Weatherly’s Final Negative
Thomas’ final affirmative was a
repeat of things I’ve already responded to. For the most part, my rebuttals
have either been ignored or overlooked. Thomas again referred to “adding to” (Revelation 22:18-19) the
commandments of God. This was dealt with in my first negative. Thomas NEVER answered it!
The warning against “adding to” the word of God also
warns against “taking away” from the word (Revelation 22:19). Those who “excluded” Christians from eating
certain meats that God had authorized were labeled as teaching “doctrines of devils” (1Timothy
4:1-3). Anyone who excludes something that was authorized by the apostles
(in this case musical instruments) does not truly serve the Lord Jesus
(Romans 16:17-18).
|
Ephesians 5:19 says, “sing AND make music,” NOT
“sing only!” Thomas admitted that “make music” included musical instruments!
“If God had only said, ‘Make music [generic] in NT worship,’
then a piano, organ, or guitar would have been included in the generic
command.”
The closest Thomas has come to commenting on this is by
saying:
“We are doing it ‘in our hearts,’ not on a mechanical instrument of music!” (Second
Affirmative)
“With the heart
as the designated instrument.” (Third Affirmative)
Thomas totally IGNORED
my rebuttal to this argument in my second negative!
David praised God “in his heart” (Psalm 9:1; 57:7;
111:1; 138:1), time and time again WITH
musical instruments (Psalm 33:2; 57:8; 71:22)! So, “in your heart” does not indicate “not on musical instruments.”
“In your heart” (Ephesians 5:19)
modifies BOTH “sing” and “make music.” So if the “heart” is the “instrument,” it is the “instrument” for BOTH “singing” and “making music!”
Colossians 3:16 literally says, “singing in your heart” (Interlinear, YLT). If “in your heart” describes something that is inward and silent,
then “singing in your heart,”
would also have to be inward and silent! That would mean no verbal singing
in church! The truth is, “in your
heart” is a Biblical idiom meaning, “sincerely, heartily.”
Moffatt Translation (Ephesians 5:19), “… praise the Lord
heartily with words and music.”
Thayer p. 325, “of
things done from the heart i.e. cordially or sincerely,
truly”
That is, when Christians “sing” and “make music”
(which Thomas admits includes a piano, organ, or guitar); it is to be “in
your heart” that is “heartily” or “sincerely.”
|
Thomas did not even try to answer this rebuttal! Thomas went
on to say:
“Jason has resorted to arguments
based upon his assertions about the meanings of Greek words.”
I quoted what Greek scholars, translators of our English
Bibles, said. Thomas dismissed these comments, and offered no proof to the
contrary. Thomas referenced a book by M.C. Kurfees. That’s correct, and men
such as O.E. Payne and M.D. Clubb wrote books showing his doctrine false.
Thomas stated:
“My first affirmative contained not one appeal
to Greek but rather to the English translations … Any proposition in the realm
of religion that cannot be proved by our English Bible is not true—it cannot be
proved.”
What about believers who don’t speak English? Paul and
Apollos must have found it nearly impossible to debate the Jews without an
English Bible! Ridiculous statements as this remind me of those who say, “If
the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it’s good enough for me!” Thomas
didn’t have any reservation using Greek in his debate with D.L. Welch on the
baptismal formula. So, Thomas proves his own statement false. Besides, I have
shown from English that “sing” DOES NOT exclude the playing of musical
instruments.
Thomas
responded to the testimony of the ASV translators (Lightfoot, Trench, Thayer)
that a “psalm” is a “song sung to musical accompaniment” by simply
quoting various translations of Ephesians 5:19. One of those translations was
the ASV! Thomas, quoting the ASV DOES
NOT negate the translators’ definition of psalm as “a song sung to musical
accompaniment.” You accept the ASV “translation,” now accept the ASV
translators’ “definition!” When you quote the ASV and claim that they intended
to convey singing without musical instruments, you are absolutely WRONG! The ASV translators told us what
they meant by psalm, and that is “a
song sung to MUSICAL ACCOMPANIMENT!”
