There exists absolutely no counter-argument to the notion that instruments are mentioned in the Scriptures, and that instruments were used in worship. However, that notion alone (mention / use) is not enough to satisfy their prescription and necessity.
- If-There was mention of musical instruments being used in OT therefore they should also be used now.
- By same point- There is mention of smoking sensors being used in OT therefore they should also be used now
- By same point- There is mention of praising God with dance being used in OT therefore dance should also be used now
- By same point- There is mention “...And a two-edged sword in their hand, To execute vengeance on the nations…(Psalms 149:6)” in the OT (in conjunction with praise might I add), therefore we should be using a two-edged sword to execute vengeance on the nations now (every time we praise God).

Hope you see what I am trying to get at… Why is it that we give a certain preference to musical instruments in worship? Is it because they have an intrinsic capability to outline a beat or underline the tone? In OT there are explicit institutions of musical instruments, but only in conjunction with Temple Ordinances and as such, they had a picture-like value – a reference so to say -- and not a value of convenient utility.


1. Did you know that in the practice of some forms of Satanism they do not use instruments? They do this because of the Bible’s mention of instruments. Thus, to think that idolatry may be avoided because of the lack of the use of instruments is easily dismissed as an invalid argument.


Satanists and other cults, when they gather, gather either in buildings or in open, therefore we cannot gather in building or in open, but only somewhere in the sky or on the moon. Reducing logical inferences to absurdity can lead to …ahh … a lot of absurdity.


3. Saying instruments are not necessary for worship is also not a valid argument. Are chairs necessary in a church for people to worship? Why do you have pews or chairs?


As far as my experience is concerned, I am yet to see someone be emotionally aroused according to the chair they sit on. Nowhere in Scriptures does it say we can/ cannot hold a petting-zoo session during worship service. Therefore, the question becomes whether or whether not it is a good idea (based upon implicit/ explicit arguments). Now, substitute “instruments” in for a “petting-zoo” and you will have the topic I am currently dealing with. As such my argument was that using instruments during worship service can facilitate idolatry therefore it is not a great idea having instruments there.


Thanks for replying and making an extremely important point in my behalf. The point being, that the singing of the Psalms only is insufficient to worship God because they lack the fullness of meaning in and of themselves of the truth of God's redemption in Christ Jesus.

…errr, wrong point. My point: singing of Psalms only in light of Psalms only is insufficient. Now, the book of Psalms cannot stand alone. Psalms are sung in light of the entire Scriptures. The revelation of the entire Scriptures (Genesis – Revelation), enables us to sing Psalms alone (because Psalms does not stand alone).


…This is a fundamental axiom of biblical hermeneutics, i.e., the O.T. is interpreted by the N.T. as the N.T.'s foundation is built upon the O.T…

…The O.T. and the N.T. compliment each other, but they are not to be so combined that they lose their uniqueness and purpose which God the Spirit designed…

Dare I not to go against prescribed interpretations of OT and NT, and prescribed degree of meaning in the separation of the two, but would now the author of Hebrews beg to differ with you, when he wrote the entire first and second chapter of his letter parading OT passages not to prove that they talk about Jesus (aka out of all the possible candidates these passages could talk about, the true one is Jesus),… but he wrote entire by first taking a dogmatic stance that they do talk about Jesus, and then he uses those passages (from the OT) to form the doctrine of the NT. Now, it seems (at least to me) that it is not the new interpreting the old, but the old defining the new.


If you are thinking from the point-of-view of the entire scriptures when you are worshiping why cannot I do the same from the N.T.? Why can I not do the same from the truths of doctrine expressed throughout the Scripture?


…because you are at-least engaging in redundancy. Once again give me ideas/ doctrines/ experiences mentioned in any chosen hymn, which are not found expressed in some psalm. (You can take me up on this; this challenge was made on pure “speculation”)


Do the Psalms come with their own sheet music? If not, how do we know we are singing them properly?


…that’s the entire point. Its not the “music” which is important. Music (i.e. melody) is not part of doctrine. Music is not necessary for proper worship, but proper doctrine is.


What about Jesus? Although the Psalms certainly foreshadow him and his work, he is never mentioned explicitly.

It so seems (at least to me) that the author of Hebrews would disagree with you (particularly in opening chapters).

jenya andreyev

PS insert where applicable: