An example of Protestant inconsistency


#1

For those who don’t know, the “Churches of Christ” don’t use musical instruments. They want to return to a “first century” way of doing Church and so they exclude musical instruments. I wondered… the Bible never explicitly excludes musical instruments… in fact, it never adresses the issue. So I decided to look up their reasoning online…

9 - “WHY DON’T YOU USE MUSIC IN YOUR WORSHIP?”

We do use music, but we don’t use musical instruments to accompany our singing.... Early Christianity included two groups of people: Jews with a background of instrumental music (see Psalm 150) and pagan Gentiles who also worshipped with musical instruments. Yet when the church was established in about 33 A.D., those early Christians worshipped without such instruments. 
According to Dr. F.W Mattox, a scholar of early church history, musical instruments weren’t used until the fifth century, and organ music didn’t become part of Christian worship until the eighth century...." 

cconline.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=51223

Hm… Earlier in the web page, the Church states that it is focused on “looking to the Bible only (#10).” Since the New Testament does not specifically address the issue, they turned directly to the cultural mileu and early Christian tradition for guidance. They may turn to tradition for guidance on musical instruments, but as for allowing tradition to define other norms of early Christian worship: the eucharistic sacrifice, eucharistic canons/prayers… they affim their complete rejection of tradtion. :rolleyes: Ask them to turn to the early Church to understand how church discipline, absolution, and penance was administered, the rite of confirmation/chrismation, or any other facets of early Christian practice and life (let alone doctrine), and they will denounce the early Church as a fallen Church.

And we as Catholics are supposed to take their claims seriously?


#2

What they use is an argument from silence (instruments are not mentioned in the NT; therefore they are not to be used), and argument from silence is a major logical fallacy.

Furthermore, the NT verse that they do use as support is Ephesians 5:19, which reads (KJV, bolding mine):

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord…

Notice that not only does this verse fail to mention instruments; it also, by the wording “singing and making melody in your heart” seems to exclude the use of vocal cords.

But that’s what you get when you start following individual interpretations of Scripture.

DaveBj


#3

Maybe those same people should not wear hair pieces on their heads and the ladies wigs and makeup either, since the folks in the early church wore neither eh? Church of Christ people are simply self righteous hypocrites. They deny using musical instruments as aids for singing, when the very hymn books they sing from contains songs in printed musical notes. Those very notes were made from a piano and created for a piano.


#4

Actually, I think the Churches of Christ are on the right track. In the eastern rite Catholic Churches and Orthodox churches we do not use musical instruments because the only musical instrument made directly by God is the human voice. Therefore; the human voice is the only musical instrument that is fit for worship.

Musical instruments were not used in any Church until the time of the Reformation after the invention of the organ. If I were Pope, I would return to the early Church practice and ban musical instruments in worship as well as any music written after 1500AD. :-).


#5

[quote=byzmelkite]Actually, I think the Churches of Christ are on the right track. In the eastern rite Catholic Churches and orthodox churches we do not use musical instruments because the only musical instrument made directly by God is the human voice. Therefore; the human voice is the only musical instrument that is fit for worship.

Musical instruments were not used in any Church until the time of the Reformation after the invention of the organ. If I were Pope, I would return to the early Church practice and ban musical instruments in worship as well as any music written after 1500AD. :-).
[/quote]

Well, it is certainly true that musical intruments are still not used in most Eastern rite Churches (I am hoping to become Melkite myself). And it certainly was synagogue tradition not to use instruments, a rule repeated in the Greek fathers. My post does not address this specific question theologically, but exposes the Church of Christ’s use of this tradition as a mandatory law of the Church as hypocritical for a “bible only” Church.


#6

[quote=byzmelkite]Actually, I think the Churches of Christ are on the right track. In the eastern rite Catholic Churches and orthodox churches we do not use musical instruments because the only musical instrument made directly by God is the human voice. Therefore; the human voice is the only musical instrument that is fit for worship.
[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t see how it logically follows-- that is, I think it’s a non sequitur-- to claim that because the only musical instrument made directly by God is the human voice, it is therefore the only one fit to worship him with. It’s a kind sentiment, but not much of a justification. Why should we assume this? I say this as someone to whom God did not grant much of a singing voice. :smiley:

–Rob


#7

Do they use microphones and sound systems for their preaching? I doubt the early Christians used them. Do they have airconditioned churches? I’m almost positive the early Christians didnt have those either. What about walking miles to church?. Did the ec’s have vans, Hummers, etc?


