Truth Magazine

By Don Willis

The Lord God is in Heaven. All is well with His people. We believe in the veracity of God. God made heaven, the earth, the seas, and all that in them is. Glory belongs to Him! There is none to compare with Him. Worship must be ascribed to Him.

In the great Ten Commandment law, God had demanded, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Ex. 20:3). “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one God: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. 6:4-5). “The Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him” (Hab. 2:20).

Solomon said the whole duty of man is to “fear God, and keep his commandments” (Eccl. 12:13). Therefore, many people are frightened at the concept of God! Might we call to our attention the two-fold nature of this command: fear God, keep His commandments. The religious world pays much attention to the first half of the command, but ignores the need to “keep His commandments.” One does not love God who fails to keep His commandments (1 Jn. 2:3-4).

More than one Greek word is translated “fear.” Mr. Vine’s excellent work observes that the Greek term, eulabeia signifies “firstly caution; then, reverence, godly fear, Heb. 5:7; 12:28, in best manuscripts, ‘reverence;’ in general, apprehension, but especially holy fear, ‘that mingled fear and love which, combined, constitute the piety of man toward God; the O.T. places its emphasis on the fear, the N.T.. . . on the love, though there was love in the fear of God’s saints then, as there must be fear in their love now… (Vine’s quote is from Trench). There must be a reverential fear, awe, of God. Many regard God too lightly! We are in His presence, let us be in awe before His august throne!

Another Greek term, phobos, is translated fear. Vine said it had the meaning of flight, that which is caused by being scared. One is not “scared” of God; yet Vine continues to note a “reverential fear of God, as a controlling motive of the life in matters spiritual and moral, not a mere fear of His power and righteous retribution, but a wholesome dread of displeasing Him, a fear which banishes the terror that shrinks from His presence, Rom. 8:15, and which influences the disposition and attitude of one whose circumstances are guided by trust in God. . . . ” Vine further adds the reverential fear of God will inspire a constant carefulness in dealing with others in His fear.

God loves you and me. God has said He is “for” us, that is, He is on our side! Christ lives to intercede for us! He died that we might live. Truly, let each of us give our lives to Him in complete obedience. “Fear God, and keep His commandments.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, p. 582
October 3, 1985

By Tommy L. McClure

This lesson is, by its very nature, a lesson on contrasts. Statements which are diametrically opposed to each other will be presented along with the questions of the above title.

Genesis 2:16,17; 3:14

These passages tell us that God warned Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil on the grounds that “thou shalt surely die. ” Of their eating of the very same tree, the serpent told Eve, “Ye shall not surely die. ” Note the statement of God versus the statement of the serpent.

God: “Thou shall surely die.”

Serpent: “Ye shall not surely die.”

Which statement is right? Which do you believe? Since the statements are diametrically opposed to each other, both cannot be right! Nor can one consistently accept both; to accept the former is to reject the latter. This writer does not hesitate to accept the statement of God and reject the statement of the serpent.

Mark 16:16

Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Some religionists tell us: Faith is necessary to salvation, but baptism is not necessary; baptism is a non-essential; it is merely an outward sign of an inward grace and has nothing whatsoever to do with our salvation. If language means anything at all, the “bottom line” of their teaching is: “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.” Look at the two statements together:

Jesus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

Men: “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.”

Which statement is right? Which do you believe? To contend that baptism is not essential to salvation is to align yourself with the teaching of men; to do that is to reject the statement of the Son of God; those who reject His word will be judged (condemned) by it in the last day (Jn. 12:48).

After noting that eight souls were saved by water in the days of Noah, Peter said, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Men, however, tell us that baptism does not save, and has nothing to do with salvation. Note the contrast:

Peter: “Baptism doth also now save us.”

Men: “Baptism doth also not save us.”

Which is right? Which do you believe? The statement of the inspired apostle Peter or the teachings of un-inspired men who deny what Peter said? All of the smoke screens raised by denominational preachers who call this “water salvation,” “water religion,” and “salvation by works” do not remove what Peter said! After the smoke clears, the verse still says, “baptism doth also now save us. ” False teachers can deny it, ignore it, and misrepresent it, but they cannot get rid of it! It is there, and will be there to face them in the judgment! (Jn. 12:48)

James 2:24

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” However, the Methodist Discipline says, “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deserving. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort” (Doctrines And Discipline Of The Methodist Church, The Articles of Religion, Article IX, Par. 69, p. 28, 1952 Edition; emphasis mine. TLM). Look at the contrast:

James: “Man is not justified by faith only.”

Methodist Discipline: “Man is justified by faith only. “

Which is right? Which do you believe? One must choose one or the other-it cannot be both ways!