Thomas again
emphasized “speaking” (Ephesians 5:19) as if this participle indicates that
psalms denoted unaccompanied singing. I responded to this in my second
negative, and Thomas made NO attempt
to answer it!
Participles DO
NOT determine the definition of nouns! There is NO grammarian that will back this up! “Speaking” no more indicates that “psalms” are “vocal only,” than “preaching” (Luke 3:3) indicates that “baptism” was “verbal only!” Also laleo (“speaking”) is not limited to the human voice. Both
Thayer and Eadie indicated that laleo
was used in reference to animals and musical instruments.
|
Thomas
responded to my illustration of a person saying, “I’m going to sing you a song,” and then play the
guitar while they sang by saying that people wouldn’t think this strange
because they are “basing their conclusions on common practice TODAY.” Not so
Thomas! I showed you in my first negative that in Exodus 15:20-21 the women
went out “with timbrels,” and Miriam said, “SING ye to the LORD.” All the way back in Exodus, the “common
practice” was that “sing” did not exclude the playing of musical instruments,
nor was the playing of these timbrels considered to be “adding to” the command!
The same is true with “SING” in 1
Samuel 18:6-7 and Revelation 5:8-9! It was the “common practice” that “SING” included the playing of those
musical instruments! This is the BIBLICAL
DEFINITION of “sing.” I disagree with Thomas that MOST so-called “Christians” would accept “sprinkling” as “baptism.”
I would think the majority understand that those who “sprinkle” violate the
Biblical definition of “baptism,” just as much as those who command “accappella singing only” violate the
Biblical definition of “sing!”
Thomas
responded to my statement that “accappella” is not found in the Bible by
saying:
“‘SINGING’ is found in the NT as an
act of worship, but ‘PLAYING’ is ‘found nowhere’
in the NT!”
This statement is absolutely false! The Coptic Bible (an
ancient translation still read in Egypt today) translates Ephesians 5:19 as, “praising
and PLAYING to the Lord in
your hearts.” Norwegian NT states “Sing and PLAY for the Lord in your hearts.” Luther’s German Translation, “Sing
and PLAY to the Lord in your
hearts.” Scandinavian NT, “Sing and PLAY
with your heart to God the Father.” The Revised New Testament, “Singing and PLAYING to the Lord in your hearts.”
And even Thomas, himself, admitted that “make music” included the PLAYING of a piano, organ, or guitar!
Thomas asked
if I would admit that unaccompanied
singing occurred in Acts 16:25. Of course I’ll admit this! The context demands
this! However the verb Luke used for “sing” was humneo NOT psallo! Acts 16:25 was an “incidental.”
If this is Thomas’ authority for “accappella
singing only,” then this singing must be done at midnight by two men who are
naked and beaten!
Next Thomas
offered a historical argument claiming “substantial evidence exists that the
music of the early church was ‘a cappella’.” Thomas’ argument is more
hysterical than it is historical! Notice Thomas quoted Wikipedia as “Jewish and Christian music were originally a cappella.”
Jewish music was originally accappella?!
The first reference, the very origin of Jewish music is Exodus 15:20-21 where
the women went out WITH TIMBRELS and
sang unto the LORD! Neither Jewish, nor Christian music was originally
accappella! Thomas mentioned McKinnon’s book (1965). Apparently Thomas is
unaware of McKinnon’s later work, Music
in Early Christian Literature (1987), in which he stated (p. 3):
“Music historians have tended to
assume that there is a direct connection, that is, that ecclesiastical
authorities consciously strove to maintain their music free from the incursion
of musical instruments. There is LITTLE
EVIDENCE of this in the sources however.” (Bold emphasis mine JLW)
The Montanist (c. 157) played harps (ANF 3:4)! Clement (190) mentioned musical instruments in connection
to Colossians 3:16 (ANF 1:249)!