#8

[quote=justcatholic]Maybe those same people should not wear hair pieces on their heads and the ladies wigs and makeup either, since the folks in the early church wore neither eh? Church of Christ people are simply self righteous hypocrites. They deny using musical instruments as aids for singing, when the very hymn books they sing from contains songs in printed musical notes. Those very notes were made from a piano and created for a piano.
[/quote]

Wow, a little less self-righteousness please? Just because you may feel that they are hypocritical, doesn’t give us the right to look down our noses at them. After reading some of the posts on the forum, where we patronize Protestants simply for not being Catholic, I feel that we all (and yes, me too) may want to take another look at the Beatitudes (Blessed are the meek…, Blessed are the humble…, etc.).

It’s one thing to comment on the inconsistencies of the CofC (take for example, no musical instruments because of the bible’s silence, but they can still do PowerPoint Presentations to assist their Sermons), but it’s another thing to lump them all in the hypocritical, heathen department.

The one thing I’ve discovered about the average CofC’er is that they believe wholeheartedly in their faith. I believe if the average Catholic had that same confidence and assuredness in their Church’s Doctrines, we’d be a much stronger Church.

Thanks for giving me the soapbox.

NotWorthy


#9

[quote=byzmelkite]Actually, I think the Churches of Christ are on the right track. In the eastern rite Catholic Churches and orthodox churches we do not use musical instruments because the only musical instrument made directly by God is the human voice. Therefore; the human voice is the only musical instrument that is fit for worship.

Musical instruments were not used in any Church until the time of the Reformation after the invention of the organ. If I were Pope, I would return to the early Church practice and ban musical instruments in worship as well as any music written after 1500AD. :-).
[/quote]

What would make a musical instrument in the Mass a bad thing? Only if it interferes with the celebration of the Mass. Jesus criticized only the traditions of man that got in the way of worshipping God. Now, I understand some organists are so horrible, that this claim may have merit, but I don’t think, as a whole, we can say that about musical instruments.

NotWorthy


#10

[quote=byzmelkite]Musical instruments were not used in any Church until the time of the Reformation after the invention of the organ.
[/quote]

That’s not true. Musical instrumentation may have entered Christian music as early as the 7th century. It was definitely in widespread evidence by the 12th century, a good four hundred years before the Reformation. The organ, contrary to your assertion, was not a Reformation-era invention. Charlemagne received an organ as a gift from Byzantium in A. D. 812. In fact, organs predate Christianity by a couple of centuries. (Some more generous scholars assert that instrumentation entered Christian worship in certain communities as early as the 4th century. According to these minority-view scholars, such music was tolerated, but not necessarily welcomed.)

The Psalms were written with instrumental accompaniment in mind. If it was good enough for God then, it is good enough now.

– Mark L. Chance.


#11

You do realise the Churches of Christ do not classify themselves as Protestant right? And indeed, find the term offensive when applied to them.

  So, how is this "Protestant Hypocrisy"? If they disclaim Protestantism?

#12

[quote=ZAROVE]You do realise the Churches of Christ do not classify themselves as Protestant right? And indeed, find the term offensive when applied to them.

  So, how is this "Protestant Hypocrisy"? If they disclaim Protestantism?

[/quote]

Point taken. Of course… whether they prefer that label or not, their assumptions, central tenets, and origin are strictly Protestant, and so are properly classified within that branch of Christianity.

[quote=NotWorthy] It’s one thing to comment on the inconsistencies of the CofC (take for example, no musical instruments because of the bible’s silence, but they can still do PowerPoint Presentations to assist their Sermons), but it’s another thing to lump them all in the hypocritical, heathen department.
[/quote]

Point also taken. “Inconsistency” was the right word, not “Hypocrisy.” My mind slipped… I wish I could change the thread name. I don’t also mean to sound negative or judgmental, and I am especially not making an attack on the members of the Churches of Christ. There are examples i could have rallied from many other Protestant groups, and so I didn’;t mean to "pick on’ ther Church in particular, or discuss musical instruments.