Denominational preachers (Methodists and others) will present passage after passage which predicate salvation on the condition of faith. I believe every one of them — I have no quarrel with any of them! Certainly, salvation is by faith, and salvation is promised to the believer (Jn. 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 5:24; 20:30, 31; Acts 10:42; 16:30,31). But, which faith saves? Dead faith or living faith? Remember that faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:17, 20, 26). And which believer is saved? The obedient believer or the disobedient believer? Abraham was an obedient believer-“By faith Abraham . . . obeyed . . .” (Heb. 11:8). So were the 3,000 on Pentecost (Acts 2:41), those of Samaria (Acts 8:12), the Corinthians (Acts 18:8), and the Jailor (Acts 16:30-34). The chief rulers who refused to confess Jesus (Jn. 12:42, 43), the devils (Jas. 2:19), and those who depend on faith only to save them, before and without further acts of obedience, are disobedient believers! If that amazes you, be it known that Hiscox’s Baptist Manual tacitly teaches that obedience is not essential to salvation! Note this statement: “Baptism is not essential to salvation … but it is essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it” (The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches, Edward T. Hiscox, D.D., The American Baptist Publication Society, pp. 20,21, reprinted 1945). In a “one-two-three” fashion, we have:

1. Baptism is essential to obedience.

2. But baptism is not essential to salvation.

3. Therefore, obedience is not essential to salvation!

Can you beat it? According to that, Baptists will have to “junk” much of the New Testament (Matt. 7:21; Rom. 6:1618; 1 Pet. 4:17; 2 Thess. 1:7,8; 1 Jn. 2:3-5; Rev. 22:14; Heb. 5:8,9; etc.), or repudiate their doctrine! They cannot have it both ways.

Ezekiel 18:20

Ezekiel said, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezek. 18:20). Each individual is responsible for his own sins, and for his own sins only! One may suffer the consequences of another’s sins, but guilt is borne only by the sinner himself.

However, men tell us, “Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit . . . They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to a their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation” (The Confession ofFaith of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, by the Publication Department of the Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1945, pp. 34-36).

Who can fail to see the contrast between Ezekiel’s statement and this doctrine of men? Concisely stated, it is this:

Ezekiel: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Con. of Faith: “All mankind does bear the iniquity of Adam and Eve.”

Presbyterians and others who espouse the “original sin” doctrine must decide which way they will go. They cannot travel opposite directions at the same time!

Acts 2:38

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins As surely as the blood of Christ was shed “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28), man is to repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). The expressions are exactly the same in both passages, both in English and Greek!

However, men tell us, with respect to baptism, that “for” in Acts 2:38 means “because of” — that men are to be baptized “because of” remission, i.e., because their sins have been remitted already! We ask the proponents of this position, “If that is what men are to be baptized ‘for,’ what are they to repent ‘for’?” Strangely and suddenly the same “for” points in the opposite direction-repentance, they tell us, is unto remission! See the hole they are in? In “repent . . . for (unto) remission,” the word “for” Points forward; in “be baptized . . . for (because of, their definition) remission,” the word “for” points backward! There is only one “for” in Acts 2:38! In their devious efforts to avoid the truth of God’s Book, Baptist preachers make one word point in opposite directions in the same sentence and in the same verse! For one meeting himself coming back, a Baptist preacher has no peer when he comes to Acts 2:38.

Since the actions of repentance and baptism are connected by the copulative conjunction “and, ” whatever repentance is “for” baptism is “for”; the way “for” points with respect to repentance is the way “for” points with respect to baptism! There is not a reputable translation in the world which makes “for” point backward in Acts 2:38.

Consider the contrast between the Bible and men on this point, concisely stated:

Peter: Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Baptist Preachers: Repent for the remission of sins, and be baptized because of remission of sins already received.

“Choose ye this day” which you will believe; it cannot be both ways!

Acts 22:16

Ananias said to Saul of Tarsus (a convicted, penitent, praying man): “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). This was three days after Saul had been stricken blind on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-18), the time when, according to some religionists, Saul was gloriously saved the very moment he believed on Jesus Christ. If they are correct, Saul was saved while yet in his sins-at least three days before they were washed away! Whatever may be said about what the washing was, the element of the washing, and how it was accomplished, the fact is clear that baptism stood between the sinner and that washing. The sinner had to “go through,” if you please, the act of baptism to reach the washing. Note this simple diagram:

Soul the Sinner ____________ Baptism ___________________ Washing

Thus, baptism is essential to the washing away of sins, a fact which cannot successfully be denied in the light of Acts 22:16.

