13; 10:32-33).
3. It must not cause division (John 17:20-21; Eph. 4:1-2; 1Cor. 1:10).

D. Mechanical Instruments Destroy The Fundamental Principles of Worship. We Must Worship in Truth! (John 4:24).

1. The standard of truth is God’s word (John 8:31-32; 17:17).
2. The truth authorizes only singing (Ephesians 5:19; Col. 3:16).
3. Instrumental music in worship belongs to the doctrines and commandments of men which Christ Jesus says renders one’s worship attempts vain (Matthew 15:9).

If one is to learn anything at all about the use of mechanical instruments in the “worship” services of those claiming to be “of Christ,” since their use was not apostolic, and the first century congregations of Christ did not use them, one must go to uninspired history to learn of their introduction.
William Woodson wrote in “The Spiritual Sword,” Volume 21 Number 4, the following: “A comprehensive discussion of the topic was provided by James W. McKinnon in a dissertation at Columbia University in 1965. From this significant work [289 pages, with bibliography pp. 290-311], pertinent quotatons could be presented in abundance....only a few can be noted..”
In a concluding chapter McKinnon indicated that attempts to show “that instruments were employed in the liturgy at various times and places,” extending through the fourth century, have resulted in “a history of misinterpretations and mistranslations” [p. 261]. After comparing the patristic criticisms of instruments with sixteenth century criticisms of their use in the churches of that latter day, and noting there was no condemnation of such instrumental use in the earlier time, Woodson concluded that no sim-ilar statement can be found among the numerous partistic criticisms of instruments is the strongest possible evidence that they were not used in the early church” [p. 264]. McKinnon also noted the implications for the middle ages of the patristic resistance to instrumental music. He stated: “In respect to musical instruments the Middle Ages inherited from the patristic era not only a practice which was free from them but a doctrine of bitter opposition to them” [P. 264[. Perhaps the most significant conclusion was: “More important than explicit opposition to instruments is the simple fact that they were not used in the patristic period” [P. 268].
An interesting topic discussed by McKinnon was the time of the origin of instrumental music in worship. Citing a definitive article by Edmund Bowles as proof, he argued that the organ was the first instrument which was introduced, that this introduction dated from A.D. 950, and that organs were almost universally used after 1300 [pp. 269-271]. He further argued that the organs sent to Pepin in 757 and to Charlemagne in 812 were greeted with curiosity and awe. He then indicated that “...within a few decades the East Franks had acquired something of a reputation for building them [organs] and they were being used in some monastery schools for teaching the musica of the quadrivium” [p. 276].
In reference to British medieval music, based on a definitive article by Frank Harrison, McKinnon stated that the organ was “played before and after singing, in alteration with the singing and very frequently as a substitute for the singing” but “The essential point is that the instrument always had an independent musical and liturgical function; it did not ‘accompany’ “[pp. 280,281].
McKinnon has recently presented a thoroughly documented, indexed, and clearly outlined complilation of the various matters connected with singing and in the later years instrumental music. It is diserving of careful study.
Everett Ferguson, a widely respected patristic scholar, has written extensively on this topic of ancient church history, instrumental music, and related themes. Though well aware of cKinnon’s work, Ferguson had independently studied the field of patristics as well. His research and writing corroborated these conclusions noted above. Early Christians speak ACappella Worship, and a chapter on early church history and instrumental music.” I could continue to add historical vidence by the pages which show that mechanical instruments of music were not introduced into the church until hundreds of years after the close of the New Testament.
Statements From Some Religious Leaders
These statements aren’t intended as proof that mechanical instruments are unauthorized in the worship of Christians. They do show that opposition has been hot and heavy from their inception, and that they are human innovations.
“...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 Clark (Methodist) Clark’s Commentary, Volume IV, page 686].
“Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law...” [-John Calvin (Presbyterian), Commentary on Psalm 33 and 1 Samuel 18:1-9]. He also said “they were only tolerated under the law.” [ibid kt].
John Knox, a Scottish reformer, “called the organ a ‘kist’ of whistles.” [McClintock & Strong’s Ency, Music, Vol. VI., p. 762].
Charles Spurgeon, prominent Baptist preacher in London England, preached for twenty years to thousands of folks weekly and never did allow the use of instruments of music in worship [M. C. Kurfees, Inst. Music in the Worship, p. 196].
I could multiply quotes galore from opponents of the use of mechanical instruments in worship of the Almighty, but these should suffice.

When we speak of “how to establish Biblical authority,” we mean how to “rightly divide” the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). This is called “hermeneutics” or Biblical interpretation. This takes some effort on our part. We aren’t talking about something that members of the church of Christ have devised to reach the conclusions we reach. We are speaking of a method which was used by inspired men to determine what was and was not authorized by Christ. We are supposed to know what is and what is not the will of the Lord (Ephesians 5:17; John 8:31-32; 2 Timothy 2:1-2; 2 John 9-11; Matthew 28:18-20). We are to all “speak the same thing and be of the same mind and judgment (1 Corinthians 1:10). Jesus prayed that we be one as are He and the Father (John 17:20-21). We are damned if we twist the Scriptures and teach another gospel than that preached by inspired men of the first century (2 Peter 3:16; Galatians 1:6-11). All of these passages and many more which could be cited indicate the need to come to common conclusions as to what the New Testament teaches.

