A Principle of Bible Interpretation (2)

In the podcast examined last week on speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent, it is remarkable that the verse, often referred to as the "authority" principle never came up. Colossians 3:17 declares: all that we teach and practice must be authorized. Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18), and to do all in His name means that He must authorize it—whether it be the work or worship of the church.

In the Old Testament, the use of instruments of music to accompany singing was authorized by God (2 Chron. 29:25). In the New Testament, only singing is authorized. The two hosts of the podcast admit that, but they do not want to draw any conclusions based on those facts. They say that would be opinion (dialogismos), which Paul forbids Christians from doing in Romans 14:1. Therefore we cannot draw manmade conclusions and then bind our opinions. Is that true?

Dialogismos

This Greek word can refer to opinions, but also to reasoning. It is preceded by the word evil in some verses in order to describe evil thoughts (Matt. 15:19; James 2:4). According to Strong, it means "the thinking of a man deliberating with himself," "a thought, inward reasoning." Such reasoning could be good or bad. The important question to ask is, "To what is Paul referring in Romans 14:1 (the verse cited by the hosts of the podcast)?" They interpret it to mean that we can’t trust man’s reasoning. If it refers to the reasoning of Wes and Travis, that might deserve a hearty, "Amen," but all reasoning is not bad.

Fortunately, Paul defines what he means by dialogismos in Romans 14: he is referring to matters of no consequence. Paul refers to those who eat all things versus those who only eat vegetables (Rom. 14:2-4). Is someone sinning by doing either of these? No. It’s a matter of indifference. Paul said the same of circumcision in 1 Corinthians 7:19—that neither it nor uncircumcision were anything. The same tolerance must exist for those who approach certain days differently (Rom. 14:5-6). Paul’s point is that we should not make a judgment about our brother in such instances.

Instrumental Music

If the duo hosting the podcast want to say that instrumental music should not divide brethren, they are assuming the very thing that they need to prove. That is to say, they have assumed it is a matter of indifference and, therefore, that we are wrong to make it a matter of fellowship. We say that we can only do what God authorizes in worship and that what God has not authorized is false worship. Using instruments of music in worship has no authority. False worship is not a matter of indifference.

"Oh, but you used human reasoning to arrive at that conclusion!" So what? God expects us to use proper reasoning. The Sadducees used an illustration to try to put Jesus on the spot. A woman, over a period of time, married seven brothers. Whenever one would die, the next one in line would marry her, thus performing the duty of a brother (Deut. 25:5). The Sadducees did not believe in life after death or the resurrection; this story was concocted to try to trap Jesus. The widow had been married to all seven men; so, whose wife would she be in the resurrection?

Probably the Sadducees were astounded when Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven; they hadn’t counted on that, and it ruined their example. But then Jesus destroyed their whole line of thinking as well. They were certainly familiar with the Law of Moses, which recorded God saying to Moses: "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Ex. 3:6). But Jesus also made a comment after citing this verse: "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matt. 22:32).

This is the reasoning (dialogismos) that the Sadducees should have used with respect to Exodus 3:6. The proper conclusion to draw when reading this verse is that God is (present tense) their God. Therefore, the three patriarchs must still be alive. Would they have used human wisdom to arrive at that conclusion? No, they would have used logic, which is of God. He gave us logical minds, and He expects us to reason correctly. Unfortunately, Wes McAdams does not reason correctly about reasoning correctly. Elsewhere, he writes:

The idea that we should call the behavior of others a sin based on our own "inferences" is itself an inference. In other words, it is a conclusion we have reached based on our own reasoning and logic. But there is a difference between our own reasoning and God’s word. We cannot elevate our reasoning to the same level of God’s word. There is no teaching in Scripture that promotes or endorses elevating our reasoning and logic to this level. Furthermore, we are actually explicitly prohibited from judging others based on inference. The Greek word for it is dialogismos. It means a conclusion you’ve come to based on reasoning and logic. It is usually translated, "opinions," but these were not lightly held opinions. These were inferences to which Jewish and Gentile believers had come after much study and thought. But Paul explicitly says that it is wrong to judge one another based on dialogismos (Romans 14).

But those topics were matters of indifference: it didn’t matter whether or not one did them. Therefore, the brethren in Rome were drawing incorrect conclusions, which Paul straightens out. But should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater?

