Question #10: How Do You Determine Scriptural Authority?
If the “Church of Christ” claims to worship God only as “authorized” by scripture because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the “authority” to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are “aids to worship,” where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe can be an “aid to worship” for the song service in the “Church of Christ,” then why can’t a piano be an “aid to worship” for Baptists who may need more help in singing?
The “question” here expresses the kind of confusion over how to correctly ascertain authority that has been fostered by denominationalism. God created us with a brain and he expects us to use that brain. He created us to be thinking and logical beings after his own image (Gen. 1:26). When a person is honestly striving to please God according to what he has commanded in his word, they don’t have any problem determining what is authorized and what is not authorized. The problem with how to correctly ascertain biblical authority, and the principle of authority in general, only arises when people are trying to justify doing something for which they have no authority from God to do.
In ascertaining biblical authority we find two levels of authority. The first and primary level is specific authority. That is, we are authorized to do those things that are specifically authorized by Scripture. Specific authority comes in three ways.
First, we have specific authority to do those things that are explicitly stated. For example, we are explicitly commanded to sing in our worship to God (cf. Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; cf. 1 Cor. 14:15; Heb. 2:12). We are explicitly commanded to be subject to the civil authorities (Rom. 13:1-7). We are explicitly commanded to give on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1, 2). We are explicitly commanded to be in subjection to the elders (Heb. 13:7). Explicit statements like these simply state what is required. Obviously, such explicit statements authorize us to perform the action commanded.
We also find specific authority in approved examples. We have examples of the approved activities of the New Testament church to follow in our work and worship today. By approved we mean that the example is given as something that the church was doing in obedience to God and is recorded in a positive manner. For example, in Acts 2:42 we have the approved example of the Jerusalem church assembling on the first day of the week to hear God’s word, take the Lord’s Supper and pray. The text refers to the church engaging in these activities in a positive manner with no indication that they were doing anything wrong. This is an inspired example of the activity of the New Testament church and gives us inspired authority by way of that example to do the same today.
We also have specific authority conveyed by means of necessary inference. Simple inference does not provide authority. It must be necessary inference. Necessary means that it is an unavoidably required conclusion to the information provided. For example, Jesus used the principle of necessary inference when he corrected the Saducees on the doctrine of the resurrection (Luke 20:37, 38). If Moses said that God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after those three men were dead and God is the God of the living and not the dead then the necessary inference is that when a person’s body dies that person does not die, his soul lives on. That is the unavoidable necessary conclusion.
It is by necessary inference that we know the doctrine of water baptism is included in what it means to preach Jesus (Acts 8:35, 36). The text only says that Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch. However, when the eunuch heard and believed he knew he needed to be baptized in water. Therefore, we must conclude that Philip taught him to be baptized in doing what the text calls “preaching Jesus.”
It is by necessary inference that we know only men are authorized to serve as elders (1 Tim. 3:2). Because an elder must be the husband of one wife and only a man can be a husband (according to God’s divine definition of such) we know that only men are authorized to serve as elders in the Lord’s church. This is how necessary inference works and one of the ways we receive specific authority from God’s word.
When people ask why we do the things we do, we should be able to turn to a passage that grants us the specific authority for that activity by one of these three means. If we cannot find such authority for whatever we do in word or deed (Col. 3:17) then it cannot be said to be done with the authority of God.
But what about the way we do certain things. That is, not so much the specific what but the way we do it. For example, some congregations sing using song books while others sing using projected lyrics. Some congregations have the sermon first and then take the Lords Supper while others do it the other way around. Some congregations sing six songs and have three prayers during their worship service while others may sing eight and have four prayers. Some song leaders use a pitch pipe to get the pitch of a song while others may hum the pitch before beginning the song while others just start singing.
So which way of doing these things is authorized or are they all authorized? To answer this we go to the second level of authority, generic authority. Now the “question” asks for proof that such generic authority exists and where it is biblically authorized. Most thinking, rational people use and understand this level of authority in every aspect of their lives. They only want it thrown out when it interferes with them doing whatever they want and calling it worship. Not to worry though, generic authority is very easy to demonstrate from the Bible, thus establishing its Scriptural nature. Before we do that, however, lets notice some important fundamental elements of generic authority.
