Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, not only must the gospel be proclaimed, it must also be obeyed. It is not proclaimed merely as a basis for speculation and mental exercise, but is proclaimed “for obedience to the faith among all nations” (Ram. 1:5). The Good News of God’s grace and forgiveness through Christ ought to be gladly accepted and obeyed by all men, “but they have not all obeyed the gospel” (Ram. 10:16). “7 he god of this world bath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ . . . should shine unto them.” “T he light” is hidden and “the treasure” lost unto those who give themselves over to “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:3-7). Satan is served when we walk “according to the course of this world . . . the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience,” fulfilling “the desires of the flesh and of the mind” (Eph. 2:2-3).

Men may ignore and reject the gospel, still it is Good News. The message does not change its character simple because some turn away their ears from hearing it. Others are glad to hear and glad to obey. It is still good news that (1) Jesus Christ does for man what man cannot do for himself, and that (2) Jesus Christ reveals the love of God. There are other reasons the proclamation is good:

3. Jesus Christ reveals spiritual things. In spite of all man’s advances in knowledge and all his accomplishments, “there is no new thing under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9). The planning and striving of man cannot reach beyond a realm called life “under the sun” in Ecclesiastes. All governments and nations constructed by men are temporary. Every social arrangement, restructure, or plan will change in time. Economic systems built with the utmost care must finally crumble. Money, knowledge, pleasure, and all other labors are left behind at death. What then? And, even while we live and struggle and labor “under the sun,” what is our relation to God? Can we know His will for us? Can we know when we have obeyed His law and when we have erred – can we know His law? Is worship accepted in heaven? Is there conscious existence after death? Are there rewards and punishments – can we be with God in eternity, or be separated from Him?

The eye, ear, and heart of man cannot pierce beyond life “under the sun” to uncover things in the mind of God, but He has revealed Himself in the gospel of Christ, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual words” (1 Cor. 2:9-13 ASV). That is Good News, indeed! Rather than offering plans and schemes of earthly reform, Jesus said, “The words that I speak unto you,.they are spirit, and they are life” (Jn. 6:63). Going beyond the realm of material kingdoms, interests; and cares; Jesus pointed to a spiritual birth, a spiritual kingdom, and spiritual blessings. He said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5).

4. Jesus Christ conquered death. One by one, each of us comes face to face with death. With flowers, memorials, and manicured graveyards, we try to soften the shock, but death is an enemy and it will wrestle each of us down into the grave. Jesus Christ entered the mighty castle of death, but “the gates of Hades” could not hold him (Matt. 16: I S ASV). “He is risen,” angels told the first visitors to His grave; prophets had foretold it and eyewitnesses then reported it (Matt. 28; 1 Cor. I5:1-8). He has promised to raise “all that are in the graves” when He returns – “they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (Jn. 5:28-29). Christians know that when He returns, “the dead in Christ shall rise first” and then the faithful living will join them “to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Words of comfort, Good News!

What of you, dear reader? Will you not accept and obey the gospel? Moved by faith, repent of your sins, confess Christ’s name, “be born of water and of the Spirit.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 25, p. 402
June 19, 1980

By A. C. Grider

There is a command in First John 4:1 to “Try the spirits.” We are warned that “many false prophets are gone out into the world.” Several things are involved in this business of trying the spirits. First of all, we must know the scriptures to be able to successfully try the spirits. And usually there is the love for the truth that helps us to know the truth in the first place.

We need to keep in mind that we do not need to know everything in order to try the spirits. We do not even need to know all about the subject at hand to try the spirits. If we know enough to uproot some of the foundation of a given position we can know that the whole thing is wrong.

Brother N.B. Hardeman said once, “It is ill-becoming and for the want of common sense for one to say, the Bible says thus and so but the Greek says . . . .” So when one comes with a theory which seems to dispute the common English, and he relies on the Greek to sustain himself, you can just know that his is a false notion. When one comes with a complicated hodge-podge of “component- parts” and “total situations,” you can be sure that he is fostering a false position.

