Paul, the Holy Spirit, and Instrumental Music

[Editor's Note: The September (2022) issue of Seeking the Old Paths contains an article I wrote a while back on "Worshiping 'In Spirit and In Truth.'" Shortly after it appeared, I received a letter from someone (who shall remain anonymous) asking me to consider his thoughts on what I had written, which this article will be devoted to doing.]

Paul and The Warnings

The writer seems to think Paul disobeyed God and that, according to what I wrote, this would make him a hypocrite. Below is the rationale.

Paul was warned by God not to go to Jerusalem. He understood the warnings but went despite being told not to do so.

Acts 21:22 was the first time. The person who gave him that inspiration was directed by the Spirit to inform Paul. I thought that if the Spirit told me to do one thing, yet I decided that my way was far better, would I be in harmony with God?

Paul ignored the warnings from God and went to Jerusalem anyway. Scripture says "he would not be persuaded"—not by inspired Christians nor by God. Paul said, "The will of the Lord be done." If someone today said, "I know God doesn't want instrumental music in our worship, but I'm going ahead and have it anyway," would we step back and say, "If that's what you want, then it's OK because you want it?" Paul could not be persuaded to do the Spirit's bidding. He went ahead and did what he wanted to. As imperfect human beings, don't we do that, too? Paul wasn't lost; so, would that mean we aren't lost when we walked the same walk as Paul?"

This is a variant of the tu quoque fallacy, which is defined by Wikipedia as the attempt "to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy." In this version, however, the writer accuses Paul of being wrong to justify anyone who ignores what the Scriptures teach.

Was Paul Disobedient?

What does the Bible actually teach about Paul and his plan to go to Jerusalem? Actually, the first relevant passage is found in 20:22-24—not 21:22. Here is what Paul said of the matter:

"And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulation await me. But none of those things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God."

The Holy Spirit is informing Paul what will occur there, but nothing seems to forbid him from going. The brethren certainly did not want Paul to have to endure all the physical pain and hardship, but he deemed it important to testify of the gospel there. The second instance is Acts 21:4. The verse records that some disciples "told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem." Presumably, the Spirit told them what would happen to Paul, and they too did not want him to suffer there.

The third event involves the prophet Agabus, as recorded in Acts 21:11-14 (not Acts 21:22). Agabus took Paul's belt and bound his own hands and feet with it, declaring to Paul that the owner of the belt would be turned over to the Gentiles. The brethren then pleaded with Paul not to go, but he answered, "What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." Paul could not be persuaded to avoid the harm that would surely befall him at Jerusalem.

Notice that Paul is not the one who said, "The will of the Lord be done," as the letter-writer claimed; the disciples came to that conclusion. If God had not wanted Paul to go to Jerusalem, Paul would not have gone. In Acts 16:6, Paul and those traveling with him "were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia." And what was Paul's response? Paul and the others did not go there at that time.

Furthermore, when Paul arrived in Jerusalem and was taken captive, Jesus spoke to him: "Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified of Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome" (Acts 23:11). Jesus does not sound displeased or angry with Paul, does He? The fact that Paul was warned by the Holy Spirit of the hostility he would face (together with the fact that brethren did not want him to face such treatment) does not mean that Paul defied the Lord Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Not only does Jesus comfort and encourage Paul about his journey to Rome, God sent an angel to tell Paul not to be afraid of the Mediterranean Sea that was buffeting the ship Paul was aboard. The message was: "Do not be afraid, Paul; you must be brought before Caesar; and indeed God has granted you all those who sail with you" (Acts 27:24). God seems to be happy with Paul's decision to go to Jerusalem.

Just as a further thought: If Paul had defied the Spirit in going to Jerusalem, but Jesus and the Father approve of what he did, would that imply They were wrong but Paul was right? Surely not. The only conclusion to draw is that going to Jerusalem was part of God's plan to get Paul before Caesar. Paul could not foresee that, but God could and did. The warnings given by the Holy Spirit were to let Paul know the severity of what he would suffer, but he was willing to do so for the advancement of the gospel.