However, men tell us that alien sinners are saved by praying for forgiveness at the “altar” (formerly the “mourner’s bench”), and that baptism is not essential to that forgiveness. Whereas Ananias instructed Saul to get up to obey, some modern preachers tell alien sinners to get down to pray for pardon. Baptism, according to them, comes after forgiveness. Note their idea in this diagram, and the contrast between this one and the one above:

Alien Sinner _______________Washing of Pardon_________________Baptism

The contrast between the Bible and men on this matter is plain:

Bible: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

Men: Get down and pray through to salvation, and be baptized later when convenient and if you so desire.

Which is right? Which do you believe?

2 Peter 2:20

Peter said, “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning” (2 Pet. 2:20). The following facts are evident concerning those here under consideration: (1) They escaped the pollutions of the world; (2) Their escape was effected through the knowledge of Christ; (3) After their escape, they are again entangled and overcome in worldly pollutions; (4) Their latter end is worse than the beginning; (5) Since they were condemned at the beginning, they are now more severely condemned! Thus, the possibility of apostasy on the part of saved people, children of God, is made clear; they can so sin as to be finally lost in hell!

However, the teaching of some preachers is quite different. A Baptist preacher, Sam Morris, said, “We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul . . . and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger” (Do a Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul? pamphlet by Sam Morris, p. 1, quoted here from Porter-Bogard Debate, pp. 135,136).

Look at the contrast concisely stated:

Peter: The latter end of the one who has escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ, but is again entangled therein and overcome, is worse than the beginning (2 Pet. 2:20).

Baptist Preachers: The latter end of such a person is not worse than the beginning. The child of God can commit every sin in the book-from idolatry to murder-and still go to heaven.

Believe Baptist Preachers if you are so determined; but, you cannot believe Peter and Baptist preachers at the same time, regardless of your determination!

Other contrasts, as clear-cut as these, could be presented if time and space allowed. It is hoped that this article will prompt the careful student to take this line of study further so as to include all false doctrines of men and that the contrast between them and the word of God will be clearly drawn and forcefully presented to the world. May the question: “Is it from heaven, or of men?” (See Matt. 21:23-27) never be forgotten, regardless of the subject with which we deal.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 584-585, 596
October 3, 1985

By Irven Lee

There are some things that are evidently approved by many good people, but I do not understand why these things are so widely approved. Please do not hold these things against me. Some things need to be changed, and in some cases I may need more understanding.

Bible Classes

One mystery is why there is so little Bible taught in so many “Bible” classes. Some seem not to realize how many Bible stories can be learned by small children and how many passages of Scripture they can memorize. Children can be very happy in good Bible classes. The “helps” for small children, in some cases, seem unrelated to the Bible. The Bible speaks for itself. Kindness, unselfishness, forgiveness, sharing, and other good traits are taught in the stories and precepts of the Bible. Why should we turn from the Bible to try to find better ways of teaching these things? Remember also that classes are not just to entertain the children or to act as babysitters so the mothers can go to their own classes.

Ladies “Bible” classes usually use books that contain very little Bible. They are usually some woman’s ideas, which may be good, but are not as good as Christ’s, Paul’s, Peter’s, or Moses’. Such questions as “What is your favorite dessert?” are hardly worth taking time which is set aside for Bible study to answer, and there is no real value in knowing the answer anyway. Such a question may serve as an “ice breaker,” but there must be some better way of introducing a Bible lesson. Psychology may be a good study for people in school, but the Bible will completely furnish us all the things we need to know for our spiritual welfare. The lack of Bible knowledge is alarming, so why do we not emphasize Bible in “Bible” classes? Teachers in classes on Sunday and midweek should prepare well for very worthwhile classes which truly instruct in spiritual matters.

Music

There are also some mysteries related to music. Some of us are not well informed in this field that calls for special talents. We are told that music speaks a universal language. Under the name of music many very different sounds are presented. Is there any one who appreciates everything that is called music? It seems that some play for one audience and others perform for other audiences. It seems to take several types of music to get to every one. One type may not speak to all people.

Some talented people can provide music that helps people relax. Others provide something (whatever it is) that can turn a group into a mob so that cities must have extra police on duty to keep some semblance of order after a performance. Vulgar words with certain sounds and rhythm can provoke lust. Is there any doubt about this? Often immodest attire and wild pagan like gyrations may be a significant part of the “musical performance” in these degrading shows. Very many purchase expensive tickets and travel long distances to be present for shows that contribute nothing good to those present. That which makes animals out of people is not good.

