Tarzan Underwear is Dangerous

Only a parent knows the mind of a child, especially a parent who has tried to potty-train a two-year old boy. Lori and I are currently trying to potty-train William. We have tried everything. Currently we are simply putting underwear on William and hoping for the best. Should the worse occur, we hope that discomfort will (eventually?) persuade him that going in the potty is preferable to going in his undies.

If parents are born as opposed to made, I clearly lack the potty-training gene. When Lori and I attempted to entice – persuade – order William to wear a pair of briefs adorned with the Lord of the Jungle, we were rebuffed with the wild and dramatic cry, "I can’t wear them; they’re dangerous!" I am presently searching the Internet to see if Depends makes sizes appropriate for little people.

William does not understand the necessity of potty training. After all, everything has worked well for him so far. He goes. We change him. He goes again. What could possibly be easier and more convenient for him? Clearly, William is thinking as a child. One day, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, William will believe that he should use the potty.

The Bible understands that people mature, and grow in knowledge (Heb. 5:12-6:2). The Bible describes those in need of instruction as "babes" (Heb. 5:13; 1 Cor. 3:1). Paul and the writer of Hebrews (quite possibly Paul again) use our familiarity with children as an illustration to describe new converts because we understand that babies are ignorant of many things they must learn to survive in this world such as walk, avoid hot stoves, and (hopefully) how to use toilets.

Nonetheless, there are those who believe and teach that unless a baby is baptized, it will not go to heaven even if it dies as a baby. Thus, uninspired men have created the unbiblical doctrine of infant baptism.

The Bible describes baptism as an "elementary principle" that must be taught (Heb. 6:1-2). Philip undoubtedly explained baptism to the Ethiopian Eunuch because Philip had to explain the necessity of belief before baptism (Acts 8:36-37).

William is having a difficult time understanding the necessity of toilet training and wearing underwear. As his father, I am confident he cannot appreciate the necessity of baptism, what it accomplishes, or why. William believes wearing Tarzan underwear is dangerous, but he will survive this. However, teaching people that infant baptism saves children, now that is dangerous.

Original Sin, Blaming it all on Adam by Bill Blue

Some people believe in "original sin." Although this phrase is used nowhere in the Bible, it is defined by one encyclopedia as follows:

"(1) The sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."

Believers of original sin cite Romans 5:12ff as support for their theory. Multiple faiths believe in original sin. According to this doctrine, everyone is born in sin as a result of Adam’s sin and children are born without grace (the thing that saves us, Eph. 2:8):

Encyclopedia: "The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us."

The above encyclopedia also says that infant baptism is necessary because of original sin and infants who are not baptized do not go to heaven, but are excluded from the presence of God.

Encyclopedia: "The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The … teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. … Moreover … those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven…."

One church’s creed book restates these principles as follows:

Creed book: "Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the ‘death of the soul’. Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin."

The Scriptures say that as a result of Adam’s sin, sin and death entered the world (Rom. 5:12). Romans 5 does not teach that man inherits sin, but because of Adam’s sin we suffer the consequences of both our own sins, and the sins of others.

Consider drunk driving. The sinner may suffer arrest, fines, or jail. He may have an accident and kill himself. Others may suffer as result of the drunk’s sin. He may accidentally injure or kill someone else. The driver’s family may suffer loss of income or shame as result of his sin, or should he die, suffer the loss of a father, husband, or son. Similarly, the family of the person he struck may suffer loss of income, or the loss of a loved one. Thus, many people may suffer immediate consequences as a result of one person’s sin.

Another consequence of Adam’s sin is the death of the spirit, or the second death, if we die in our sins (Rom. 6:23). However, we die spiritually for our own sins, not Adam’s. The Bible says, "The soul who sins shall die" (Eze. 18:4). It does not say, "The soul shall die for the sins of the father."

The doctrine of original sin illustrates how some people support one false belief, however innocent and well-intentioned, with another false doctrine such as infant baptism. Although neither doctrine is supported by Scripture, they each support the other because one cannot exist without the other. If infants are born in sin, then logically these sins must be washed away for the infants to go to heaven. Similarly, if infants must be baptized, it must be because they are sinners. If original sin is true then Mary, the mother of Christ, was born in sin and so was Christ Himself. To get around this dilemma, proponents of original sin had to create still other theories to explain why Adam’s sin was not imputed to Mary and Christ, but everyone else.

