DOGMATIC, NARROW-MINDED, AND LEGALISTIC

There are, in the church today, those who attempt to neutralize God's revelation to man with intimidation. These compromisers do not want to oppose error in any way, and are influencing souls to turn from God’s word to follow the path of least resistance, i.e., the path of worldly acceptance and religious union.

Compromising Christian — I suppose you have the old foggy idea that some people are going to roast in an eternal Hell.

Christian — The Bible teaches that each will reap what is sown (Galatians 6:7-8), and there are some activities which will result in man’s condemnation (Galatians 5:19-21; I Corinthians 6:9-11). God himself teaches that some of his rebellious creatures will be lost (Matthew 25:46).

Compromising Christian — Why that is the most dogmatic, narrow-minded, legalistic thing I have ever heard!

Christian — It is the teaching of God’s word!

Compromising Christian — You’re probably an old moss back who believes that shorts and other immodest clothing, mixed swimming, dancing and social drinking are sin.

Christian — Yes, it is a sin, but not because I think it is a sin but because God condemns these acts as works of the flesh (Romans 13:14; Galatians 5:19-21; i.e., revelling, drunkenness, lasciviousness).

Compromising Christian — Why that’s the most dogmatic, narrow-minded, legalistic thing I have ever heard!

Christian—But it is God’s message!

Compromising Christian—I imagine you have the same narrow views concerning divorce and remarriage.

Christian—God’s word is very plain concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage. God’s plan for marriage is one woman for one man for one life time (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5-6; Romans 7:1-4). If divorce takes place it must be for fornication (Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:12). To put away a mate for any other cause and to remarry is to be guilty of adultery (Matthew 19:9).

Compromising Christian —Well, I have never...that’s the most dogmatic, narrow-minded, legalistic thing I have ever heard.

Christian — It is taught by inspiration!

Compromising Christian — Do you honestly, actually, truly believe that using instrumental music in worship is a sin, and that people will be lost in Hell because they use it in their worship?

Christian — It isn’t what I believe that is important, what is important is what God has commanded. Each time music is mentioned in the New Testament (in the worship of Christians) it specifies vocal music (Acts 16:25; Romans 15:9; I Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; Hebrews 2:12; 13:15; James 5:13). The transgression of God’s standard is sin (I John 3:4). It is God’s word which will be the standard of judgment (John 12:48-49).

Compromising Christian — That is the absolute end. That's the most dogmatic, narrow-minded, legalistic thing I have heard in my whole life!

But all the ranting, raving, intimidation and disparaging remarks do not change one iota of God’s revelation to man. It still stands, and will continue to stand (I Peter 1:25), till judgment when it will be God’s standard for judging the works of men (John 12:48-49).

The characters referred to in this article are not fictitious; they are real and exist in many congregations in the brotherhood today. May the compromising Christian see the error of his/her way and repent that salvation might be theirs in the hereafter.

Thomas F. Eaves, Sr.

I Don’t Understand

Some things I don’t understand:

• I don’t understand how men who were once faithful Gospel preachers can preach a perverted “gospel” based on fantasy instead of fact (II Timothy 4:2; Galatians 1:6–9).
• I don’t understand why congregations put up with or fellowship preachers who have left the faith (I John 1:6–10; II John 9–11).
• I don’t understand how anyone can think that instrumental music in worship is authorized (or more beautiful) than singing that comes from our hearts (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).
• I don’t understand how anyone can think that God’s Word changes just because his—or a family member’s—situation in life changes (Matthew 5:32; 19:3–9).
• I don’t understand how anyone can believe that the Spirit works directly on the heart of some unless he believes that God is a respecter of persons (Proverbs 24:23; John 7:24; Acts 10:34–35).
• I don’t understand why faithful Gospel preachers are ridiculed, abused, and even fired for doing what God has told them to do (I Corinthians 1:23; II Timothy 4:2).
• I don’t understand how anyone can love the things of this world and expect to be loved by the Father (I John 2:15–17).
• I don’t understand how God could love such a one as I and be willing to give up His Son to die as a sacrifice for me (John 3:16; Romans 5:8).
• I don’t understand pain, suffering, and death, but I do know that one day these will be no more (Revelation 21:3).

