I sincerely appreciate your written reply regarding my sermon on Commands, Aids, and Additions. I hope and pray that I can mention some things that will help us to be united in Christ.
First of all, you mentioned, "I must admit at still being completely in the dark as to how one can consistently apply such a hermeneutic." Let me reply by calling your attention to the fact that the word "hermeneutics" is defined by Webster as: "1. the art or science of interpretation, esp. of the Scriptures. 2. the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis." The word "interpret" is defined as "1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; elucidate: to interpret a parable. 2. to construe or understand in a particular way..." Thus, the word "hermeneutic" is a high-sounding word for nothing more than "proper understanding and/or explanation." Many passages teach that we cannot add to the word of God (1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 9-11). You and I both understand that the Bible teaches that immersion is the mode for baptism (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12). Sprinkling or pouring as a mode for baptism is an addition and is therefore condemned. Likewise, both of us can understand, if we truly love and respect God's Word, that singing in worship is authorized in the Scriptures (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; etc.). Playing an instrument in worship is an addition because it is not revealed in the New Testament Scriptures.
You mentioned, "I preach in an ICC congregation, and I grew up in an ICC church. I truly believe that God's Spirit is grieved by a continuance on our part at fostering division." Please let my reply by mentioning that I grew up in the Catholic Church and one of the reasons I left was because the Catholic Church introduced instrumental music into worship. Instrumental music in worship came from the Roman Catholic Church, not God. Please notice these quotes.
"Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of Western Europe, about 670..." (The American Cyclopedia, Vol. 12, p. 688).
"In the Greek church the organ never came into use. But after the eighth century it became more and more common in the Latin church; not, however, without opposition from the side of the Monks...The Reform Church discarded it; and though the church of Basel very early introduced it, it was in other places admitted only sparingly and after long hesitation." (Scaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 280).
"Pope Vitalianus in 658 introduced the organ into the Roman churches to accompany the singers." (London Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, p. 280).
Thus, to be frankly honest, it is evident that you have accepted an error which you have inherited from your parents (you said that you grew up in an Instrumental Christian Church congregation). I, instead, rejected the very same error at a tremendous price, even at the point of death treats. When I accepted the truth, I was forced to leave home. I was allowed only to take with me the clothes that I was wearing. I was told if I returned teaching the Bible, I would be put to death. Thus, I paid a tremendous price for truth and will not sell it at any cost. I mention this not to be boasting, but only to demonstrate my sincere love and stand for truth in the giving up of instrumental music in worship. What I did, you need to do.
You continued, "David I don't know you, I don't know your church, but I know this: your church is not a building - you see even your building is an aid, but at the same time an addition - it is both." The church building is an aid, not an addition, to carrying out God's command to the church to assemble (1 Cor. 11:20,33; etc). Regarding every command mentioned on my chart (Sing, Church to Teach, Baptize in Water, etc.), an aid is necessary; otherwise, the command cannot be obeyed. Those commands cannot be carried out without the use of an aid of some kind. There is a world of difference, however, between an aid in carrying out the command and an addition to the command. One is truth, the other is error.
Speaking of someone, you said, "Now what amazed me about his hermeneutic was that it really didn't matter to him that the first century church (that which we are supposedly trying to restore) did not meet in buildings specially designed to house believers for worship, they met in homes." I have heard the "liberals" say for years that the early churches met only in homes. They show their ignorance of the Bible. The early church/churches met in: the temple (Acts 2:46), in a school (Acts 19:9), in an upper third story-room (Acts 20:7-9) in a synagogue, the word assembly is literally "synagogue" in the original Greek (James 2:2). We learn from the Lord that the place for worship would no longer be important, e.g., as was under the Old Testament (John 4:23-24).
You continued, "And amazingly enough, homes have kitchens. These kitchens would have been where the communion meals were prepared." Those early Christians had kitchens in their homes but the kitchens were coincidental to their homes and not to their worship. "That which proves a lot proves to much." Their homes also had lamps in them. Could they therefore burn lamps as part of their worship? They had children who could dance. Could they therefore have dancing as part of their worship? They had food of various types in their homes. Could they therefore place food of various types on the Lord's Supper? Building kitchens in church buildings so that the church can furnish fellowship meals, are additions. There is absolutely no Scriptural authority for such.
You said, "I guess what amazed me most was that he truly believes God prioritizes something such as this when people are lost and going to hell, but he develops an apologetic against kitchens in church buildings - go figure." To me, the saddest thing of all is that many people who think they will be eternally saved, will not be at all because they are acting without law in their worship to God (Matt. 7:21-23; 15:9). It is truly sad that they think they have God when they do not have Him at all (2 John 9). I have many Catholic relatives who think they are faithfully serving God. It is truly sad that although they are very religious, they will be lost. My own Catholic father is the most religious person I have ever known. He goes to mass every day, has given thousands of dollars to his church, has reared up a son who became a priest (my older brother), etc. yet he will be lost, because he worships after the traditions and doctrines of men. Thus, it is truly sad that human doctrines will bring eternal destruction to otherwise wonderful, religious people.
