Gary: Your argument on John 4:23-24 is incomprehensible. [Biff had said that God doesn’t put restrictions on worshipping in spirit and in truth by adding “and in one voice.”]
Your speculation on instruments [not being used be-cause of persecution] lacks merit. Persecution from Rome did not arise until the New Testament was nearly completed. There was no persecution in Jerusalem for several weeks—plenty of time to form several “gospel” bands. There was no persecution when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. People could have used flutes and other portable instruments quite easily. You have dismissed the significance of this Biblical fact without adequate thought and without citing any sources to establish your “thoughts.”
Actually, I never drink coffee or tea [Biff argued that we have no Biblical authority to consume caffeine]. But they are not authorized as religious acts or worship. If you replace the fruit of the vine with coffee and the un-leavened bread with pizza, you are wrong because there is no authority to do so. You should be able to recognize that Paul was speaking of things that Christians do as part of their religion and as part of their worship—not whether they wear pink or drive a Mercedes.
Biff: Also, talk of covenants and law aside, why would a God who previously enjoyed the sound of His followers worshiping with instruments and voice suddenly turn and despise all instruments?
Gary: No one said He suddenly despised all instruments, but the Old Covenant was decidedly more fleshly and the New is decidedly more spiritual.
Biff: So, I am having a good time learning and discussing with you about covenants and such, but in the end, I believe there is something that we keep glossing over which is the crux of the conversation.
Even if I take your view that the Old Testament is useless as a moral guide, I am still confused. Why would you assume that every single thing that we do must be mentioned in the New Testament [Colossians 3:17 is not an assumption, GWS]? Just because Jesus or the apostles didn’t do it doesn’t mean that we can’t, either. The examples in the New Testament are put there for us to learn from, not to reenact. Did the New Testament authorize you to use that computer you’re on? Did the New Testament tell you that you are allowed to wear anything but sandals? The answer is no. This is the main problem with your argument. If you were to follow this to the letter, you would be wearing sandals and robes living in the Middle East and preaching in synagogues.
The New Testament offers plenty of guidelines, but where it is silent, we must be silent.
Gary: It looks like the crux of the matter is that you have no desire to submit to the authority of Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18).
You also seem to have no desire to pay attention to anything that I explain. I already showed that we need authority for the way we worship and for what we teach, and all you can do is complain about the use of computers and being stuck wearing sandals. Do those have anything to do with the way we worship God as He has commanded? Exactly how do they relate to spiritual principles? You really need to find a way to discern these matters. You give no indication whether or not you understand the need for authority, period, let alone Colossians 3:17.
It is not MY view that the Old Testament has been fulfilled and replaced by the new covenant: The Scriptures so declare. If you are going to take issue with them, fine. Explain why they don’t mean what they say, but don’t make it sound like I made these things up.
The Scriptures teach that we must be silent when something is not authorized. Have you considered Hebrews 7:11-14 yet? This example illustrates Colossians 3:17. There was no authority for one from Judah to be a priest. According to your view, Jesus could have said, “People from Judah were not told they couldn’t be priests.” That is not the point. Where is it authorized? It was not, and therefore Jesus could not be a priest until the law was changed. Where is the verse that states your view—that says, if you can’t find anything about it in the New Testament, you have carte blanche to do it?
Biff: Sorry for not responding for so long my friend, it was quite a hectic weekend.
I think I understand what you’re saying, but I have one more question, the answer to which may or may not lead to more questions. You said that we need Jesus’ authority for everything we do in worship or anything regarding our spiritual lives, but not regarding whether we wear sandals or use computers etc, and you cite Col 3:17 to make that point? I’m just trying to condense our conversation to better understand it Thank you!
Gary: Yes, but Hebrews 7:12-14 illustrates how the need for authority in religion works. The Levites were authorized to serve as priests; no one from Judah was. God had to change the law in order for Jesus to be high priest.
Biff: I see. I get what you’re saying about the law having to be changed to allow Jesus to become our priest; that makes sense. The reason I brought up Col. 3:17 is that, if that verse is in fact saying that everything we do must be specifically authorized by the New Testament, then it seems that “whatever you do in word or deed” means just what it says, as you said earlier; there is nothing excluded here. If that verse is to be interpreted the way you interpret it, then ALL things that you do must have been authorized in the New Testament, not just our worship practices, right?
The reason I asked why you quoted Col. 3:17 earlier was that the way I have always interpreted that verse was that everything we do we should do for Jesus, like what is said a little later in Col. 3:23—”And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men.”
Gary: There is no issue with your understanding of Colossians 3:21—or with Colossians 3:17, if you apply other Biblical principles properly. For example, you brought up wearing certain types of clothing and sandals. It is the wearing of clothes that is authorized—in fact, modest apparel. The Bible never specifies WHAT clothing to wear. If it did, we would be bound by a particular design, but all manner of clothing was worn in various cultures, and not a word was said about it. What you were failing to distinguish before was between general and specific authority.
Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever traveled by bus, train, or airplane. Are those not authorized, therefore? Since they walked, rode a beast of burden, or traveled by boat, there is no specific mode of transportation authorized. All legitimate forms of travel are, therefore, authorized by the command to “GO.”
They had, however, instruments of music, and the fact that they did not use them is significant. If they were authorized, then any musical instrument invented since the first century would be all right to use. If God had said, “Make music,” they would be authorized, since one can definitely make music with instruments. But God only authorized singing in the New Testament.
Perhaps these few thoughts will help clarify the application of Colossians 3:17.