Not Parallel

Perhaps the reader has noticed that nothing in the above discussion pertains to worship. The argument of the letter writer is this:

Paul defied the Holy Spirit.

God continued to fellowship him.

Therefore, we can defy the Holy Spirit, and God will continue to fellowship us.

First, Paul did not defy the Holy Spirit. Second, even if he had, it would only have been on one occasion (not continually), and it would not have involved the regular worship of the church. It remains the case that what proves too much proves nothing. If Christians can ignore the ways in which God said to worship and still retain His fellowship, then why did Jesus say that God seeks those who worship in truth (John 4:23-24)? And why did Paul give specifications regarding worship—if it is permissible to violate them on a continual basis?

In other words, if Paul had defied the Holy Spirit, it would have been a one-time act—not something done habitually, such as weekly worship. Furthermore, going to Jerusalem was not an act of worship, as singing is, or remembering the Lord's death, or giving.

The Open Door

One wonders how the correspondent could fail to miss this (maybe he has not), but his argument would allow for false worship in a number of areas, ad infinitum, without our fellowship with God being at risk. If we can sing with musical accompaniment every Sunday and remain in fellowship with God, why can we not also do the following?

Observe the Lord's Supper only once a month

Change the bread to pizza and the fruit of the vine to Code Red (it's the right color)

Fundraise in addition to taking up a collection

Set aside a time for spiritual dancing

Institute choirs to add to or eliminate congregational singing

Have children's church, teenage church, young adults church and senior's church at the same time as the main assembly occurs

Present dramas to accompany or replace preaching

Allow women to teach and preach (with men present)

The correspondent might protest some of these, but he has no basis for doing so. Even if he can show that these defy the Scriptures, he has already claimed that it would not matter. He already wrote that we are "imperfect human beings," and that we are not lost by worshiping imperfectly. If Paul could do it, so can we.

Paul gave instructions concerning the governing of the church. Jesus, of course, is the Head. But each congregation ought to have elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Phil. 1:1). Suppose we replace that with a benevolent dictator—one man who makes all of the decisions. That's not what the Bible teaches but aren't we all imperfect human beings?

Paul gave specific instructions concerning leadership in 1 Timothy 2:11-14. But maybe one of the ladies can really preach effectively; should we allow her to present spiritual messages to the congregation? Can we do that because we are imperfect human beings and still not be lost, as Paul was not lost?

And what about morality? Maybe some of the leaders are guilty of adultery, which is, of course, wrong. But should we just acknowledge that they are all imperfect humans and let them continue? Surely, we could not impose doctrinal limits, either. Should we fellowship those who hold to the AD 70 doctrine? If none are lost when they defy God, then why can we not conclude safely that "anything goes"?

Instrumental Music

This effort to justify the use of instrumental music is one of the most desperate ever devised. It actually admits that people use instruments of music in worship because they want to—not because the Scriptures command their use—or even allow for their inclusion. In other words, no passage in the New Testament authorizes Christians to sing with mechanical instruments of music. But according to the writer of this letter, no authority is needed. We can do whatever we want in worship—even if it defies God—because if Paul could defy the Holy Spirit, so can we.

For more than a century, efforts have been made to use the Scriptures to justify instruments in worship; all such efforts have failed, which apparently the letter writer acknowledges. If he could have found any merit in those arguments made in the past, he would have cited them. He tacitly rejects all previous efforts at justification. So, he admits that people use instruments because they like them and prefer their inclusion.

But then he says, "That's Okay. Paul defied the Holy Spirit; therefore, we can do the same thing—and not be lost because we're all imperfect anyway." These are the lengths some will go to justify a sinful practice.

We wonder if he would sign the following debate proposition: "It is acceptable for Christians to defy what the Holy Spirit teaches on a continual basis yet still remain in fellowship with God."