 1.  A direct command.  When Christ says, “This do” (Luke 22:19). In connection with this idea of a “direct commandment” we note that sometimes a statement of scripture authorizes,  or supplies information which must be accepted as authorative.  Example: “All men must repent” (Acts 17:30).  Sometimes in a negative way we learn what we must not do. For example, “lie not one to another...” (Colossians 3:9).

 2.  Approved Apostolic Examples:  Beliefs and practices of the first century church under the guidance of the apostles of Christ form a pattern to be followed by churches of Christ today.  These inspired men were being guided into all truth (Jn. 16:13).    “The sum total of what the churches of Christ did in the first century when men guided by the Holy Spirit were present among them forms the pattern for what churches of Christ may do today with  Christ’s approval.”   This must of necessity be a factual way of expressing it; otherwise they weren’t guided into all truth as promised, and we do not have a “perfect law of liberty” and “all things pertaining to life and godliness” as is affirmed in (James 1:25; 2 Peter 1:3; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 3.  Necessary Inference:   A “necessary inference” means that a necessary conclusion must be reached from clear and plain language. For example, Sunday as the special day for worship, involving the giving into the local church treasury and the observance of the Lord’s Supper, are learned by this method among other things (Acts 20:6- 7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2).  Jesus commanded that His disciples observe the communion  in remembrance of Him . We would not know the day on which to do this except for an approved apostolic example given in Acts 20:6-7.  In this passage is also found the frequency of this observance by a necessary inference, as often as the first day comes around.  The Jew had  no problem knowing which Sabbath to keep. He knew when God said “remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), "He" meant as often as the Sabbath day came. This was weekly. The same is true of the observance of the communion.  Every week has a first day, and as often as this day comes along we observe communion.

     An illustration I often use with which no one can have any objection is that when a person hires out to an  employer and is informed that  “payday is on Friday,”  He does not expect a check bi-weekly or monthly from said language.  He is there each and every Friday as often as Friday comes expecting a paycheck! Folks can seem to understand 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 pretty well to mean a collection every Lord’s day! The same language is employed by the Holy Spirit in Acts 20:7. It simply says “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him...” If every first day  is  implied  here, why isn’t  it implied in the identical  language concerning the Lord’s Supper or communion in Acts 20:7?  This necessary inference is conclusive and authorizes and even demands that we observe  communion every Lord’s day in order to please our Lord Jesus Christ. If one can partake less frequently, how less frequently? If this doesn’t imply weekly observance and we are left to our own judgment, we could take communion once in a lifetime and be  “as scriptural” as one who does it monthly or quarterly or  once a year!  If not, tell me (us) why not?  If Jesus’ statement “as oft “  leaves it up to man’s judgment, one man’s “judgment” is as good as another’s.

Generic (General) and Specific Authority

    Not only does the Bible authorize in the three ways already mentioned, but  it also authorizes in two kinds or areas of Biblical authority:  (1) generic or general authority  (2) specific authority.  By this we mean that sometimes God simply gives a  specific command to do a particular  thing.  When  this is done we are not at  liberty to substitute anything other than that which He has specifically  commanded.  Then there are general commands which leave man with the latitude to expedite the command so long as what he does does not contradict some other plain teaching of scripture elsewhere given  and isn’t an addition to the word of Christ.

    The following pages have charts listing a number of beliefs and actions known to the religious world about which there is much confusion and division.  If we learn the principles taught in these charts, we will not be as prone to make the mistakes of adding to or taking away from what the Lord has authorized.  I often quote from Pendleton’s Baptist Manual on page 81 where Pendleton was showing why the Baptists do not “baptize” babies. If only he and others  would learn what he clearly sets forth  in this “Creed” they would also abandon many other unauthorized beliefs and practices.

     “It may be laid down as a principle of common sense, which commends itself to every candid mind, that a commission to do a thing authorizes only the doing of the thing specified.  The doing of all other things is virtually forbidden.  There is  a maxim of law, that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.  It must of necessity be so; for otherwise there could be no precision in legislative enactments or  judicial decrees.  This maxim may be illustrated in a thousand ways.  Numerous scriptural illustrations are at hand.  For example:  God commanded Noah to make an ark of gopher-wood.