Many Protestants believe in aspects of original sin, even if it is called something else such as "inherent depravity." Others may deny original sin or total depravity, but nonetheless believe that man is born a sinner and is incapable of not sinning. This is very appealing because it removes personal responsibility and accountability. After all, it is easy to find an excuse for sin if man is inherently sinful. People could simply say, "God made me this way," or "the Devil made me do it."

"All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 6:23). People sin, but sinners are made, not born. The justness of God is not displayed through the universal and (purportedly) unconditional redemption of man, but through the fact that no one, not even Satan, can make anyone sin. God will not tempt anyone (James 1:13), nor will He allow anyone to be tempted beyond that which he is able to overcome, but with each temptation, provide an avenue of escape (1 Cor. 10:13). We sin because the devil tempts us with our own desires (James 1:14) and we choose sin and pleasure over righteousness and the avenue of escape.

We cannot, like Eve, blame Satan for our sins (Gen. 3:13), or like Adam blame someone else (Gen. 3:12). In the end, we will give an account for our sins (Rom. 14:12), and we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

Traditions Versus the Word of God by Bill Blue

I have observed two interpretations of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and the sufficiency of God’s inspired word versus the authority of manmade traditions:

One view:
16All Scripture and tradition of men is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Scripture alone is incomplete to thoroughly equip man for doctrine, salvation or works.

Bible view:
16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Only traditions approved by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures are authority for acts and practices of the Lord’s church.

The Apostles derived their authority from Christ and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 16:19; John 16:13).

The Holy Spirit taught the Apostles all things one needed to know about the will of God (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7-15). Thus, the Apostles were uniquely able to guide the early church (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 15:3-11). The Apostles and other inspired writers used this knowledge to write the New Testament (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

The Scriptures instruct us to follow the traditions of Christ and the Apostles, but no one else. Paul said "keep the traditions as I delivered them" (1 Cor. 11:2; see also 2 Tim. 2:2). He instructed the Thessalonians to "hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15). Inasmuch as Paul established the church in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-4), and wrote the church two epistles, it is evident that he was referring to the traditions taught by his inspired "word" or "epistle." Paul also instructed the Thessalonians to "withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). Thus, we are not free to follow any tradition, but only a tradition established by apostolic authority.

Some people advocate following a tradition because it was observed a long time ago, perhaps as early as the second century (101 A.D. – 200 A.D.). Where is the authority for that? If that were the rule, how would we decide which of the uninspired early Christians to follow? After which century will we no longer trust a tradition? Will we follow traditions that can be traced back to the third century, but not traditions of the 4th century? Where is the authority for a cut-off date?

How do you decide which traditions to keep that are not mentioned in the Scriptures? Chicken sacrifices? Snake handling? Torture? War? Baptizing dead people? All of these have been done in the name of Christ; some are still practiced. The Bible doesn’t say one wit about them.

Some people equate tradition with Scripture. A creed book and encyclopedia for one faith have the following to say about tradition:

• Creed Book: "Do you have to believe in Tradition? Yes, because it is the Word of God and has equal authority with the Bible."
• Encyclopedia: "Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church. Side by side with Scripture there is tradition. …"

Unfortunately, both the creed book and the encyclopedia contradict the Bible.

Even if it was a historical fact that multiple churches during the time of the Apostles practiced a certain tradition, authority for doing the same today would not exist unless it was supported by Scripture. Could you comfortably follow a tradition of the church of Corinth, given all its problems? How about the churches in Sardis or Laodicea (Rev. 3:1-6, 14-22)?

If a tradition is not supported by Scripture, we must assume the Holy Spirit did not deem it "profitable" for us (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Otherwise, we must assume that the Holy Spirit and the Apostles were incapable of carrying out their missions.

Jesus condemned, "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men," (Mk. 7:7) and said that worship based upon the tradition of men (Mk. 7:8) as opposed to the commandments of God was worthless (Mk. 7:7). Paul warned that we can be cheated through, among other things, the "tradition of men" (Col. 2:8).