I am, however, saddenned by the inconsistent application of their principles. It upsets me really, because those within such Churches will use their shaky, inconsisent, beliefs to condemn Catholicism. I wish all Protestants would be awakened to the faults of such interpretations, and truly examine Christian history as a whole, rather than exploit it as they do “proof-texts”.


#13

[quote=ZAROVE]You do realise the Churches of Christ do not classify themselves as Protestant right? And indeed, find the term offensive when applied to them.

  So, how is this "Protestant Hypocrisy"? If they disclaim Protestantism?

[/quote]

They can disclaim Protestant all they want. Until they can prove that they are the Church founded by Christ, and have been in existence continuously since the time of the Apostles, and they have been guided by the Holy Spirit during this time, how can you consider them anything BUT Protestant. “A rose by any other name…”. “A Protestant by any other name…”.

NotWorthy


#14

[quote=mlchance]That’s not true. Musical instrumentation may have entered Christian music as early as the 7th century. It was definitely in widespread evidence by the 12th century, a good four hundred years before the Reformation. The organ, contrary to your assertion, was not a Reformation-era invention. Charlemagne received an organ as a gift from Byzantium in A. D. 812. In fact, organs predate Christianity by a couple of centuries. (Some more generous scholars assert that instrumentation entered Christian worship in certain communities as early as the 4th century. According to these minority-view scholars, such music was tolerated, but not necessarily welcomed.)

The Psalms were written with instrumental accompaniment in mind. If it was good enough for God then, it is good enough now.

– Mark L. Chance.
[/quote]

It is still a fact that the Eastern churches have never used musical instruments and that the Eastern Churches follow the most ancient practices.


#15

[quote=RobNY]I understand what you are saying, but I don’t see how it logically follows-- that is, I think it’s a non sequitur-- to claim that because the only musical instrument made directly by God is the human voice, it is therefore the only one fit to worship him with. It’s a kind sentiment, but not much of a justification. Why should we assume this? I say this as someone to whom God did not grant much of a singing voice. :smiley:

–Rob
[/quote]

Well, it seemed to be the view of the ancient Church. My personal opinion is that the introduction of musical instrumentation set the stage for less liturgically minded singing. But that’s just an opinion.


#16

the members and preachers of the Church of Christ I know do not consider themselves protestant because they do not recognize the historical mainstream protestant denominations as legitimate any more than they recognize the Catholic or Orthodox churches. In their view, all are apostate from 1st century Chrisitianity.


#17

[quote=adventistnomore]I am, however, saddenned by the inconsistent application of their principles. It upsets me really, because those within such Churches will use their shaky, inconsisent, beliefs to condemn Catholicism. I wish all Protestants would be awakened to the faults of such interpretations, and truly examine Christian history as a whole, rather than exploit it as they do “proof-texts”.
[/quote]

How can you be anything other than inconsistent when you do not have a Church Hierchy like ours??? As long as each Church decides its own tenets, you’ll have inconsistencies.

Case in point: Our local CofC couldn’t agree on distributing the fruit of the vine (grape juice to you and me) out of one chalice or more than one, due to the numbers of the congregation. How did they resolve this? Wallah! Now they have two CofC’s. One that uses one Chalice, and one that uses more than one. On a funny side, the resultant church was so small, they had no more need for multiple chalices.

NotWorthy


#18

Are Mormosn Protestant? They do not claim continual existance and wher eorginised in 1830…

   Not all things ar ebased here, and adventistnomore:

Point taken. Of course… whether they prefer that label or not, their assumptions, central tenets, and origin are strictly Protestant, and so are properly classified within that branch of Christianity.

what asumptions and central tenets are these that cause them to be Protestant?


#19

[quote=ZAROVE]Are Mormosn Protestant? They do not claim continual existance and wher eorginised in 1830…

Not all things ar ebased here, and adventistnomore:

[/quote]

Umm, no offense, but you might want to check your spelling. I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here.


#20

I am Dyslexic. and foundamentlaly I am asking Adventistnomore what tenets central tot he teachign of the CHurches of Christ are Protestant…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.