You mentioned, "I guess what I can not understand is this: Even if I accepted your premise, that all worship is to be a cappella, then when do we worship? My understanding of worship, as the New Testament shows, is that it is not confined to a setting of time at all." We worship God anytime we have opportunity both individually and in our assemblies. However, at no time can we do it according to the traditions and doctrines of men. A television documentary on foreign countries showed a family that had a rotation wheel in their home which was used with praying. Supposedly, when the wheel was spun, it sent the worshiper's prayers up to God. Actually, there is no difference in praying or singing with an instrument. Both violate the principles of faith (2 Cor. 5:7; Rom. 10:17), make void the word of God (Mark 7:13), and reject Christ's authority (Col. 3:17). Christ alone is the head of His church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18) and He alone has the right to state what should be done in worship. Let us love and respect Him and abide in His Word. If He had wanted us to worship with an instrument, He would have plainly commanded it. Since He did not command it, we dare not use it.
You said, "When David sang his psalms to musical accompaniment, was that worship?" Surely, it was. Instrumental music was part of the Old Testament law. (Psalm 150). Again, "that which proves a lot proves too much." David also went to the tabernacle for worship, offered animal sacrifices, had many wives, etc. The Old Testament law has been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14; Rom. 7:1-4). If one follows part of the Old Law, he is a debtor to do all of it. (Gal. 5:3).
You said, "... It also means that one is saying (from silence, mind you) that because Paul does not mention a musical instrument in Ephesians this means they are not to be used." The reason musical instruments cannot be used in worship is because not only are they not mentioned in Ephesians, but nowhere else in the New Testament. The Hebrew writer made an argument from the silence of the Scriptures. He said, "For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." (Heb. 7:14). In other words, since Moses spoke nothing concerning anyone from the tribe of Judah being a priest, Jesus could not have been a priest under the Levitical system. Likewise, since the New Testaments Scriptures spoke nothing concerning the use of instrumental music in worship, they are not authorized. If someone wanted to use hamburgers and cokes on the Lord's Table, you would simply explain to them that the silence of the Scriptures forbids such. They are not lawful since they are not mentioned in the New Testament. So are a mountain of other things: using the rosary, adoration of Mary, calling a man "reverend," baptizing babies, etc. There are no verses which say, "That shalt not use the rosary, call a man 'reverend,' baptize babies, etc.," but they are unlawful because they are not mentioned.
You said, "I have to fight this same hermeneutic when dealing with Baptists who say that Paul didn't mention baptism in Romans 10:9-10, so it is not essential to salvation. Of course this is in error. We know that simply because it is not mentioned here, it is in other places. And we know that simply because something is not mentioned does not mean that it is wrong necessarily." The Baptists are wrong on their argument on Rom. 10:9-10 because there are other passages which instruct regarding salvation. However, there are no passages anywhere in the New Testament which mention the use of mechanical instruments in worship.
You closed by saying, "I guess what I find the saddest of all is that you are going to most likely view me as a heretic. You probably would not be able to call me brother. That is sad. If it took making firewood out of our piano for unity to occur, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Well its late, I'll leave my message here and see what taste it leaves in your mouth." I have no animosity or ill-feelings toward you whatsoever. Why would I have? I don't know you! All I know about you is what you have written in your letter to me and, thus, that's the only way I can make a judgment regarding you. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them." (Matt. 7:16). We are to test every teacher (1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11). Yes, I view you as a heretic because by your own written words, you are clinging to a heretical practice. You have no Scriptural authority for your practice of instrumental music in worship. If you did have, you would have given it in your letter. Let me ask a simple but important question, "Who caused the division among us: the ones who introduced musical instruments into worship or, the ones who opposed it? Who caused the division: the ones to introduced premillennialism or, the ones who opposed it? Surely, you can see that it is the ones who introduce man-made practices into worship, and not those who continue to demand a "thus saith the Lord," who have caused division among us.
The division that we have among us is very deplorable and sinful. The Lord Jesus prayed for the unity of all of his disciples (John 17:20-21). The apostles commanded us to be united (Eph. 5:17; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:2-6 ). We must accept God's standard of authority. (Jer. 10:23; Prov. 16:25; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Pet. 4:11; John 12:48). There are severe consequences of going beyond God's standard (2 John 9; Matt. 7:21-23; 15:9,13). Clearly, it is the teachings and doctrines of men which have produced the divisions among us. If the Oak Ridge church of Christ where I am the preacher proclaimed that we are now accepting those of the Putnam Christian Church as our brethren in Christ, what would it accomplish insofar as true unity is concerned? It would be a unity based on man's terms, not God's. In order to have true unity before God, we must give up the doctrines of men. This is the only way to please God, to be united as brethren, and to be saved eternally.
For the sake of unity among us, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I hereby challenge you to do the very thing that you mentioned. I challenge you to make firewood out of your piano! If you would make firewood out of your piano, we would have unity. I was willing to give it up, even at the risk of my own life. Are you willing to do the same? May the Eternal God be with you in your decision.
Sincerely,
David J. Riggs