Why would we worship the God of the Bible in a way not mentioned in the Bible? One who worships Christ with a tradition not authorized by Scripture is no better off spiritually than Nadab and Abihu, who were destroyed by God for worshipping Him in an unauthorized manner (Lev. 10:1-3). Although people who worship God as they choose, irrespective of God’s will, do not burn today, they risk an eternity of hellfire to come (Rev. 22:18-19). Therefore, we should call Bible things by Bible names, do Bible things in Bible ways, and not practice unscriptural traditions of men.

Biblical Miracles by Steve Browning

We hear stories about incredible events such as an individual being cured from cancer after their doctors have given up, or an individual surviving an avalanche against incredible odds, and then have these events described to us as "miracles". Although these are wonderful events and can show the providence of God, do they constitute miracles as performed in the Bible? Vine’s Bible Dictionary defines a miracle as: "power, inherent ability, is used of works of a supernatural origin and character, such as could not be produced by natural agents and means."

From this definition we see that a miracle must be from a supernatural origin and must not be producible by natural agents or means. The event of the creation where God (supernatural) spoke the world into existence (unnatural means) is an example of a "true" miracle (Genesis 1:1). Another is when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:11). Jesus (the supernatural) and the act of raising someone from the dead (can not be reproduced by natural means) is a Biblical miracle. The avalanche victim survived by chance. This is not a miracle. The cancer patient as certain defense mechanisms that can fight off cancer thus has a natural means of defeating the cancer. This does not constitute a Biblical miracle either. So now that we know what constitutes a Biblical miracle, why were they performed, who performed them, and are they still occurring today?

Miracles were performed as proof. Proof that people were who they said they were, and proof that what they taught was from God. Jesus performed miracles to prove He was the Son of God (Matthew 11:2-5, John 20:30-31). The apostles performed miracles to prove they were preaching God’s message (Mark 16:19-20, Hebrews 2:3-4). And in the absence of God’s completed revelation, some of the first century Christians performed miracles to edify the early church (1 Corinthians 14:12). Without these miracles as proof we would not have our faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (Romans 1:4), or know God’s will for us today (1 Corinthians 2:9-12).

In the New Testament we have examples of four types of people performing miracles: God, Jesus, the apostles, and people on whom the apostles laid their hands. The latter group could not pass on the gift to others, so when the apostles died there was no one left to pass on the gifts (Acts 8:5-6,14-18). And when these people died, there was no one left on earth to perform miracles. The people who could perform miracles all died out shortly after the first century.

Biblical miracles are not performed today, since there is no one here who can perform them. There is also no need for proof. We have the completed revelation of God in our Bibles. The Bible speaks of a time when miracles would end (Zechariah 13:1-2). Also, 1 Corinthians 13:8 states, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

"That which is perfect" is not Christ. The verse states "that which" and not "he who," therefore it does not indicate an individual. Also notice that even when the perfect arrived, faith, hope, and charity were to abide (v. 13). Therefore, the perfect cannot be Jesus, for when He returns, faith and hope will not be needed. The "perfect" is God’s completed revelation, the Bible. It is that which allows us to "know even as we are known." Since we now have that complete word of God, the time of miracles is past (James 1:25; 2 Peter 1:3). No further proof is needed, as they are recorded for our benefit in the Bible.

We believe every recorded miracle in the Bible; we must if we believe in God. Since we believe the Bible, however, we must also believe that miracles have ceased, since that is what is taught in the Bible (Zechariah 13:1-2, 1 Corinthians 13:8). People claiming that they perform miracles today are false teachers and they deceive many who do not understand what is a miracle, who performed them and why they were performed.

Are Those Who Are Once Saved, Always Saved? by Scott Mixon

Many sincere religious people believe that once a person has been redeemed by Christ, it is impossible to sin, fall from God’s grace and be lost. However, the Bible does not teach that a believer has total security. The Bible prophesied some would sin and fall away in 1 Timothy 4:1. In fact, there are numerous Bible passages that refute the theory of "once saved, always saved."

God is consistent and emphatic about His expectations and the consequences of not remaining faithful. In Ezekiel 18:24 we read, "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds, which he has done, will not be remembered for his treachery, which he has committed, and his sin, which he has committed; for them he will die."

In Hebrews 3:12-14, brethren are exhorted to guard against departing the living God with a heart of unbelief. In verses 15-19, the Hebrew writer continues to emphasize the seriousness of the warning by using the Israelites, who perished in the wilderness because of their unbelief, as an example. As stated in Hebrews 4:1 and 11, we too can have the promise and then fall short of it. Satan is looking to devour the Christian who has become over confident, I Peter 5:8. II John 1: 8-9 tells us, "watch yourselves that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward."