For instance, I do not know all about premillennialism. But I do know enough about it to know that it is a false theory. I know that my Lord said that all that are in the graves will come out at the same hour (John 5:28-29). Any theory that separates the resurrection of the dead by a thousand years or any other period is a false theory.

I do not know all about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I, know enough to know they constitute a false system. Their theory is that the earth will not be burned up but that only the systems here will be destroyed and the earth preserved for certain people. But Peter said “The earth also and the works therein shall be burned- up.” So, they teach a false doctrine.

I do not know all about the liberal positions. But I know enough to know that they constitute a false group. They contend that the benevolent work of the church is not limited. But they must know that it is. When I tell them I will send my salary for the next year to any home they want to name if they will show me a scripture that binds the church to help anyone except saints, and they cannot do it, they must know they are teaching a false doctrine.

I do not know everything about Catholicism. But I know enough to know that my Lord said, “Call no man your father on earth.” And they keep on not only calling a man “Father” but calling him “Holy Father.” They just have to be a false group.

So, do not let the fact that you do not know everything keep you from trying the spirits. Do not follow them off into some kind of wild goose chase into things you cannot answer. Hold them to what you do know and keep that before the people and they will do you like they do me they will avoid you and will have nothing to do with a discussion where they will have to defend their position.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 25, p. 401
June 19, 1980

By Mike Willis

In spite of the number of arguments which have been presented in this treatise on instrumental music, someone is apt to be thinking, “Can I know for sure whether or not instrumental music in worship is sinful?” “Is the usage of instrumental music in worship such ah important issue as these writers are portraying it to be? After all, I cannot iln-~ agine that God would be concerned about such a trivial, issue.” Hence, we raise the question in this article, “Can we be certain about instrumental music in worship?”

The Rise of Agnosticism

We are living in an age in which agnosticism is rising; I do not mean by this the classic form of agnosticism which affirms that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God. I am speaking of an agnosticism which states that it is impossible for man to know anything positively. To these agnostics, all truth is relative.

Here are some typical statements affirming the agnostic stance with reference to truth:

For nothing can of itself be labeled as “wrong.” One cannot, for instance, start from the position “sex relations before marriage” or “divorce” are wrong or sinful in themselves . . . . Whatever the pointers of the law demands of love, there can for the Christian be no “packaged” moral judgments – for persons are more important even than “standards” (John A.T. Robertson, Honest To God, pp. 118, 120).

To those in the Scriptural law camp we can say, “Oh, yes. You may sincerely believe that `Holy Writ’ is the `Word of God.’ But if you try to literalize the ethical sayings in it, you will soon find yourself in lots worse trouble than the mere headache of trying to figure out what to do when you turn its maxims into rules . . . . Either cheap melancholy or utter frustrations will follow if we turn the Bible into a rule book, forgetting that an editorial collection of scattered sayings, such as the Sermon on the Mount, offers us at most some paradigms or suggestions (Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics, p. 77).

But if people do not believe it is wrong to have sex relations outside marriage, it isn’t, unless they hurt themselves, their partners, or others (Ibid., p. 140).

That this has spilled over into the church is apparent from recent articles in both Integrity and Mission.

Roy E. ,Osborne wrote, “In a recent reaction, Craig M. Watts writes an excellent article differentiating between homosexuality the `disease’ and homosexuality the `sin”‘ (“A Look at the First And Second Look at Homosexuality,” Integrity, January, 1974). In the same issue of Integrity, an anonymous homosexual wrote, “I am a Christian . . . . The only fulfilling sexual relationship I have ever had has been with a person of my own sex . . . . If I were again to have the opportunity of a physical relationship with that person, I would not feel guilty or condemned by God . . . . I do not objectively know how God defines me” (“A Homosexual’s Viewpoint,” Ibid.).

The October 1979 issue of Mission showed the same attitude toward homosexuality; the paper acted as if one could not know whether or not homosexuality was sinful. An article entitled “Coming Out In Houston: The A Cappella Chorus” was published in which Lynn Mitchell, Jr. interviewed some homosexuals who were organized to give homosexuality respectability among members of the churches of Christ. In his commentary “We Fear Homosexuality,” Mitchell said, “I cannot yet accept the designation of homosexuality as one of God’s `gifts.’ If it is one of his gifts, I hope that he will get. past my defenses and show me that it is” (p. 64). Obviously, for Mitchell, what the Bible says on the subject is not authoritative!