Just because some use logic incorrectly does not invalidate sound reasoning. The origin of logic is God, and He expects us to be logical with His Word. Peter spoke of those who twist the Word to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). They take God’s Word and twist it to say what it does not say; they abuse reasoning—especially when they try to justify immoral behavior (2 Peter 2). Did not Isaiah warn that some call evil good and good evil (Isa. 5:20)? One must use bad reasoning in order to become this perverted. So, no one denies that reasoning can be abused. It must be used properly.

Worship

Some things are explicitly stated in the Scriptures. Jesus, for example, described vain worship in Matthew 15:1-9. For many, this is a scary thought—that a person’s worship might be all in vain. Jesus had already said He would not acknowledge some who prophesied in His name and cast out demons in His name (Matt. 7:21-23). Paul mentions will worship or self-imposed religion in Colossians 2:23.

But nowhere in the Scriptures can anyone find the phrase, false worship. Does that mean that no such thing exists? Hardly. In John 4:23 Jesus spoke of true worshipers; so what does that imply, if not that false worshipers also exist? Surely, no one desires to wring his hands and complain, "But that’s human reasoning." It’s simple logic—the kind God expects us to use.

Now, is singing true worship? Yes. Is it still true worship if we add whistling, yodeling, and a drumbeat to it? No. What about guitars, pianos, organs, flutes, and violins? No. If adding those things changes it from true worship, then what is it? Try not to be too sluggish when you answer, "False worship." Once again, Wes speaks:

It is a truthful and logical statement to say, "God has not given Christians permission to use instruments to praise Him." However, it is not logical to say, "God hates instrumental music and anyone who uses instruments is going to hell." The first statement is a logical conclusion to draw, based on the biblical evidence. The second statement is NOT and is a logically fallacious argument from silence.

Notice the way Wes couches the argument in order to get people to agree with him. He uses the word hate and the phrase going to hell to try to make the opposing position look unsavory. No reason exists for God to hate instrumental music; He accepted it as part of worship in the Old Testament. But Wes agreed that God has not authorized it in the New. Being unauthorized by God makes it false worship. This is a correct conclusion to draw. Going to hell sounds a bit stringent, but what does Wes think the Lord meant when He said, "And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matt. 7:23). Isn’t adding Instrumental music lawless?

Who Are Our Brothers?

Wes thinks singing could be a unifying thing, something everyone can agree upon. Who is everyone? Consider this paragraph of his.

"Things like acapella singing could be an incredibly unifying thing." You’re used to rock bands, classical, piano, country, etc. "Well, listen, what if, what if we just came together and we just sang pure, simple, participatory hymns and we’re, we’re all the choir. All of us are the choir. All of us are the band. And we use our hearts and our voices to praise and glorify God, and we’re together in this. Like, then we take something, that instead of using it to beat somebody over the head, and say, "We’re right, and you’re wrong," then it becomes an effort to be unified.

The first logical question is, "With whom does Wes think we are going to unite? Who is he going to come together with and just sing? Does he plan to have this singing with religious groups who use sprinkling for baptism, such as the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians and the Catholics? None of them are baptized by immersion for the forgiveness of their sins; how are we going to be unified with them in singing?

Well, the Baptists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, and the Pentecostals baptize by immersion. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult with a history of false prophecies. (They seldom acknowledge their history, however.) The Mormons are a cult who believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He condemned polygamy before he voted for it. Currently, it is outlawed, but a new revelation could change that. The Pentecostals also believe that modern-day prophets exist. However, among these, only the Mormons believe that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. (They believe it so strongly that a Mormon can be baptized for several of his deceased family members.)

Jehovah’s Witnesses state flatly in their book, The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life: "What, then does, Christian baptism signify? It is not a washing away of one’s sins…" (183). Try comparing that with Acts 22:16. Pentecostals immerse—but not for the forgiveness of sins; they believe they are saved by a sinner’s prayer "Why I Left…" (30). And what about Baptists? From the Handbook of Religious Quotations comes these words: "Is baptism necessary for salvation? I don’t beat about the bush at all. I come out with a plum definite, ‘No’" (6).

One wonders just who Wes is going to have all of this wonderful acapella singing with? Is he saying that he can have fellowship with all these groups if they will forego the use of their instruments? Perhaps Wes and Travis can explain how and when this marvelous singing event will come about—without the use of human logic? Yes, where will it be? When will it be? And who will be there? He referenced such an occurrence three times; it is only fair that he provides more details.