Generic authority only exists where specific authority exists. If there is no specific authority for an activity then it cannot be said to be authorized on the generic level. Generic authority is subordinate to and dependent on specific authority. Therefore, generic authority can only facilitate obedience to specific authority.
For example, we have already shown the specific authority for meeting on Sunday for the worship of the church. However, nowhere in any explicit statement, approved example or necessary inference is the time specified. So, because we know the specific day of assembly and there is no specific authority for the time of assembly, we have generic authority to specify the time on a local level. We also have generic authority for meeting houses to facilitate a congregational meeting. We know we are commanded to meet but the specific place is not given, therefore we are authorized to specify and maintain a meeting place by generic authority.
We have specific authority to sing in our worship assemblies. We also have specific authority for congregational singing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). We are also commanded to have all things decent and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). So, from this we know that having a means of facilitating everyone singing together in a decent and orderly fashion is authorized. So, there is generic authority for things like song leaders, song books, projected lyrics or whatever else would facilitate the kind of singing commanded without contradicting or altering the command to sing congregationally.
This is also a good example for how to determine what is not authorized. We know we are authorized in congregational singing because these passages say each one is to sing to each other one. However, this would not authorize things like solos because a solo is not each one speaking to each other one. It is one person speaking to the rest. So, in order for solos to be authorized a person would have to find an explicit statement, necessary inference or approved example of such being done in the New Testament church. Since there are none we know that singing solos in worship is an unauthorized and man-made form of worship.
Because these passages refer to “speaking” and “teaching” and “admonishing” one another we also know that singing words is authorized. Other vocalizations like humming and imitating instrument sounds is not authorized by these verses. A person would need to find a passage or passages that authorized that specific activity. Since there are no passages authorizing this kind of activity it could not be said to be authorized generically because there is no specific authority being facilitated by it.
Likewise, these passages do not authorize the use of mechanical instruments in the worship of the church. These passages describe and authorize congregational singing. Authority for the use of mechanical instruments in the worship of the New Testament church would have to be found in another passage or passages. Because there are no passages or explicit statement, necessary inference or approved example of the New Testament church using mechanical instruments we know that there is no divine authority for that activity. It is not authorized by generic authority because it is a different type of music than that described and authorized by the text. Generic authority cannot be applied to an activity that would alter or contradict a specific command.
While there may be differences in the way generic authority is used to facilitate obedience to specific authority, specific authority is set and doesn’t change from group to group or individual to individual. Specific authority is unalterable while generic authority will vary from instance to instance. For example, one group meets at 9 AM Sunday mornings for worship while another group meets at 10 AM for worship. Are both groups authorized to meet on Sunday for worship? Yes, by specific authority as found in the approved examples and necessary inferences of the New Testament church (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:18; 16:1, 2). Is the one group authorized to assemble at 9 AM? Yes, by application of generic authority. Is the other group authorized to assemble at 10 AM? Yes, also by generic authority. The application of generic authority can vary while the specific authority is the same, i.e. worship on Sunday. Both groups are simply facilitating the command to assemble on Sunday for worship by setting a time when everyone knows to be there. Whether the assembly is at 9 AM or 10 AM or 8 PM doesn’t matter, it is authorized by the specific authority to assemble on Sunday for worship.
What about another group meeting on Saturday instead of Sunday for their worship? They have no specific authority to do so, therefore, what time they assemble doesn’t matter. Since there is no explicit statement or approved example or necessary inference giving them specific authority to meet on Saturday instead of Sunday, there can be no generic authority for anything else associated with that unauthorized assembly.
Generic authority can only facilitate specific authority, it cannot alter it in any way. If a practice alters a specific command then that practice is unauthorized. A person cannot make an appeal to generic authority for an activity that alters something else that the Bible specifically authorizes. This is where our denominational friends miss the mark in ascertaining biblical authority.