Very many good people perform in certain musical programs and many very good people enjoy this music that is not vulgar, but I confess I cannot enjoy it because of the volume. What is so pleasant about loud music? May I be forgiven for not understanding or enjoying this highly amplified music with these good people? More and more Americans have a constant high pitched sound ringing in their ears as a result of being around loud noises in industry. Is there danger for these musicians and their audiences?

The Social Gospel

A few million people in this country have stood for the scriptural precept of speaking as the oracles of God. Many have said that we should speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. The great mystery is why so many of these people have gone after the “social gospel” which is the substitute for the gospel of Christ that the modernists (infidels) introduced. The church has been led to copy the superstructures (denominational machinery) of the churches which write their own creeds and plan their own forms of church government.

The church has been made the special provider of entertainment in a world that already has television, school athletic programs, little leagues, scouts, clubs, etc., but it may be spiritually sick. The church is a great teaching institution (Eph. 4: 11; 1 Tim. 3:15). No officials in the Lord’s church were known as the chairmen of the refreshment committee or the chairmen of the entertainment committee. (Please see Eph. 4:11.)

Some of the pet projects that were so much emphasized thirty years ago are no longer such pets. The enthusiasm for orphan homes has died down since the schools became so successful in getting their hands into the church treasuries. Since the Herald of Truth organization became so liberal very many churches have quietly dropped it from their budget. Such big central agencies have a way of falling into the hands of the ultra-liberals (e.g., the missionary society). Will more people awaken to their mistakes? Time will tell.

Fence Straddlers

When some brethren introduce some unscriptural practices, a few brethren will oppose them. There is then a third group that puts special effort into sitting on the fence. In churches where the leaders will not take a stand in a battle between truth and error, the churches ultimately follow the course of error. Apostasy stays out only where it is opposed. This has been demonstrated in each generation in which such wide spread apostasy has come, but people do not seem to learn. I do not understand why they are not aware that if we do not read history we are destined to repeat it. The churches that did not oppose institutionalism thirty years ago now use preachers regularly who are institutional in belief, unless some powerful force of righteousness finally awakened the leaders to conviction. Could you illustrate this by some church near you? Will the next generation do a similar thing? There are many things that I need help to understand.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 579-580
October 3, 1985

By Mike Willis

The use of mechanical instruments of music in worship was not a part of the worship of the early church. When were they introduced into the church’s worship? The church historians tell us when mechanical instruments became a part of the worship of the churches:

The use of organs in churches is ascribed to Pope Vitalian (657-672). Constantine Copronymos sent an organ with other presents to King Pepin of France in 767. Charlemagne received one as a present from the Caliph Haroun al Rashid, and had it put up in the cathedral of Aixla-Chapelle . . . . The attitude of the churches toward the organ varies. It shared to some extent the fate of images except that it never was an object of worship . . . . The Greek church disapproved the use of organs. The Latin church introduced it pretty generally, but not without the protest of eminent men, so that even in the Council of Trent a motion was made, though not carried, to prohibit the organ at least in the mass (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 4, p. 439). (For further verification of these facts concerning the introduction of the organ in worship, see American Encyclopedia, Vol. 12, p. 688 and Chamber’s Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, p. 112.)

In view of the controversies over the use of instrumental music in worship which have been so violent in the British and American Protestant churches, it is an interesting question whether instruments were employed by the primitive Christians. We know that instruments performed an important function in the Hebrew temple service and in the ceremonies of the Greeks. At this point, however, a break was made with all previous practice, and although the lyre and flute were sometimes employed by the Greek converts, as a general rule, the use of instruments in worship was condemned. Many of the fathers, speaking of religious song, make no mention of instruments; others like Clement of Alexandria and St. Chrysostom, refer to them only to denounce them (Edwin Dickinson, History of Music in the Western Church, p. 54).

Although mechanical instruments of music were available for use in the first century (they were used in the worship of both the Jews and Greeks), the early church chose not to use them. Through the years, as mechanical instruments of music were introduced into the worship of the various denominations, well-known religious leaders protested their use.

Thomas Acquinas (Catholic scholar of 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. 11, p. 483).

John Calvin (Presbyterian founder): 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. 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 from pleasing to Him (Commentary on Psa. 33 and on 1 Sam. 18:1-9).

John Girardeau (Presbyterian): It has thus been proved, by an appeal to historical facts, that the church, although lapsing more and more into defection from the truth and into a corruption of apostolic practice, had no instrumental music for twelve hundred years; and that 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. The historical argument, therefore, combines with the Scriptural and the confessional to raise a solemn and powerful protest against its employment by the Presbyterian Church. It is heresy in the sphere of worship (Instrumental Music, p. 179).