Tertullian (225) referred to musical instruments in the context of Ephesians
5:19 (ANF 4:468)! Ephraim (373) spoke
of praising God with a lute or harp (PNF
13:227)! Jerome (420) wrote of “luteplayers for the Saviour” (NPNF 6:107)! Augustine (430) encouraged
singing with the lyre or psaltery (Hastings, Encyclopedia Religion and Ethics, 9:31)! For more information on
instrumental music in church history check out theweatherlyreport.blogspot.com.
Thomas argued
that the instruments in 1 Samuel 18:6-7 and Revelation 5:8-9 were “in addition”
to singing. Thomas fails to understand that the term “sing” was used to
describe BOTH the vocal and
instrumental music! That means it was “included” not “in addition” to singing.
Thomas limits
James 5:13 to “individual worship” rather than the Christian life because “many
versions” translate psallo as “sing
praise.” The context determines whether “individual worship” is in view. The
passage is dealing with the Christian’s life and whether or not he is
“cheerful.” Given Thomas’ rational, Christians should only worship God if they
are cheerful!
Thomas again
stated that James 5:14 doesn’t exclude doctors because of other passages
(Matthew 9:12), but Thomas did not attempt to answer the rebuttal I made:
If Thomas believes that Matthew 9:12 is authority to see
a doctor, then by the same token one could say Luke 15:25 is authority for
instrumental music and dancing in the Father’s house.
|
Concerning
Thomas’ “gopher wood” argument, Thomas stated:
“Jason contended that ‘gopher wood’
was not a specific kind of wood. If so, then why did God command Noah … Was
that instruction meaningless to Noah?”
That’s not even what I said! I showed from the Septuagint
that “gopher wood” wasn’t a “species” of wood but referred to “four-cornered
wood.” The wood could be “ANY
species” (oak, pine, etc.) so long as it was “four-cornered.”
Concerning
singing psalms with musical instruments
Thomas stated:
“However, we are commanded to sing ‘psalms’ (Ephesians
5:19; Colossians 3:16). Consequently, according to Jason, it is a sin not to use mechanical instruments in
worship, for we cannot sing ‘psalms’ without them!”
Thomas’ statement is misleading. The participles denote a
“result” (Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp.
644-645). This is “authority” to use musical instruments, not a “command” to
use them. However, anyone who teaches against musical instruments is in sin
because they would be “taking away”
from the word of God, and excluding
believers from doing what is authorized!
Finally,
Thomas again referred to the classical and NT meaning of psallo. I gave a lengthy response in my second negative showing the
error of how Thomas handles the lexicons. I showed how Thomas must interpolate
things into Thayer’s lexicon for it to say what Thomas thinks it means. I
showed that none of the lexicons define psallo
as “sing rather than play upon mechanical
instruments” as Thomas stated. I even quoted Abbott-Smith who indicated
that both he and Thayer simply grouped the NT passages together, and did not
mean to indicate that the idea of instruments was excluded. What did Thomas say
about this? NOTHING! Psallo is NEVER used in the Bible to mean “pluck a hair” or “twang a bow.” Psallo is always used in reference to
music. That is its Biblical usage!
Thomas
mentioned words change meaning through history. Even Thayer indicated that psallo still meant “to play on a stringed instrument … Plutarch [A.D. 85]” during the
time of the writing of the NT! I could give many other references to show that psallo still meant play a musical instrument during NT times. Thayer’s reference to
“in the NT” was only to show that psallo
in the NT refers to a song of “praise” as opposed to a secular song, not that
it didn’t include musical accompaniment.
I have shown
that “sing” does not exclude instruments. I have shown that the translators
define “psalms” and “sing praise” as referring to singing with musical
accompaniment. I have shown that the NT authorizes two actions: “sing and make
music.” Thomas admits “make music” included a piano, organ, or guitar. And
thus, Thomas’ proposition has been refuted.
No comments:
Post a Comment