Because we make the biblical appeal to authority for what we do and in exposing the errors of denominationalism, denominationalists attempt to show that we too engage in things not authorized by Scripture. They say we cannot show biblical authority for song books, microphones, pews, church buildings, projectors, etc., etc., etc. What they mean is that we cannot show explicit statements where these things are authorized. It is true that we don’t have explicit biblical statements authorizing the use of PowerPoint projectors but that doesn’t mean we don’t have authority for their use. Some of these things are authorized specifically by necessary inference and approved example while others are authorized by generic authority.
We have already seen that buildings, songbooks, pitch pipes, set meeting times, among other things, are authorized by generic authority. One of the most common erroneous attempts to show inconsistency is to point out the use of projectors. We have the specific authority to study God’s word together in the assembly of the church (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 2 Tim. 4:2; et. al.). The method of teaching in the worship assembly is preaching. Do we have approved examples of biblical preachers using visual aids for their lessons? Yes, we do (Matt. 18:2-5; 22:19; 24:1; et. al.). So, if Jesus used visual aids in his preaching then, obviously, the use of visual aids is authorized for his preachers. We have authority to use visual aids by the approved example of Christ himself, not to mention the numerous other biblical preachers who used visual aids.
The kinds of objections raised in the “question” is evidence of rejecting God’s authority more so than ignorance of it. To point out the use of pews as an example of something that is not authorized, as though that would justify doing things that aren’t authorized in other areas, is simply dishonest and illogical. We’ve already seen that the church is commanded to assemble. So, where does the Bible specify where the assembly sits? It doesn’t! Therefore, the use of pews as a seating option is authorized by generic authority. Do we have authority to use something to sit on in our assemblies? Yes, by virtue of the fact that we are commanded to assemble. The same goes for having and maintaining meeting houses. In no other aspect of life would anyone question whether or not an activity necessary to carry out somethings specifically authorized was authorized or not. It is only when one wants to rebel against the authority of God that such illogical arguments are made.
Indoor baptistries are authorized by virtue of the specific authority to baptize (Matt. 28:18, 19). The specific authority is to baptize for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Therefore, having a body of water sufficient for baptizing facilitates the command to baptize and is, therefore, authorized. Where the body of water is does not alter the specific command in any way.
Now let us briefly note some biblical examples of generic authority being applied. Noah was commanded to make the ark of gopher wood (Gen. 6:14). But he wasn’t told where to get it or how to carry it. Would he have been authorized to buy gopher wood at the local lumber yard? Yes, in order to facilitate the specific command. Was he authorized to go out and cut his own gopher wood? Yes. Whether he bought it at the lumber yard or went out and cut it himself, the command to build the ark of gopher wood was being facilitated. He was also authorized to carry it by whatever means would facilitate obedience to the specific command without altering it or contradicting other commands.
Jesus commanded the disciples to go and teach (Matt. 28:19, 20). However, the manner of going is not specified. When we look for examples of how the disciples went in the New Testament record we see them going in all manner of ways (ships, chariots, on foot, by messenger, by letter, etc.). All of these ways were authorized because they facilitated the specific command to go. Likewise, today when we go by way of TV, radio, Internet, tract, book, CD, etc., etc, these too are authorized generically by the specific command to go.
We are commanded to do all things according to the authority of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). I pray that this article will aid the reader in knowing how to do that.
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I just came across this on a web search I did to find quotes and references for the way many conservative churhces of Christ read the New Testament and teach authority to help me on a paper I’m writing. I have been there. I preached EXACTLY everything you are saying here, but through further study have come to a different view. There is SOOO much I’d like to say, but for the sake of time will limit myself to just a few comments, specifically as they pertain to comments you make about those you disagree with.
You said:
“When a person is honestly striving to please God according to what he has commanded in his word, they don’t have any problem determining what is authorized and what is not authorized. The problem with how to correctly ascertain biblical authority, and the principle of authority in general, only arises when people are trying to justify doing something for which they have no authority from God to do.”
With all due respect, this is a very arrogant statement. You are basically saying that among all who love the Lord and are striving to serve Him and humbly submit to His will, the only ones that are really striving are those of the view you hold. I regret to say that I too once thought that to be the case, until I started actually listening to what others were saying and what they believed and why. What I found were good honest men who had sought the truth diligently and come to different conclusions than you in so doing. That doesn’t make them right of course, but please, let’s address the issues without attacking the character of those we disagree with.