Leslie D. Weatherhead wrote a book entitled The Christian Agostic which seems to be directly or indirectly affecting the movement of relativity which has shown itself among us. In his “Preface,” Weatherhead said,

I am writing for the “Christian agnostic,” by which I mean a person who is immensely attracted by Christ and who seeks to show his spirit, to meet the challenges, hardships and sorrows of life in the light of that spirit, but who, though he is sure of many Christian truths, feels that he cannot honestly and conscientiously “sign on the dotted line” that he believes certain theological ideas about which some branches of the church dogmatize . . . (p. 15).

This book would say to the modern laymen “Don’t exclude yourself from the fellowship of Christ’s followers because of mental difficulties. If you love Christ and are seeking to follow him, take an attitude of Christian agnosticism to intellectual problems at least for the present . . . .” (Ibid., p. 21).

In Weatherhead’s opinion, matters such as the virgin birth (p. 31), the bodily resurrection (pp. 17, 20), the deity of Christ (p. 20), the atonement of Christ (pp. 113, 123, 347), and the inspiration of the Bible (pp. 192-193) were matters concerning which the Christian could not know for sure what the truth was, concerning which he recommended the agnostic stance. Yet, he saw a basis for unity for Christians in spite of disagreements over such matters; he wrote,

If Church unity means that all must believe the same things in the same sense, it can never be achieved. I should regard it as undesirable, and I should feel that any pressure brought to bear to achieve it, unwarranted. To my mind, the way to unity is not by endless discussions aimed at making men believe the same thing or worship in the same way.

What then is the way forward? I am convinced, after years of attending conferences on church union, that it is by getting to know, love, respect and tolerate one another, and then by showing a united front against every form of evil (Ibid., p. 161).

This is the kind of “unity” which has characterized Episcopalians for years. In his book Growth and Decline in the Episcopal Church, Wayne B. Williamson described the Episcopal Church as a fellowship “which tolerates completely antithetical views.”

Something of the morass into which comprehensiveness can lead is discerned in a report of recent happening in two of our major cathedrals. In was widely reported that during “a recent service at the Washington Cathedral a Muslim Azan, a Jewish Baruch, and aspirations from the Hindu Pali Prayer Book issue(from the pulpit” (Rutler 1978:4). The other episode took place in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. I hosted a Shinto ceremony in the name of ecumenicity. In gratitude for this recognition the Japanese Shintoists gave an altar (Shin) which the Cathedral received and ensconced within the Cathedral as a gesture of ecumenical solidarity (Ibid:10).

What can one say of this “comprehensiveness” when he is persuaded that tolerance of error is not a virtue; indeed, such tolerance will eventually sound the deathknell of true religion. The Christian religion is a religion of deep convictions, not of facile compromises. Christian charity does not require that one dissimulate, temporize or compromise (p. 21).

This religion fellowship is becoming alarmed at its agnostic and ecumenical stance in religion.

One who has been reading the writings of Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside, Edward Fudge, Arnold Hardin, and R.L. Kilpatrick recognizes the similarity in what they are saying with reference to church support of human institutions, premillennialism, usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship, church sponsored recreation, and some other issues to what modernists have been saying with reference to denominational divisions. The only difference is that those among us want to be highly selective with reference to what issues they take an agnostic stance on and a unity-in-diversity approach toward.

There Is An Objective Truth

There is an objective standard of truth by which all doctrines are to be measured! That truth can be ascertained and obeyed. We see this from certain passages in both the Old and New Testaments. The wise man advised us to “buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). David plainly confessed that he walked in the truth (Psa. 26:3; 86:11). Furthermore, he said that he taught the truth in the congregation of Israel (Psa. 40:10). These were not the statements of egotists; they were statements of men who recognized that “truth” was to be identified with the ordinances and commandments of God (Psa. 119:43, 151). They understood that “the sum of thy word is truth” (Psa. 119:160).