I don’t understand such things, but I know that if I endure faithfully to the end, God the Father will explain it all to me on that Day (II Timothy 4:7–8)!

Danny Box

The Sin of Being Neutral

If there was ever a time for men to be taking a stand for Truth and right, it is now. The church is facing troublesome times in its battle against sin in the face of a new liberalism and softness toward doctrinal error. We see efforts of brethren on every side trying to take a neutral stand. They think they can win the struggle for right by failing to take a stand. Evidently, they feel that by being quiet the devil will go away. Not so.

You will recall that the prophet Balaam tried to be neutral, but failed. Balak wanted him to place a curse against God’s people. Balaam knew, and confessed, that he must speak that which the Lord put in his mouth (Num. 23:12). At the same time, he seemingly wanted to please Balak. Balak’s doctrine is stated in Numbers 23:25: “And Balak said unto Balaam, Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all.”

We are either for the Lord or against Him (Matthew 12:30). Let it be understood, we are not talking about personal disputes where there is the possibility of both parties being in the wrong. Instead, we are thinking of doctrinal matters. For instance, one preacher said that he is not a premillennialist, but neither was he “anti- premillennial.” Another has said, he was not advocating instrumental music, but that he was not “anti-instrumental music.” There are many who would disclaim false doctrine in their own preaching, but they will embrace those in fellowship who teach and preach false doctrines. Brethren, let us get off the fence.

In Judges 5:23 we read, “Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” God’s people were in a battle for their lives. God was mightily concerned, but where was the house of Meroz? They were still abiding in their sheepfolds. They were content to remain idle and let others do the fighting, but God was displeased. He ordered a curse be placed against them.

What was their sin? The same as many of our brethren today! They wanted to remain neutral. They wanted others to do their fighting. There are those even now who will not join in the battle against error in the church. They look upon themselves as lovers of peace. They even become critical of those who are known as “fighters” or “brotherhood watchdogs.” Some of these are trying to do  a balancing act on the fence of neutrality. If the Truth prevails on some issue and error is exposed to the point that it is unpopular, they will fall off on the side of the majority and proudly claim, “We have won the victory”—yes, and “we killed a bear, but papa shot it.”

B. C. Carr

What We Hear Today

From the same pulpits where brave and faithful men stood we are hearing:

1. Salvation is by grace alone. There is nothing man can do toward his own salvation.
2. Others are saying we are saved by faith alone.
3. We are told that instrumental music is a matter of tradition or opinion.
4. Pattern theology is to be rejected. We should be less rigid in our beliefs.
5. The “old paths” mentality should be rejected.
6. We should not believe we are the only true church.
7. The Scriptures should not be used as proof texts.
8. We need to give women a more prominent role in the church.
9. Preachers are swapping pulpits with denominational pastors.
10. Fellowship among all who believe in Christ should be practiced.

B.C. Carr

Instrumental Music - What Others Have Said

• “The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal” (Martin Luther).
• “I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard” (John Wesley, Methodist). 
• “There can be no doubt that originally the music of the divine service was everywhere entirely of a vocal nature” (Emil Nauman, The History of Music).
• “I presume to all spiritually-minded Christians, such aid [mechanical instruments of music] would be as a cow bell in a concert” (Alexander Campbell).
• “What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it” (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist).
• “The custom of organ accompaniment did not become general among Protestants until the eighteenth century” (The New Shaff-Herzogg Encyclopedia). 
• “I am an old man, and I here declare that I never knew them to be productive of any good in the worship of God, and have reason to believe that they are productive of much evil. Music as a science I esteem and admire, but instrumental music in the house of God I abominate and abhor” (Adam Clarke, Methodist Commentator). 
• “David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety” (Chrysostom, 381 A.D.).
• “The use of music was not received in the Christian churches, as it was among the Jew, in their infant state, but only the use of plain song” (Justin Martyr, 139 A. D.). 
• “While the pagan melodies were always sung to an instrumental accompaniment, the church chant was exclusively vocal” (Edward Dickinson, History of Music).