I too once preached that those who used instruments and did all sorts of other things did so only because it’s what they wanted to do and they then sought to twist the scriptures to find approval. But brother, such is simply not the case at all. Are there some who fit that description you gave? Certainly. But many who have come to different conclusions than you do not. They are good honest men doing what they do not because it’s what they want, but because they are striving to do their best to glorify God and sees approval for doing so in certain ways that you do not. Again, that doesn’t make them right, but don’t attack someone’s character. Only God knows the heart.
You said:
“Most thinking, rational people use and understand this level of authority in every aspect of their lives. They only want it thrown out when it interferes with them doing whatever they want and calling it worship. ”
You are here essentially calling all those with whom you disagree unthinking and irrational people only care about doing what they want to do and care little or nothing about glorifying God. I can only assume that you either have never had a heart to heart talk with many brethren who disagree with you, or that you have just so prejudged their motives so that there is no way they can disagree with you and still be a thinking rational person who seeks to glorify God above all else.
You said:
“The kinds of objections raised in the “question” is evidence of rejecting God’s authority more so than ignorance of it. To point out the use of pews as an example of something that is not authorized, as though that would justify doing things that aren’t authorized in other areas, is simply dishonest and illogical.”
I’m afraid you have missed the point in those of us who say such things. Certainly we don’t think pointing out one thing as unauthorized would somehow authorize something else. Yes, that would be dishonest and illogical, and I know of no one who has ever been so ignorant as to make such an argument. If you do, please provide quotes and references rather than making an unfair generalization that attacks the character of everyone you disagree with. The point we make when saying things such as this is that your application of your hermeneutic is inconsistent. We are simply pointing out inconsistencies in hopes that you will realize that something is wrong with your paradigm and how you read the New Testament.
Meg had some comments about leaving a legacy of love, which I thought were great comments. To them you replied:
“Your comments about a “legacy of love” and turning the Bible into a rule book, while well intentioned as they may be, are misguided. This is one of the ways that liberal minded apostates have attempted to remake the church of our Lord, which he purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28), after the image of man-made denominations. It takes the twisted and sick worldly idea of “love” and attempts to bring the Bible into subjection to it, rather than being transformed into the biblical image of true and beautiful godly love. ”
Such comments are most certainly not misguided! Love is the essence of all scripture. Love is the command on which hang all the Law and the Prophets. God Himself is Love. Indeed, if we are to be His children, our legacy too should be Love, and Meg is right on in stating that such is not the legacy churches of Christ have made for themselves. It is not a twisted and sick worldly idea of love that Meg was talking about, as is obvious from the example she gave. She gave an example of one doing what Jesus said was the ultimate act of love-laying down your life. That man she mentioned laid down his life for his King! Brother, with all due respect, how in the world do you make that out to be a sick twisted worldly idea of love??? That is precisely the precise personification of agape love!
Further you said:
“According to your desire for a worldly love, you are basically saying that you are willing to compromise anything and everything to have people think you love them. If it is hard or potentially offensive to someone, according to this idea, it should be put aside (i.e., compromised). ”
No, that is not what we are saying. Look again at the example. The man laid down his life, and would NOT compromise his faith, despite the persecution. Comments like this are evidence that you are prejudging the heart and comments of anyone who disagrees with you. Brother, please realize this!
Further you said:
“Why would we think that we show the love of Christ by tolerating sin and every manner of man-made whim being practiced in his worship? ”
Who are you referring to here? No one said we show the love of Christ by tolerating sin. As no one said such a thing, you are just putting words into the mouths of those you disagree with. Whether it be your direct intent or not (having been where you are for many years, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not) you are prejudicing your readers rather than accurately informing them. This is a natural thing that happens which we don’t even notice when we have pre-judged others ourselves, as you have pre-judged the hearts and minds of those you disagree with.
Further you said:
“Meg, the fact is, you cannot find the kind of “legacy of love” you are talking about being expressed toward any of God’s righteous servants in his word. ”
Brother, Meg was not talking about love being expressed TOWARDS God’s servants, but being expressed BY God’s servants.
There is much more that could be said about hermenutics and how we are to read and apply the New Testament, but such would be futile until your heart is open to hearing and honestly considering other viewpoints without all the misrepresenting of others and judging of others hearts that runs throughout your discourse.
All that being said, let me state again that I was once where you are and preached exactly what you preach. I understand very much the mindset, and know that I certainly was guilty of the same things I charged you with, and then some. I was so caught up with a zeal to teach what I believed to be the truth that I didn’t even realize the condition of my heart and attitude towards others. Of course I don’t know your heart, so understand that I am not saying your heart is not right. Only God knows. But your attitude towards those you disagree with does seem rather manifest, and we will never reach the point where we can all gather together in love and humility to honestly consider His word and seek His truth as long as that attitude and many of the comments of which you made about those you disagree with are present.
Please think and pray on these things and give them some quiet reflection.
God bless.
Here’s a scripture that points to legacy:
1.Proverbs 3:34,35
” Surely He scorns the scornful,
But gives grace to the humble.
The wise shall inherit glory,
But shame shall be the legacy of fools.
Personally I have seen that the church is not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, the power to save…- Rms 1:16. So heres what I would say, (because I think I am “most anyone today” because I am a sinner just like everyone else) and speak in subjection to God and in the Light of the Love of God. So, the legacy i have seen reflects exactly what I see as the church of Christ today and in the past. Here is my statement of Love, and appreciation:
To my Brethren: “I Love You”……
“Jesus Christ built the most glorious church I have ever seen. The love I have seen and experienced as a member of the church has always amazed me. I have felt awe and amazement that even when I was weak, there was love from my brethren. Even when I was lost and left the congregation, when I returned, after quite a few years, I was accepted back, with open arms. With tears, and with love. The Christians prayed for me the moment I returned and still do today.
I have experienced humble men and women, who have studied, prayed and cared. Men and women who have listened to the cares I have and sat on pews or stood in parking lots, spent time on the phone and gave of their time and lives to make my faith richer. The men that have spent hours studying the bible and preaching and teaching and proclaiming that Christ is God’s Son.
The sermons on love and I Corinthians and the messages on Paul. Studies and Bible Reading, Old Test., New Test., Original Greek, Hebrew. Some of the greatest servant ministers that have expressed the scriptures I owe great gratitude to and love. And to their wives that have shown to the congregation great care and love. To the fellowship, songs, food, clothes given. To the women have prepared for the grieving at funerals.
The love and the tears prayed for the sick and the numberous sick with cancer or illnesses. The food pantry servants that have been willing and able to be humble and go and spend time to serve and aid the poor. The love of the Bible school teachers to prepare lessons and greet Children that have needed to hear God’s word. The bible studies done on tables at buildings and in resturants and in homes and work lunch tables. I see that love, that care, that sacrifice that priority that goes to preach the gospel.
The men and women that have confessed their sins and corrected their lives in order to give God back the control of their lives, after being hit by satan’s darts and “not give up ” and repent and humble their lives before God. I’ve seen Men and Women say they are sorry for their sins and cry their eyes out.
Jesus love and building his church does shine still and I have seen it in the past, I have seen members of the body of Christ door knock, pass out flyers, invite their neighbors to know Christ, to experience Christ , to worship Him, to pray, to go to Panama, China, Russia, and into their own backyards in America to reach out to tell others that their is a God is Alive.
The Men and women who help others. The singing to admonish one another, or humbly giving of their means, without a # placed on the plate they give, yet give God the glory of any and all works done under his voice and to please him.
Who humbly yet boldly speak out to stand up for the principles of Gods word, to encourage their brethren.
The church that continues to preach and deliver the gospel and stress keeping the gospel Pure and Not to be soon removed from the simplicity that the gospel spells. Messages of The entrance into the Kingdom of God by the calling of the Gospel, the answer of a good conscience towards God in baptism, the love that we never can outgrow or do without… that message is still being preached and proclaimed by preachers with the Gospel of Peace. I’ve heard it and seen it.
The men that protect their women, that love their women and sisters in Christ and would hurt if she hurts. The men that protect their men when it comes to sins that tempt the mans heart to stray God.