The Bible provides many examples of Christians who fell from grace. In Act 8:5-24, we read of Simon who practiced sorcery in Samaria. In verse 13, Simon believed and was baptized.

Simon wanted to purchase the gift of imparting Holy Spirit in verses 18-20. Paul rebuked Simon for his sin and described him, in verse 23, as being in the "gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity." We can conclude from verse 23 that he was then in a lost condition.

Another example is that of Ananias and Sapphira. In Acts 4:32, we read, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul." Ananias and Sapphira were members of the congregation. Acts 5:1-11 describes how Ananias and Sapphira lied to God about the sale of their property and God struck both of them dead for their sin.

Other examples of Christians who fell from Grace include Hymenaeous and Alexander. Paul describes Hymenaeous and Alexander, in I Timothy 1:19-20, as shipwrecked in their faith and he delivered them to Satan for their blasphemy.

Supporters of "once saved always saved" have responded to examples like that of Simon the sorcerer and others with the position that, if they fall away, they weren't saved in the first place. However, Jesus illustrated that it is possible for one to believe temporarily in the parable of the sewer, Luke 8:11-15. Hebrews 6:4 and II Peter 2:20-22 also confirm that Christians, by there own choice, can fall back into a sinful life style and be lost. Jesus said in Luke 9:62, "No one, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

God loves us very much. In Romans 8:35-39, we read that nothing can separate us from that love. However, Romans 8:35-39 does not teach that we can never be separated from salvation in Christ by our own actions. Not providing for your family in I Timothy 5:8, the love of money in I Timothy 6:10 and false teaching in II Peter 2:1; 3:17 are all examples of how our actions can separate us from Christ.

In Romans 7: 14-25, Paul wrote of the struggle between good and evil within himself. "I find then the principle of evil is present within me, the one who wishes to do good." For this reason, Paul wrote, in I Corinthians 9:27, that he "buffeted his body lest he become disqualified." He wrote in I Corinthians 10:12 to "take head lest ye fall". In Galatians 5:4, Paul told brethren "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." If "once saved always saved" were true, there would have been no need for Paul to write two thirds of the New Testament warning Christians about the consequences of sin.

Our Salvation in Christ is not based on one action but the consistent attitudes and actions of our new life. Saving faith is one faith that follows God’s word and brings forth fruit, Luke 8:15. "If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remained no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries," Hebrews 10:26-27.

Instrumental Music in Worship: Final Notes bu Jeff Himmel

In three past articles we've studied the issue of instrumental music in worship through the writings of historians and religious leaders from the third century through modern times. To summarize: Early Christians sang in worship because that alone is what Christ authorized them to do. They recognized instrumental music as a relic of the Mosaic system. There was no recorded use of it until the 7th century-and no widespread acceptance of it until the 13th. When the Reformation came, most of those who left Catholicism abandoned the practice as unscriptural. Musical instruments were not used in most Protestant denominations until the early 1800s.

Everything's different now. The majority of modern "Christian" religious groups use musical instruments in worship-anything from a simple piano to a full orchestra. Many people mistakenly think it's a long-established practice in Christianity. It would never occur to them to question it. So when folks like me object to it, they think we're - well, sort of weird.

Frankly, whether or not people have been using musical instruments in worship for very long is not what's important. Nor is it whether or not Luther, Calvin, or any other scholar supported their use. Nor is it how disciples in the second or third century viewed them. These things are enlightening, but they are only the words and deeds of uninspired men and are a sandy foundation on which to build (Matthew 7:24-27). They only reflect the real issue at hand: Has Christ authorized His disciples to use instrumental music in praising Him?

To answer the question, many go to the pages of the Old Testament, where Miriam and the women of Israel praised God "with timbrels and with dances" after the Red Sea crossing (Exodus 15:20), and where the psalmist wrote of praising God with trumpets, lutes, harps, timbrels, dances, stringed instruments, flutes, and cymbals (Psalm 150). But Christ came to fulfill that old covenant (Matthew 5:17-18), and he died to replace it (Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 9:15; 10:9). The Old Testament is no longer binding; it is not our standard of authority. The New Testament is what will judge us (John 12:48). And it says not one word of playing instruments in worship.