John Wesley (Methodist founder): I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen (Clarke’s Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 684).

The testimony of history is that the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship was introduced in the worship of the church many years after the first century and over the protest of many leaders. The use of mechanical instruments of music in worship was not a part of the worship of the church of the New Testament. Though instruments of music were available, the early church chose not to use them.

Attempts to Defend Mechanical Instruments in Worship

The fact that mechanical instruments of music were not used in the worship of the church until later years would be meaningless if scriptural authority can be produced to show that God approved their use in worship. Through the years, there have been many attempts to defend the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship. Let us examine those arguments.

1. David used instruments of music in the Old Testament. Without a doubt, mechanical instruments of music were used in the Old Testament period of worship. Psalm 150 commanded the use of trumpet, psaltery, harp, timbrel, dance, stringed instruments, organs, and cymbals in the praise of God. Many other passages could be added to demonstrate that mechanical instruments were used in the worship of the Old Testament. These two facts need to be considered with reference to this point:

(a) If the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship in the Old Testament proves that they can be used today, anything else used in worship in the Old Testament can also be used today. During the Old Testament era, the following things were also practiced:

Burning Incense (Lev. 10:1-2)

Observance of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16)

Daily animal sacrifices (Num. 28:1-6)

Observance of the Sabbath day (Ex. 20:8)

A separate priesthood (Lev.)

In addition to this, the Old Testament allowed the practice of polygamy, commanded Levirate marriage, and many other things which would not be accepted today. In Galatians 5:3, Paul wrote, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” The Old Testament is not a religious smorgasbord from which Christians can pick and choose items to add to religious worship according to their personal taste. If a man is going to accept the Old Testament as his authority for one item, Paul said he is “debtor to do the whole law.” One must practice either all of the Old Testament or none of it.

(b) Mechanical instruments of music were not added to the worship of the Old Testament as a matter of personal preference at the whim of the Old Testament saints. The mechanical instruments of music were added by divine commandment.

And he set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king’s seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets (1 Chron. 29:25).

The Lord commanded mechanical instruments of music in the Old Testament. Where is the similar commandment for them to be used in New Testament worship?

(2) The Bible does not say not to use mechanical instruments of music in worship. There is no express condemnation of mechanical instruments in worship. However, the Bible is not a book designed to list everything to which the Lord would object. Can you image what a book the Bible would be if the Lord had to tell us everything not to do? For example, the Lord would have had to say, “Thou shalt not put potatoes, peas, carrots, lettuce, tomatoes, etc. on the Lord’s supper.” If the Lord omitted telling us any item, one could argue, “The Lord did not say, ‘Thou shalt not use seaweed in observing the Lord’s supper.”‘ The nature of positive, divine authority is that the Lord tells us what to do. By telling us to use unleavened bread and fruit of the vine in observing the Lord’s supper, the Lord prohibited the usage of anything else. Perhaps this chart will help:

Command	Specific	Addition
1. Passover lamb (Ex. 12:1ff)	male lamb, one year old,   without blemish	another kind of animal:   pig, goat, cat
2. For Naaman to be cleansed of leprosy (2 Kgs. 5)	dip 7 times in   Jordan River	another river:   Abanah, Pharpar
3. Items on the Lord’s table   (1 Cor. 11)	unleavened bread   fruit of the vine	another kind of food:   corn, peas
4. Music (Eph. 5:19)	singing	another kind of music: instrumental

When God specified the kind of animal to be used in a given sacrifice, that eliminated every other kind of animal. When God specified that Naarnan dip seven times in the Jordan River to be cleansed of his leprosy, that eliminated every other river. When God specified the items to be used on the Lord’s table, that eliminated every other kind of item which might be used. When God specified the kind of music to be used in His worship-singing, that eliminated every other kind of music. Hence, the Lord does not have to say “thou shalt not. . . ” in order for mechanical instruments of music in worship to be unauthorized.

Too, there are many other religious practices which many people condemn for which there is no “thou shalt not.” Here are a few of them:

A separate priesthood

A pope

Sprinkling or pouring for baptism

Religious celebration of Easter, Christmas, etc.

Burning incense and candles

Use of holy water

Ecclesiastical synods, councils, associations, etc.

If the argument which says “The Lord did not say, ‘Thou shalt not use instrumental music… proves that one can use mechanical instruments of music in worship, then the same argument will prove that each of the above (and many other things not mentioned above) is also acceptable.

(This series will be concluded in the next issue of Guardian of Truth.)

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 19, pp. 578, 598-599
October 3, 1985