Jesus expressed this same attitude toward truth. He believed that there is an objective truth and that truth is His word. Furthermore, men must know that truth in order to be delivered from the bondage of sin (Jn. 8:32). Truth came by Jesus (Jn. 1:17) and is Jesus (Jn. 14:6; cf. Eph. 4:21). “Thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17); it is the only means which man has for being sanctified. Furthermore, by it all men shall be judged (Jn. 12:48). Hence, like the writers of the Old Testament, Jesus recognized that there is an objective standard of truth which all men can know through the reading of God’s revelation in the Bible.

Hence, the Scriptures purport to be the objective standard of truth by which all things are to be measured. Both conduct and doctrine are to be measured by the standard of God’s revelation in the New Testament Scriptures (I Cor. 4:6; 14:37-38; 2 Thess. 3:4, 6, 11). The New Testament Scriptures were preached and were to be received as the word of God, not the mere words of men (I Thess. 2:13; Eph. 3:1-5). They are our sufficient guide to everlasting life (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:3-4). The man who refused to stay within the revelation of God’s word was not to be fellowshipped (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).

The Scriptures then are the measuring stick for determining what is right and wrong in reference to both morality and doctrine. In a society which sees nothing wrong with -pre- and extra-marital sexual relationships, homosexuality, gambling, nudity, divorce and remarriage for any reason whatsoever, prostitution, and any number of other immoralities, the Christian must preach the word of God as the standard by which to measure all moral questions. Similarly, to an age which teaches that men are acceptable to God whether or not they believe in Jesus as the only way to truth and light, that one can be a Christian without believing in the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, the atonement, and other important biblical doctrines, and that one can worship God acceptable in ways not revealed in the Scriptures, the Christians must hold forth the word of God as the measuring standard for all doctrinal issues.

Yes One Can Know For Sure

So, when we approach the issue of whether or not one can know for sure what God thinks of using mechanical instruments of music in worship, we affirm that a man can know for sure what God thinks about using mechanical instruments of music in worship. He simple must approach this issue in the same manner as he approaches any other issue regarding the Scriptures. Let me illustrate:

1. Can a pious unbeliever be saved? The man of God must commit himself to being guided by the revelation of God in order to answer this question. The Scriptures teach that, unless one believes in Christ, he will die in his sins (Jn. 8:24). Jesus affirmed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). The apostles revealed, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Consequently, the man of God can answer the question “Can a pious unbeliever be saved?” without a doubt; such a man cannot be saved!

2. Can a pious, unimmersed believer be saved? This is another question which has confronted God’s people; yet, the disciple of Christ can answer that question so long as he is committed to following God’s word. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). Again, He said, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5). Water baptism is essential for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), washing away one’s sins (Acts 22:16), and salvation (1 Pet. 3:21). Hence, the pious believer who has not been immersed is lost. The man who is guided by the revelation of God has no trouble answering this question; he can know for sure what the truth is.

3. Is the papacy wrong? The man of God is sometimes required to deal with the subject of whether or not the papal form of church government is wrong. He can know for sure what God thinks about it. The word of God reveals the organization of the local church. Elders are to be appointed an every congregation (Acts 14:23). The Scriptures always refer to a plurality of elders in each local church. The qualifications of these men are given in detail (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:6-8). The limitation of their authority is the “flock of God which is among you” (1 Pet. 5:1-3; Acts 20:28). There is no Bible authority for any kind of intercongregational union and for officers over a plurality of congregations. Hence, one can know for sure that the papal form of church organization is an apostasy disapproved by God. Similarly, he can recognize absolutely the proper form of church government as a pattern revealed from God, all departures from which stand equally condemned, whether they be Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or the sponsoring church version of apostasy!

4. Is sprinkling acceptable as baptism? Others raise the issue as to whether or not one can know whether sprinkling or pouring will be accepted by God as baptism. The man of God can know for sure what God approves. He resolves to be guided by the revelation of God. He finds that God requires a man to be baptized. An honest investigation of the word “baptize” in the original languages will reveal that it was an immersion (see any reputable lexicographer). Furthermore, he will see that Bible baptism involved the usage of much water (Jn. 3:23), a going down into and a coming up out of water (Matt. 3:16; Acts 8:38-39); he sees that it is compared to a burial (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12). Hence, the baptism of the Great Commission was an immersion in water for the forgiveness of one’s sins. The man of God knows that this meets God’s approval. In the absence of divine authority for sprinkling and pouring for remission of sins, he can know that God disapproves of sprinkling and pouring as substitutes for baptism. Similarly, he can know that God disapproves of infant sprinkling. Hence, he can know for sure what God thinks about these things.