Author Unknown

Does Silence Give Sanction?

It is a matter of verbal conjecture on the part of many that God’s silence on a subject of human preference makes such allowable. Such is advocated by those who presume to use mechanical instruments in New Testament worship. It is assumed that since there is no declared prohibition against it such is then allowed. It seems the battles of the past fought in this same arena must again occur. The same questions need to be asked again. The same simple lessons must be learned again.

WASN’T GOD SILENT ABOUT ALL OTHER WOOD EXCEPT GOPHER IN BUILDING THE ARK?

Such seems to be a foolish question to those who read Genesis 6:14. In fact, as you read this verse, and others related to the ark, you would affirm the silence of God on all other kinds of wood to be used in the ark. This would be a good place to show His silence.

Would you at the same time argue that His silence would give sanction to the use of any other kind of wood? Would you even care to assume that His silence gave sanction to the use of such? In fact, wouldn’t you oppose the use of any other kind of wood? If you did, on what basis would you oppose it?

Would you argue that His silence does not sanction it and that you would have to have His Word to authorize the use of any other kinds of wood? Shouldn’t it follow then that the silence of the New Testament does not authorize the use of mechanical instruments in New Testament worship?

WASN’T GOD SILENT ABOUT THE KIND OFFIRE USED BY NADAB AND ABIHU?

“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon and offered strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not” (Leviticus 10:1).

What did they do? They did something God had not commanded. They used a kind of fire about which God was silent. Did His silence give sanction to what they did? If such were sanctioned, why were they punished for such?

Would God by His silence sanction a practice, and then punish those for doing what He sanctioned? You and I know better. We wouldn’t dare argue that His silence gave sanction to what they did, but we do have to admit that God was indeed silent about the kind of fire they did use.

WASN’T GOD SILENT ABOUT THE NEED OF GENTILES TO BE CIRCUMCISED TO BE SAVED UNDER THE GOSPEL?

Do you remember those who went from Jerusalem to Antioch saying such was the case (Acts 15:1-2)? Do you recall that the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem about this question? Do you remember that they sent an epistle back to Antioch and other places saying, “We gave no such commandment” (Acts 15:24)?

They were silent concerning the necessity for Gentiles to be circumcised. To add such to God’s requirement for salvation was equal to the invasion of God’s silence. This would constitute an addition and perversion. For men to add the mechanical instrument to New Testament worship is no less an invasion of God’s silence.

WASN’T GOD SILENT ABOUT WASHING HANDS BEFORE EATING?

Some would add such and seek to have the Lord endorse it, bid to no avail (Matthew 15:1-9). Jesus showed such to be nothing more than a human tradition. It has its origin with men and not with God. God was silent concerning such, and Jesus did not accept that as authorization to bind such on His disciples.

WASN’T GOD SILENT CONCERNING ONE SERVING AS A PRIEST UNDER THE LAW FROM THE TRIBE OF JUDAH?

One has but to read the following, “For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribeMoses spake nothing concerning priesthood” (Hebrews 7:13-14). The Hebrews writer used this as an argument to show that Jesus was of a higher order of priest.

Wouldn’t you think the overall priesthood would be better by having one perfect priest such as Jesus? Surely we would, but such wouldn’t authorize invading God’s silence and making Jesus a priest from the wrong tribe. The unanswerable argument is that since nothing was said concerning one from the tribe of Judah serving as priest, then one from Judah was not authorized to serve as a priest. Then what would it take for one to be authorized? Certainly not silence, but rather a statement to that effect.

What would it take for the authorization of the mechanical instrument in New Testament worship? Wouldn’t it take a supporting statement like we have in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 for singing? You certainly don’t have any authorization based on silence. If so, there is absolutely no limit to the additions one can make. No, silence doesn’t give sanction and God doesn’t need to be treated as an idol that cannot speak. He has told us how to worship and in doing this we have His sanction based on His Word.

J. Winfred Clark
1923-1997