Biff: Hmm, that seems like a real stretch at this point… If I replace some words in your sentence, it still works just as well.
Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever worshiped with pianos nor guitars. Are they not authorized, therefore? Since they sang, met together in large places, there is no specific mode of worship- authorized. All legitimate forms of worship are, therefore, authorized by the command to “WORSHIP.”
At this point, you’re no longer using scripture or examples from the Bible to back up your position, you are making a large doctrinal statement based solely on your own supposition. That is where I again come back to when the Bible is silent, we must be silent.
Gary: I don’t mean to be unkind, but you simply refuse to see the point that the Holy Spirit makes through the inspired writers. This is not MY argument; these are not my words. The writer of Hebrews made the case that Jesus was not authorized to be a priest. Silence did not give Jesus permission to be a priest; it forbade him. Please study this passage carefully.
Biff: I don’t understand what you mean. I said I agree with the fact that the law had to change for Jesus to become our high priest. I’m not advocating that the Bible be silent. In fact, I’m advocating that the Bible be the only thing that we listen to. You’re right when you say, “Silence did not give Jesus permission to be a priest; it forbade him.” The problem is that God through the writer of Hebrews changed that law Himself. God was the one to speak, not man.
When you assume that your point of view is God’s point of view is when you get into trouble. Is it possible that the way you view this is incorrect? I am willing to say that my point of view could be false, and I would gladly renounce my view if I find that I am wrong. What about you? Are you humble enough to admit that you might be wrong?
Peace and love.
Gary: Yes, you admitted that the law had to be changed, but you’re still failing to see the Biblical principle of authority, which I have pointed out time and again to you from Colossians 3:17, as illustrated by Hebrews 7.
Your contention all along has been that silence gives us liberty to use the instrument in worship. Hebrews 7:12-14 says that silence does not grant liberty for their use; silence forbids their use.
“That is where I again come back to when the Bible is silent, we must be silent,” you say.
The silence of God regarding someone from the tribe of Judah being a priest did not authorize Jesus to be one. Had anyone tried to be a priest from Judah, God would have told him that His silence did not mean approval but prohibition.
Similarly, God’s silence in the NT regarding instrumental music does not constitute approval, but it prohibits their use. They are not authorized under the NT covenant.
If you understand this principle, you should be able to see which one of us is applying it correctly.
Of course, truth is the only thing that matters. If we have been taught incorrectly or arrived at an erroneous conclusion, the only appropriate thing to do is to harmonize ourselves to the truth—not try to get the truth to state our position.
Biff: So, if the New Testament had not included Hebrews 7, Jesus wouldn’t have been able to be our priest, because the Old Testament forbid it, right? If that’s the point you’re trying to make, then you just proved my point as well. The Old Testament approved of instruments being used for worship, and God did not change His stance on that; otherwise He would have said so, just like He did when he changed the law regarding the lineage of priests.
Gary: If the NT lacked Hebrews 7, which is a silly hypothesis since God included it, there would still be Colossians 3:17, which requires authority—not silence. The Bible also contains the same principle in the Old Testament. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire to the Lord, which He had not authorized (Lev. 10:1-2); fire went out from the Lord and devoured them. I fear that fire will consume you, also, since you are dull of hearing (Heb. 5:12).
Biff: I still don’t think you hear what I’m saying. If the Old Covenant only authorized Levites to be priests, then God had to specifically change that law for Jesus to be our priest. Likewise, if God did not want us to use instruments after changing the covenant, He would have said so. He authorized the use of it in the Old Covenant, so when the New Covenant came, He would have had to specify the change. Show quoted text.
Gary: Your conclusion is false. No one was authorized under the Old Testament to be a priest from the tribe of Judah, either—before God ever changed the Law. It was not authorized then, either. It is not wrong because God changed the Law (your point); it was wrong because it was never authorized.
God never said to quit worshiping on the Sabbath day, but He authorized a new day for worship—the first day of the week.
God does not need to name everything that came to an end under the Law. He did away with the whole Law. Forget all of it. Now, what does the New Covenant tell us to do?
I pray that some day you will see the point about needing authority for what we teach and practice (Col. 3:17).
[Editor’s note: Biff made no further reply. Whether he ever understood the point or simply could not respond to it is anyone’s guess. His main argument was that the New Testament should have to say that some practice (such as the use of musical instruments in worship) has ceased and is no longer in effect. Yet when it was pointed out to him that the New Testament nowhere says that Sabbath-day worship had come to an end, he had nothing to say. In Part 1, page 2, column 2, several things were listed that we do not have authority to use in New Testament worship: golden candlesticks, incense, a Most Holy Place. All of these were used under the old covenant, and not one of them was forbidden in the New Testament. This argument runs contrary to his position, and he never dealt directly with it.
He also failed to realize that Hebrews 7:11-14 was simply explaining the principle which had always been the case. God did inspire the writer of Hebrews to record this passage because He wanted it known that the Old Covenant was no longer in force. It had not been in force for years—whether or not He provided an explanation. It was wrong under the Law of Moses for someone not a Levite to be a priest, although God did not specifically say so. When Jeroboam made priests of just anyone, it was wrong because he had no authority from God to do so.
We have no authority from God to use instruments of music today, although they were used under the Law. If a person realizes that Jesus never worshipped with them, he should ask why not. If he further realizes that neither the apostles nor the church used them, he must consider that the reason is that they lacked Biblical authority for using them and therefore abstained from doing so.]