5. Are counting rosaries in prayer, using water on the Lord’s table, burning candles, and using holy water acceptable in worship? The man of God who is aware of the diversities of public worship is sometimes faced with the issue of whether or not God accepts these diverse expressions of worship. He can know the answer to these questions because he is committed to following the revelation of God. He understands that things introduced in worship without divine authority invalidate the worship (Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:20-22). God has divinely revealed what kind of worship pleases Him; anything for which there is no divine authority stands outside the revelation of God and condemned thereby. God has revealed a pattern for worship. If there is no law for worship, no form of worship is wrong (Rom. 4:15; 5:13). If there’s a pattern of worship, every expression of worship outside that pattern -is sinful. By simply consulting his concordance to see if items such as those mentioned above were mentioned in the Scriptures and then studying the Scriptures in which these words are found, he can see whether or not God authorized these items in worship. Finding that He did not, the man of God can know positively that their usage in worship is disapproved by God.

Conclusion

In exactly the same manner as a man can know the answers to the above questions, the man of God can know whether or not instrumental music in worship pleases God. If there is no positive divine authority for-using-mechanical instruments of music in worship, the practice stands on exactly the same basis as counting beads in prayer, using holy water, burning incense, and any other form of worship which is not authorized of God. If a man can know that these things displease God, he can also know that the usage of mechanical instruments of music in worship also displease God.

Whatever stance he takes with reference to those who introduce other apostasies in worship is exactly the same stance which one should take with reference to those who introduce mechanical instruments of music in worship. If one is unwilling to extend the right hands of fellowship (Gal. 2:9) to those who burn incense in worship, burn candles, count beads during prayer, observe the Lord’s supper unscripturally (either because of the usage of the wrong items, for the wrong purposes, or at the wrong intervals), and who otherwise depart from the divine pattern of worship, he should also be unwilling to extend the hands of fellowship to those who violate the Lord’s pattern for worship by introducing mechanical instruments of music in worship.

A Christian cannot take a permanent agnostic stance on such matters. When he assembles with groups using the mechanical instruments of music in worship, he is forced to decide whether or not to participate in that worship. He can know for sure what God thinks about this kind of worship for he has the revelation of God in the New Testament to guide him. A Christian can know for sure that God disapproves of mechanical instruments of music in worship.

Questions

1. Can one consistently imply that he cannot know for sure what the truth is on one subject on which the Bible speaks without giving up the Bible as his objective standard of authority (cf. Jas. 2:10-12)?
2. Is there any difference in principle in the following statements?

a. A man cannot know for sure that a sincere atheist will be lost.

b. A man cannot know for sure that an idolater will be lost.

c. A man cannot know for sure that a pious, unimmersed believer will be lost.

d. A man cannot know for sure that a Catholic will be lost.

e. A man cannot know for sure that a man who uses mechanical instruments of music in worship will be lost.

1. Is there an objective standard of truth? If so, what is it?
2. Is the affirmative statement, “There is no absolute truth,” a contradiction of its affirmation?
3. Can a person know the truth?
4. Must a person know the truth in order to be saved?
5. What stance should the church take toward the man who refuses to walk within the boundaries of God’s truth?
6. How can one know that

a.. The pious unbeliever is lost?

b. The pious unimmersed believer is lost?

c. The papal form of church government is sinful?

d. Sprinkling is not acceptable for baptism?

e. Departures from God’s pattern of worship are sinful?

1. Has God given a pattern for worship? Pursue the consequences in the event that the answer is “yes” and in the event that the answer is “no.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 24, pp. 391-394
June 12, 1980

By Steve Wolfgang

The assignment to discuss the comments of various religious leaders regarding instrumental music has raised several questions in my own mind which will no doubt occur to readers of this article as well. I would like to consider some of these questions by way of introduction to their comments.