This is the church of Christ that I have known and seen and heard and owe a debt of love to. This is the the bride Christ prayed for to be One in Him. Thank God He built it.
Sure I have seen mistakes too. But, that is why God inspired Hebrews 13 , so that we could remember that we need other Christians everyday to help us to stay out of sin.
If we are studying and asking God for His righteousness and the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, Praise God for any and all attempts to find unity in Christ and His Church.
Meg, I want my legacy to be about my love for Christ and being a servant to others too, and I believe, that giving God Glory for the good that my brethren have done over the years is a shining light.
To him that overcometh the world, there is to be given a crown of righteousness. I hope others that see members of the Lords church doing the best they can, will also see Christs love, and will forgive us where we faulter.
What does the statement I just wrote have to do with musical I’s… Perhaps it is that the praise we give God in His church and the love we have for one another is exemplified by how much we follow Christ ’s example.
Lord willing, Norm, in God’s wisdom, would you please expound on the passage of following Christ- doesn’t it say in the New Testament that Christ sang? It points back to your points on Biblical Inference, Commands to Obey, and Examples to Follow, doesn’t it???
Anyway thanks Bro. Norm. but up today I did not get any answer to my last doubts in your site.
In regard to my doubts about CONGREGATIONAL SINGING, I understand that Amos (Amos 5: 20-25) did not pronounced a curse upon who like David introduced instrumental music into Hebrew worship? it is God who is rejecting all of the features of their worship because of the gross sins of the nation. Let me know your biblical opinion
Concerning if we can or can not sing in four-part harmony. I do not know what is biblical correct.
More doubts are coming up in my mind about this theme.
1.-In congregational acappella singing, who is the four part harmony really for? Is it more for our benefit than it is for God?.
2.-Where is any authority in the NT authorizing a song leader?
3.-Is the use or non-use of an instrument would seem to fall into the category of adiaphora: that is, a thing that is free or permitted because it has neither been commanded nor prohibited in explicit terms as revealed in the New Testament.
Hope you or your comentators give me some Biblical advice or answer to my doubts.
Eliud
Regarding singing in four part harmony, we would need to examine the practice to see if it facilitates the biblical command or if it contradicts it. We know that the New Testament does not authorize four part harmony specifically, but what about generically?
From Eph. 5:19 (et. al.) we learn that our singing is to be congregational, with each one singing to each other one. Where solos and choirs actually contradict congregational singing, the whole congregation singing in four part harmony does not. It is a form of congregational singing. It is within the scope of the commanded form of singing. Also, historically, the early church had the practice of responsive singing, which practice also went back to the practice of singing in the Hebrew Synagogues. Responsive singing is where one part of the assembly would sing a stanza and another part would answer them with the next stanza. As with four part harmony, the whole congregation is singing together. Four part harmony or responsive singing is a form of congregational singing and does not contradict the principles taught in Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, Heb. 2:12 or any other New Testament passage on singing.
Now, regarding your questions:
The concern of who a particular aspect of our singing is for really comes from the argument against the use of mechanical instruments that says the use of such is purely for our enjoyment and has nothing to do with pleasing God. While that is true, we have to be careful that we don’t get the idea that there is nothing about our singing that is supposed to be for our benefit. The singing is supposed to “admonish,” which means to instruct or even correct and rebuke (Col. 3:16). So there is a part of our singing that is for our benefit, it is to “teach and admonish” the congregation. Four part harmony is a way to do that which does not alter or contradict the specific command
There is a great deal in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 that would be contradicted by the use of instrumental music. Our singing is supposed to be “speaking,” an instrument can’t do that. It is supposed to be “teaching and admonishing,” instruments cannot do that. It is supposed to be congregational but with instruments some are playing and others are singing. Instrumental music does not facilitate our singing in any way whatsoever.
As to the authority for a song leader, this is something I covered in the article above. The fact that it is to be done congregationally and that it is be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40) would imply that there are authorized means to sing congregationally in an orderly manner. One of those ways is to use a song leader. The song leader facilitates to singing. There is nothing about the use of a song leader that alters or contradicts the specific commands. That does not mean that the use of a song leader is the only way to sing congregationally in an orderly manner but it is the most logical and immediately apparent means to that end.
