Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments

[panta dokimazete]

Music is the command - singing is a required component, instruments as appropriate to the circumstance. Either singing or singing and making melody as appropriate. A study of Scripture shows that singing with instruments is more normative than not.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Music is the command - singing is a required component, instruments as appropriate to the circumstance. Either singing or singing and making melody as appropriate. A study of Scripture shows that singing with instruments is more normative than not.

How can/does the whole congregation make praise to God if only one or two are making the praise while the rest sit silently?

Secondly please show the Scriptures that show instruments played by themselves apart from the voice of human praise in Worship.

 

[timmopussycat]

How can something only be a recommendation, if it is a command?

The OT sacrifices and the NT rememberance of Christ's sacrifice and the NT command to sing praise to God are the covenantal commands in that they are specifically given as covenant conditions. (What the apostles tell us is fondational for the New Covenant).

Singing and instumental accompaniment thereof were not stipulations of the Mosaic covenant but both were mandated by divine command later. Since God initiated the Mosaic covenant without them and their ordination was not accompanied by a recorded amendment of the Mosaic covenant to incoporate these practices we must ask why he ordained them. The answers that the Psalms give us is that sung praise or sung praise plus accompaniment is "good" and "becoming" or fitting (Ps 147:1, 92:1) for the Lord is good and his name is lovely (Ps. 135:3) and that such praise is "becoming" for the upright (Ps. 33:1).

Since Ps 92:1 makes it certain that instrumental accompaniement of sung praise was "becoming" if the New Covenant does not specifically revoke the practice, than instrumental accompaniment remains valid for the New Covenant (by GNC).

 

[timmopussycat]

I simply find it amazing that for essentially 1700 years, the NON-use of instruments in worship was considered a no-brainer by just about everyone; then in the mid to late 19th century (a very bad century for Christianity in many ways), all of that changed.

Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, since the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I simply find it amazing that for essentially 1700 years, the NON-use of instruments in worship was considered a no-brainer by just about everyone; then in the mid to late 19th century (a very bad century for Christianity in many ways), all of that changed.

Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, sincel the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?

The odd thing about this argument is that it is exactly the same argument given by my pro-Women's Ordination friends here at PTS.

 

[panta dokimazete]

How can/does the whole congregation make praise to God if only one or two are making the praise while the rest sit silently?

huh? who proposes that?

Secondly please show the Scriptures that show instruments played by themselves apart from the voice of human praise in Worship.

I never said there was, my brother - I think I actually defended the converse.

 

[JoelYrick]

Panta, I have difficulty seeing instruments as not being an element. Psalm 149 and 150 seem to clearly not make instruments an indifferent part of worship, but rather make commands similar to "preach the word" or "do this in remembrance of me."

It would have been sinful for the Jews to look at those passages and think that it would have been okay to never use instruments in worship, for they are only circumstantial and not referring to use of instruments in themselves, but to music. If those commands in Psalm 149 and 159 aren't ended, then we too are commanded to use instruments as well.

My question then I would suppose is, in light of Psalms 149 and 150 is a church obedient in worship by never using an instrument since music is the only command and instruments are circumstantial?

I'm sure I'm missing something in your argument, or you've probably handled this, I just can't remember- it's been a very long couple of threads.
Thanks!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

How can/does the whole congregation make praise to God if only one or two are making the praise while the rest sit silently?

huh? who proposes that?

Secondly please show the Scriptures that show instruments played by themselves apart from the voice of human praise in Worship.

I never said there was, my brother - I think I actually defended the converse.

Who proposes that? Go to practically any non-RPCNA, PRC, etc. church on a Lord's Day and you will hear all kinds of instrumental music with no praise, no involvement of the congregation corporately in worship.

 

[panta dokimazete]

My question then I would suppose is, in light of Psalms 149 and 150 is a church obedient in worship by never using an instrument since music is the only command and instruments are circumstantial?

I suppose that is the bottom line, isn't it?

Is it disobedience to ban instruments from worship?

Would it be disobedience to ban the presence of Scripture on-hand from worship?

 

[panta dokimazete]

How can/does the whole congregation make praise to God if only one or two are making the praise while the rest sit silently?

huh? who proposes that?

Secondly please show the Scriptures that show instruments played by themselves apart from the voice of human praise in Worship.

I never said there was, my brother - I think I actually defended the converse.

Who proposes that? Go to practically any non-RPCNA, PRC, etc. church on a Lord's Day and you will hear all kinds of instrumental music with no praise, no involvement of the congregation corporately in worship.

But where in my thesis did I defend the practice?

I would say the use of instruments as a Prelude\Postlude to worship without voice could be acceptable.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

So solo Organ music during the offertory etc. is not allowable accordign to the RPW then?

 

[panta dokimazete]

So solo Organ music during the offertory etc. is not allowable accordign to the RPW then?

One could make the case...

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

So solo Organ music during the offertory etc. is not allowable accordign to the RPW then?

One could make the case...

Using the RPW I do not see how.

 

[JoelYrick]

My question then I would suppose is, in light of Psalms 149 and 150 is a church obedient in worship by never using an instrument since music is the only command and instruments are circumstantial?

I suppose that is the bottom line, isn't it?

Is it disobedience to ban instruments from worship?

Would it be disobedience to ban the presence of Scripture on-hand from worship?

I think this shows that you don't view instruments as circumstantial. You require them. If a church chooses to never worship indoors or vice versa, that's fine because it is circumstantial/indifferent to worship, so long as they are worshipping somewhere. You are saying that the instruments are essential to the worship because the church is in disobedience for not using them. It seems you should be saying that both instrumental and non-instrumental music are elements of worship, not that instruments are circumstantial.

With your analogy of having a Bible in front of you, I think you're blurring distinctions. The use of the Word is elemental. The circumstance is whether you are using a Bible made of paper, memorized, or recorded some other way. If you choose to never bring a Bible printed on paper to worship (but the Word is still preached and "read" because you have it entirely memorized or some such thing) it is not disobedience. It is disobedience if the Word is not preached or read.

My wife is rushing me out the door, so I haven't had time to clean this post up enough to ensure its logic or sanity.

 

[panta dokimazete]

So solo Organ music during the offertory etc. is not allowable accordign to the RPW then?

One could make the case...

Using the RPW I do not see how.

Please elaborate.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

One could make the case...

Using the RPW I do not see how.

Please elaborate.

Depends if you hold to the John Frame RPW or the Biblical RPW.

But anyway...

Where is instrumental "praise" w/o accompaniment congregational singing commanded?

 

[panta dokimazete]

I'm not sure that there is a definitive command for all the congregation to sing for every song, but to your point, I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship.

I will reiterate - an instrumental Prelude\Postlude to worship would not be inappropriate.

 

[R Harris]

I simply find it amazing that for essentially 1700 years, the NON-use of instruments in worship was considered a no-brainer by just about everyone; then in the mid to late 19th century (a very bad century for Christianity in many ways), all of that changed.

Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, since the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?

So for 600 years, 99.9% of the church got it wrong, and the Pope came along in 666 AD and set things right. Ok . . . . . .

As I mentioned, usage was still sparse until much later, and during the Reformation, the reformers got rid of them. So, all the reformers also got it wrong. Ok . . . . . . .

BUT - the brilliant minds of the 19th and 20th century (like the Dispensationalists and Arminians) enlightened everyone, and now we are safe and secure.

Riiiiggghhhttttt . . . . . . .

I realize that numbers alone don't establish truth, but when the heavy hitters of theology over 1700 years (and still many in the 19th and 20th century, who still found their arguments from Scripture sound) stand side by side on this issue, it would be wise for one to at least sit up and take notice. But alas, the vast majority today (and sadly, even reformed scholars) don't even bother.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I'm not sure that there is a definitive command for all the congregation to sing for every song, but to your point, I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship.

I will reiterate - an instrumental PreludePostlude to worship would not be inappropriate.

Where is the Scripture for that? According to the RPW you must have Scriptural warrant for all things you do in Worship or you should not do it. Period.

Far too much has been left to "preference" and "likes & dislikes" In my humble opinion.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I'm not sure that there is a definitive command for all the congregation to sing for every song, but to your point, I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship.

I will reiterate - an instrumental PreludePostlude to worship would not be inappropriate.

Where is the Scripture for that? According to the RPW you must have Scriptural warrant for all things you do in Worship or you should not do it. Period.

Far too much has been left to "preference" and "likes & dislikes" In my humble opinion.

Allright, BP - I am not sure what point you are making - I answered your question - "I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship", because I don't see a clear warrant for instruments without voices in worship- how is that contrary to the RPW?

Good thing we aren't discussing likes and dislikes, then.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I'm not sure that there is a definitive command for all the congregation to sing for every song, but to your point, I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship.

I will reiterate - an instrumental PreludePostlude to worship would not be inappropriate.