What Does It Matter?

Though I have more than a passing interest in church history, it appears to me that there is little utility in discussing the opinions of religious leaders on this or any other subject. As interesting as it many be to study the views of past generations, we must never forget that they in no way provide a basis for authorizing (or condemning) any practice. This is not to argue that there is no value whatsoever in discovering that there were many leaders in various denominations who did oppose the instrument – it is simply to remind us that a doctrine or practice is authorized or condemned only on the basis of what the Scriptures teach. The reverse of this principle is even more salient to our study: even if we could find no religious leader of the past (or present) who opposed the use of instrumental music, it would yet stand condemned, lacking scriptural justification despite the opinions of religious leaders pro or con.

How Reliable Are These Quotations?

This raises at least two separate questions. I have given diligence to check the accuracy of these quotations in their original sources (insofar as is possible, some of them being rather obscure). I have on occasion quoted from a secondary source, of which several can be recommended. These include M. C. Kurfees, Instrumental Music in the Worship, and James D. Bales, Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship, both excellent overall studies of these (and other) aspects of the instrument question; Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak and A Capella Music, for the views of the “church fathers” and early church figures; and John T. Lewis, Voices of the Pioneers on Instrumental Music and Societies, for quotations from “Restoration” figures.

A second aspect of this question pertains to the integrity of the men themselves. Men do change their opinions, being human, and it is entirely possible to find quotations from the same man on opposite sides of one issue. That is not the case, insofar as I can ascertain, for the men quoted in this article, but is entirely possible that any of them, or any other men, may have written strongly in favor of the instrument at one time, and then later may have changed his mind and subsequently may have written equally as fervently against the practice, or vice versa. Even then it is possible, as M.C. Kurfees so often does in his landmark work cited above, to quote a fatal admission from a man openly arguing in favor of the instrument – using the man’s own admissions to capsize his case. This simply further underscores the futility of establishing any religious practice or doctrine on the shifting sands of human ideas, regardless of the brilliance of the human or our esteem for him.

What Have Religious Leaders Said About Instrumental Music?

We turn now to a brief sampling of some comments of religious leaders, including:

John Calvin: “Calvin is very express in his condemnation of instrumental music in connection with the public worship of the Christian church . . . In his commentary on the thirty-third Psalm he says: `I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was part of the . . . puerile instruction of the law. [But for believers now] 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 other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise, but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him.’

“In his homily on 1 Sam. xviii. 1-9, he delivers himself emphatically . . . on the subject: What therefore was in use under the law is by no means entitled to our practice under the gospel . . . . Instrumental music, we therefore maintain, was tolerated only on account of the times and the people, because they were as boys, as the Sacred Scriptures speaketh”‘ (John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, pp. 163-165).

Ulrich Zwingli, who “had read some of Luther’s writings, had become convinced that the New Testament was above all other authority and that the church should be thoroughly purged of everything which did not square with its teachings. Far more than Luther, he wanted to break with the Roman tradition, and to reestablish the church squarely on apostolic foundations . . . . the silence of the Scriptures . . . for Zwingli . . . tended to be a prohibition. Therefore, under his preaching, . . . such Roman practices as Mass, the veneration of images and relics, the confessional, . . . fasting during Lent, clerical celibacy, and the use of organs, were abolished as having no warrant in Scripture” (Richard M. Pope, The Church and Its Culture, p. 355).

John Wesley: “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, providing they are neither heard nor seen” (quoted by Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, IV, 684).