    He assigns no reason why gopher-wood should be used.  The command however,  is positive, and it forbids the use of every other kind of wood.  Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac for a burnt-offering.  He was virtually forbidden to offer any other member of his family.  Aye, more, he could not offer an animal till the order was revoked by Him who gave it, and a second order was given, requiring the sacrifice of a ram in the place of Isaac.  The institution of the Passover furnishes an illustration, or rather a combination of illustrations:  A  lamb was to be killed--,not a heifer; it was to be of the first year--not the second or third; a male--not a female; without blemish-not with a blemish;  on the fourteenth day of the month--not on some  other day; the blood was to be applied to the door-posts and lintels--not elsewhere..........”

    In application of the principle laid down and of the law maxim illustrated, it may be affirmed, that the commission of Christ, in enjoining the baptism of disciples, believers, prohibits, in effect, the baptism of all others.  It will not do to say, we are not forbidden, in so many words, to baptize infants.  The same may be said of unbelievers; aye, of horses, cattle, and bells...”

 Several pages are devoted to this method of establishing Bible authority.  These things were not written by a member of the church of Christ. No, this was written by a Baptist “pastor” a Doctor of  Divinity.  I quote it to show it is clear and proper hermeneutics understood by many but being applied consistently by only a few.  People who are seeking the truth usually do. Since each local church is self  ruled  with elders, pastor, or bishops in each, along with deacons and other saints, (Philippians  1:1-2; Acts 14:23; 1 Peter 5:1-5; Acts 20:17-32),  those who do not follow this pattern must therefore be unwilling to order their lives individually or  collectively by this tried and proved rule of  interpretation that is the only valid approach to Biblical authority.

 A.  It was used by David in the Old Testament.

 1.  We admit of course without question that the instrument was used in the Old Testament period.  To seek “justification” for the use of a mechanical instrument from what the law allowed or even commanded according to Paul, an inspired apostle, is to “fall from grace” Galatians 5:4.  The Old Testament  was the authority for the Jew and converts to God under that system, but as prophesied that law was “fulfilled and nailed to the cross of Christ” (Colossians 2:13-16;  2 Corinthians 3:1-18; Hebrews 10:9).  See (Deuteronomy 18:15-18; Acts 3:22-23; Matthew 17:1-5; Hebrews 1:1-2; John 16:12-13).  We could multiply passages which indicate that the law of Christ is to be our authority today, but these should suffice.

 B.  The Psalms are still authority for today. They were not a part of that which was “nailed to the cross.”

 1.  The entire law was “nailed to the cross” and it did in fact include the Psalms.  The Law included:

  a.  The Pentateuch-Galatians 4:21-22
  b.  The Psalms-John 10:34; Psalm 82:6
  c.   The Prophets-1 Cor. 14:21; Isa. 28:11; Luke  24:44.

    If the fact that the instrument was used under the law period authorizes its use today, what about other activities? Can we observe the sabbath? Practice polygamy? Burn incesne in worship?  Go to Jerusalem at appointed times for worship?  Offer animal sacrifices?  Divorce for many or most any reason?  If we attempt to “justify” or authorize the instrument, all of the law must be kept as well. This would include the Levitical priesthood thereby dethroning Christ (Galatians 5:3; James 2:10; 1 Timothy 3:5-6; John 14:6).

C.  Instruments Are Mentioned in Heaven; Why Not Use in Worship of Christians in The Church? (Revelation 5:8)

 1.  One needs to consider the nature of the Revelation letter. It is a highly figurative book.  Read the passage cited. It also speaks of “golden bowls full of incense” which cannot be taken literally since this very verse says they are “the prayers of the saints.”  Why then take harps literal? Too, this would only authorize “harps” not other mechanical devices you see. Too, each person mentioned had one. Do those who use the instrument each have a harp on which to “play?”  We have already noticed that every passage on music in the N.T. specifies the kind. The “kind” being vocal.

D.  The Instrument is Authorized By The Greek Verb Psallo. Some Say “It Is Inherent In the Verb Psallo.”

 1.  Often that which “proves too much, proves nothing.” That is the case with this “argument.”  Most who make this “argument” also admit that one may worship acceptably without a mechanical device of any kind, simply by singing.  If, however the instrument is inherent in the Greek word, it isn’t optional, each one must use one. As seen above, they must use only the instrument taught  in the Scripture.  All Scholars who translated this Greek verb “psallo” translated it to “sing” and the context shows the instrument to be the human heart, not a harp (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 14:15). “Sing” isn’t the same as “play.”  The scholars who translated the Greek into English were members of  “churches” which used the mechanical instrument in their assemblies, still, when their scholarship was on the line, each faithfully translated the word “to sing.”  That is its New Testament meaning no doubt.

 2.  Often the “aid” argument is used in an attempt to “justify” the mechanical device in worship. See the chart on  “expedients” an “aid” cannot be an addition. There is a great difference between the two. When we use book, notes, song leaders, etc. When all is said and done we only sing,  we do not play.

    Would you like to study more about this or any othre Bible subject? If so, just give a call or drop an emial message and we will make arrangements for such a study as soon as possible Call us at 1(309) 347-3582-Office. Or 347-5645-Ken's home number.