". . . be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:18-19).

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord" (Colossians 3:16).

"Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms" (James 5:13).

"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding" (1 Corinthians 14:15).

New Testament passages about singing discuss just that: singing. No references to instruments are made. Some think the word "psalm" includes instruments. But if instruments are necessarily implied in the word, then God is telling us that we must use them at least part of the time. I have yet to hear anyone affirm that. "Psalm" does not imply musical instruments, nor does "making melody" (the verb form of "psalm") in Ephesians 5:19. Paul says there that it is the heart with which melody is made. The spirit and the voice are the only instruments implied.

When all is said and done, it is a question of Divine authority. Worship is devotion to God. Its purpose is to honor and please Him. What appeals to our tastes or gives us pleasure is not the issue. Had God merely said, "make music," we would be free to make whatever kind we like (and I'd probably be in the band). But He has told us to sing, and that is the only thing we can do with full assurance of His approval. To add musical instruments, however we might enjoy them, is to "exceed what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6); it "goes to far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ" (2 John 9). It is a dangerous assumption that puts souls at risk. Let's be content instead to do what God commands and "worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24).

Instrumental Music in Worship: More Voices by Jeff Himmel

In two past articles we've reviewed statements of both historians and early religious writers concerning music in worship. Both attest that singing was the only kind of music in Christian worship for centuries. The Roman Catholic church began adopting musical instruments during the Middle Ages, but that hardly closed the debate on their use. The Greek church in the East continued to reject them; and even as late as the sixteenth century there was enough protest within the Roman church that the Council of Trent (1545) came very close to abolishing their use (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, II, 1702).

The sixteenth century also saw the dawn of the Protestant Reformation, and with it a renewed vigor of opposition to instrumental music as unscriptural. That opposition continued in many denominations for several hundred years. Consider the words of a few major figures from the Reformation era and the denominational religious world. Some of them may surprise you.

Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536), Dutch scholar: "We have brought into our churches a certain operose and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words, as I hardly think was ever heard in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them . . . Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled" (Comments on 1 Corinthians 14:19).

Martin Luther (1483-1546), reformer and founder of what is now the Lutheran Church: "The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal" (Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia, VI, 762).

John Calvin (1509-1564), another reformer, founder of modern Prebyterianism: "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the [Mosaic] law . . . Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us . . . is far more pleasing to Him" (Comments on Psalm 23).

John Wesley (1703-1791), an Episcopal and a founder of Methodism: "I have no objection to the instruments in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen" (Quoted by Adam Clark).

Adam Clark (1762-1832), Methodist commentator: "I am an old man, and an old minister; and I here declare that I never knew them [musical instruments] productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity" (Commentary, IV, 686, on Amos 6:5).

Charles Spurgeon, renowned nineteenth century Baptist preacher: "We do not need them [musical instruments]. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto Him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice. . . . What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it" (Comments on Psalm 42:4).

Andrew Fuller, another Baptist scholar of the 1800s: "The history of the church during the first three centuries affords many instances of primitive Christians engaging in singing, but no mention (that I recollect) is made of instruments. (If my memory does not deceive me) it originated in the dark ages of popery, when almost every other superstition was introduced. At present, it is most used where the least regard is paid to primitive simplicity" (Complete Works, III, 520).

Questions on the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (1842): "Question 6. Is there any authority for instrumental music in the worship of God under the present dispensation? Answer. Not the least, only the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs was appointed by the apostles; not a syllable is said in the New Testament in favor of instrumental music nor was it ever introduced into the Church until after the eighth century, after the Catholics had corrupted the simplicity of the gospel by their carnal inventions. It was not allowed in the Synagogues, the parish churches of the Jews, but was confined to the Temple service and was abolished with the rites of that dispensation" (55).

Why is all of this important?

All these quotes represent a very definite view on music in worship: in the New Testament age, instrumental music is without God's approval. I wonder what these men would think if they could see what their modern counterparts are up to. Today the vast majority of Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, and Baptist churches (and any number of others) use instrumental music. Why has their belief and practice changed so much in just the last couple of centuries? Is it due to some new revelation from Heaven? If not, then what has caused it?

Next time: the rest of the story