The above quotation (as well as others below front Clarke) are some of the more frequently seen comments and raise again the questions of reliability of the sources. Though having some exposure to the Wesleyan tradition, I have been unable to document this often-quoted statement anywhere else, and would be indebted to anyone who can provide verification. The source, Adam Clarke, a Methodist commentator, is himself often cited from his remarks made at several places in his Old Testament commentaries, such as:

“Moses had not appointed any musical instruments to be used in the divine worship; there was nothing of the kind under the first tabernacle. The trumpets or horns then used were not for song nor for praise, but as we use bells, i.e., to give notice to the congregation . . . But David did certainly introduce many instruments of music into God’s worship . . . and it was by the order of David that so many instruments of music should be introduced into the Divine service. But were it even evident, which it is not, either from this or any other place in the sacred writings, that instruments of music were prescribed by Divine authority under the law, could this be adduced with any semblance of reason, that they ought to be used in Christian worship? No: the whole spirit, soul, and genius of the Christian religion are against this, and . . . these things have been introduced as a substitute for the life and power of religion . . . . Away with such portentous baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit who requires his followers to worship him in spirit and in truth, for to no such worship are those instruments friendly” (Clarke’s Commentary, II, 690-691, @ 2 Chronicles 29:25).

I believe that Clarke has allowed his opposition to the instrument to lead him to an extreme position here (and elsewhere), though much of what he says is true. He cites in the above commentary (omitted here) the frequently abused passage in Amos 5 and 6, and we reproduce a portion of his comments on that passage below:

“I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read; and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirits of true devotion, and that they are sinful . . . . Music, as a science, I esteem and admire; but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and I here register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity” (Clarke’s Commentary, IV, 684, on Amos 6:5; see also comments on 1 Chronicles 23:5 in Vol. II, pp. 620-621).

Again, these quotations, while containing several good points, demonstrate some of the problems of relying on quotations from commentators to determine the truth or falsity of an issue. As another commentator (!) has observed, this passage

“did not refer to the instruments used in worship; nor can this passage be used as an argument against the use of such instruments in worship today as is done by Adam Clarke. They invented musical instruments to be used in the sordid revelry of their feasts . . .” (Homer Hailey, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets, p. 114).

This is not to argue that commentators and other leaders in the formulation of religious thought cannot and do not express many proper and appropriate ideas; as demonstrated by the following quotation, they often do so. It is simply to warn against placing too much stock in the remarks of any human commentator. From Conybeare and Howson:

“Let your songs be, not the drinking songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns; and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the melody of the heart . . .” (W.J. Conybeare and J.S. Howson, The Life and Epistle of St. Paul, II, p. 408).

Another illustration of questionable use of commentators is a quotation sometimes seen from the pen of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, British Baptist preacher. It is reproduced in the following manner in a recent handbook of religious quotations (an otherwise excellent work):

“Praise the Lord with harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes . . . . We do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice.” (Spurgeon, Commentary on Ps. 42).

This quotation, probably lifted from a secondary source, is in fact taken from Spurgeon’s Treasury of David, Volume II, p. 115. Commenting on Psalm 33:2, Spurgeon includes the following comments, often omitted when reproduced elsewhere:

“We who do not believe these things (instruments – SW) to be expedient in worship, lest they should mar its simplicity, do not affirm them to be unlawful, and if any George Herbert or Martin Luther can worship God better by the aid of well-tuned instruments, who shall gainsay their right?”

Further, after the phrase, “We do not need then,” Spurgeon says:

“but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in gospel liberty?”

We are not attempting here to be hypercritical of the excellent work of brethren in compiling useful quotations, but simply wish to counsel all of us (self included) to be extremely careful to check the reliablity of what we quote, if we must quote. When we do, let us attempt to do so accurately. Above all, let us turn our attention to the Scriptures themselves, and what they actually say, rather than depending upon the “think-sos” of the world’s religious leaders, past or present.

Questions

1. Is there any value to considering what religious leaders say about this or any issue?
2. How much “weight” should be placed on what religious leaders say about a religious question?
3. Discuss the differences in the reforming principles of Luther and Zwingli as revealed in their attitudes toward instrumental music.
4. Can you find any indication in the Old Testament that instruments were unscriptural in the times of the Old Covenant?
5. Discuss Amos 5:23 and 6:5 in this context.
6. Did David sin by using the instrument in his day?
7. Compare the quotations of John Calvin and Adam Clarke. In your opinion, who was closer to the truth on the use of instruments in the Old Testament?
8. If one concludes that instrumental music was authorized or permitted in the Old Testament, does it follow that such instruments are permitted under the New Covenant?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 24, pp. 389-390
June 12, 1980