The use or non-use of mechanical instruments is not simply a matter of judgment. The use of mechanical instruments actually contradicts the commanded music of the New Testament worship. We are commanded to sing congregationally, that cannot be fulfilled with the use of mechanical instruments. We are commanded to teach and admonish with our singing, that cannot be fulfilled with the use of mechanical instruments.
The use of Adiaphora for biblical doctrine is applying Stoic philosophy to Scripture. According to this idea, if the Bible doesn’t specifically forbid something then it is a matter of judgement and we may choose to engage in that thing or to not engage in it. It is a matter of liberty that is neither right nor wrong in and of itself. However, this man-made philosophy does not fit the teaching of Scripture. In the Bible, if something is not authorized by specific or generic authority then it is forbidden. Several passages establish the fact that biblical silence does not allow for those things on which it is silent. Rather, those things are forbidden. Silence forbids!
For example, We are to do all things by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17). That is, we must be authorized in what we do by the word of Christ. If the word of Christ is completely silent on a matter then we have no authority from Christ and, therefore, it is forbidden. Hebrews 7:12-14 says that the Law was changed of necessity because Christ could not be High Priest under the old Law, he was from a tribe that Moses spake nothing of as concerning the priesthood. The fact that Moses did not say any other tribe could produce priests forbade priests from any other tribe. Moses did not have to say that they could not have priests from Judah or the other tribes because he said were the priests were to come from. He specified a tribe for the priesthood and was silent about priests from any other tribe. Because no other tribe was specified they were forbidden from being priests.
Scripture does not explicitly forbid the use of honey on the bread of the Lord’s Supper. But if someone were to say that the use of honey on the bread was acceptable then I would ask them to show me the verse authorizing such. Simply saying that the Bible doesn’t say you can’t do something is not authority to do it. Likewise, just because the New Testament doesn’t explicitly say you can’t use mechanical instruments doesn’t mean that you can. You have to be able to show where it is authorized. Adiaphora, as it’s applied here, is not a biblical principle.
I hope this answers the questions you are having about the use of mechanical instruments of music. It really comes down to just one simple question, can you show me where the New Testament church ever used it or authorized its use? Before I am willing to engage in an activity I need to see where I am authorized by Scripture to do that thing.
Eliud,
Here’s a couple of short answers to your questions.
1. I don’t really have an answer other than to say that sometimes a song is written for a four part harmony and that they’re just following the song.
2. 1 Corinthians 14:40 says that we should do things “decently and in order”. A song leader simply helps us to do that.
3. There are many things that aren’t explicitly forbidden in the Bible. For example, God told Noah to use gopher wood to build the ark (Gen 6:14). However, He didn’t explicitly forbid oak, maple, or any other types of wood. So, do you think that God would have allowed the ark to float if Noah had used any other wood besides gopher wood? Also, God told Moses to speak to the rock in order to get water from it. God, did not explicitly forbid Moses to strike it. However, Moses did strike it, and, while God still provided the water, He forbid Moses from ever setting foot in the promised land (Numbers 20:8-12).
Likewise, God hasn’t explicitly forbidden musical instruments. However, in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 God has specified what he does want us to do, sing and make melody in the heart.
Btw, sorry no one answered your questions sooner. Norm recently updated this site and accidently took down the widget that informs us of new posts so we didn’t know that anyone had posted.
Thanks a lot Brothers Norm and Jeff, your biblical answers to my questions clarify my doubts, I agree with you regarding four part harmony singing, I found out that
given the simple fact that men and women do not sing in the same range, defeats the argument that harmony cannot be used in congregational singing. Even while singing in what is called “unison” multiple notes at octave intervals are being sung.
The reason we have harmony is because the human voice doesn’t produce a single note. We sing a base note upon which are numerous harmonics. We preceive a blending of harmonys when those harmonics line up. Barber shop singers refer to “ringing the rafters” when multiple harmonics line up because the frequencies reinforce each other and the result is a louder sound. If only pure notes were required by God, then it would be impossible for the human voice to produce.
May God continues blessing you for sharing Christ.
Eliud Gamez Sr.
← Previous Comments
You must log in to post a comment.