Where is the Scripture for that? According to the RPW you must have Scriptural warrant for all things you do in Worship or you should not do it. Period.

Far too much has been left to "preference" and "likes & dislikes" In my humble opinion.

Allright, BP - I am not sure what point you are making - I answered your question - "I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship", because I don't see a clear warrant for instruments without voices in worship- how is that contrary to the RPW?

Good thing we aren't discussing likes and dislikes, then.

If there is not a specific command than where is the warrant for doing so?

 

[panta dokimazete]

In the Psalms and Ephesians 5:19 - that is - for voices accompanied by instruments.

I keep thinking we are not discussing the same thing.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What do you think we are discussing?

 

[panta dokimazete]

I keep thinking you are arguing about something we both agree with, but you don't get that I am agreeing.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well what are you arguing about?

 

[panta dokimazete]

I am not arguing, I keep responding that "I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship" as RPW compliant.

Do you disagree with this?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

No I agree. After 236 posts I am not quite sure what is going on.

 

[panta dokimazete]

 

[timmopussycat]

I simply find it amazing that for essentially 1700 years, the NON-use of instruments in worship was considered a no-brainer by just about everyone; then in the mid to late 19th century (a very bad century for Christianity in many ways), all of that changed.

Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, since the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?

So for 600 years, 99.9% of the church got it wrong, and the Pope came along in 666 AD and set things right. Ok . . . . . .

As I mentioned, usage was still sparse until much later, and during the Reformation, the reformers got rid of them. So, all the reformers also got it wrong. Ok . . . . . . .

BUT - the brilliant minds of the 19th and 20th century (like the Dispensationalists and Arminians) enlightened everyone, and now we are safe and secure.

Riiiiggghhhttttt . . . . . . .

I realize that numbers alone don't establish truth, but when the heavy hitters of theology over 1700 years (and still many in the 19th and 20th century, who still found their arguments from Scripture sound) stand side by side on this issue, it would be wise for one to at least sit up and take notice. But alas, the vast majority today (and sadly, even reformed scholars) don't even bother.

I am one who fully agrees that the teachings of great men of God are a Holy Spirit touched commentary on the Scriptures that we ignore at our peril. But I never dare deploy the argument that unamimity of the Reformd worthies opinions necessarily trumps a solid exegetical argument from Scripture that they are, on a given point incorrect. For what such a practice suggests to me is that the user of it really does not believe in sola Scriptura. Scripture commands us to test all things, not just the ones that our particular heroes of faith disagree on. So if somebody presents an exegetical case that seems to challenge anything I think is biblical, I address myself to the substance of the case presented.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, since the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?

So for 600 years, 99.9% of the church got it wrong, and the Pope came along in 666 AD and set things right. Ok . . . . . .

As I mentioned, usage was still sparse until much later, and during the Reformation, the reformers got rid of them. So, all the reformers also got it wrong. Ok . . . . . . .

BUT - the brilliant minds of the 19th and 20th century (like the Dispensationalists and Arminians) enlightened everyone, and now we are safe and secure.

Riiiiggghhhttttt . . . . . . .

I realize that numbers alone don't establish truth, but when the heavy hitters of theology over 1700 years (and still many in the 19th and 20th century, who still found their arguments from Scripture sound) stand side by side on this issue, it would be wise for one to at least sit up and take notice. But alas, the vast majority today (and sadly, even reformed scholars) don't even bother.

I am one who fully agrees that the teachings of great men of God are a Holy Spirit touched commentary on the Scriptures that we ignore at our peril. But I never dare deploy the argument that unamimity of the Reformd worthies opinions necessarily trumps a solid exegetical argument from Scripture that they are, on a given point incorrect. For what such a practice suggests to me is that the user of it really does not believe in sola Scriptura. Scripture commands us to test all things, not just the ones that our particular heroes of faith disagree on. So if somebody presents an exegetical case that seems to challenge anything I think is biblical, I address myself to the substance of the case presented.

The problem is the issue of what counts as a solid exegetical argument. When you have such a weight of ancient to not so ancient exegetical argumentation that points to one conclusion, but then there is a new wave of argumentation and exegesis that points to a different conclusion; there seems to have been a change in the philosophy of exegesis and hermeneutics. (By this I mean what counts as a good hermeneutic argument and what a good exegetical exposition looks like). To defend such a change is a HUGE deal. It is such a big deal you start to run up against Jude 1:3 contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, type issues.

There is little difference between this and saying "Up until year 17xx/18xx, we did not have an accurate Biblical text."

CT