# Instruments in Worship?



## satz (Aug 5, 2005)

Far be it from me to try to start another controversy after the EP discussions, but what are your views on this?

Just state your view and maybe give a explaination why you feel that way. Links to articles you feel are good would be very much appreciated as well!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 5, 2005)

Brian Schwertley on Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God

R.L. Dabney's Review of Girardeau's "Instrumental Music in Public Worship"

Some views on instrumental music in worship from men in the past


----------



## pastorway (Aug 5, 2005)

It makes no sense to sing about praising God with instrumentation and all the while refuse to use the very things you are singing about. "Psalm" after all means "pluck" as in a stringed instrument.

I am still looking for the verse(s) that tells us not to use instruments when we praise God. In fact, many verses that refer directly to praising God involve the use of instruments to accompany the singing and even have interludes of the instruments playing with no singing (the Hebrew term "Selah" in the Psalms denotes such a time, where the singing stops for a time but the instruments continue to play).

Phillip


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 5, 2005)

Yeah bring in the electric guitars and the bongos, and we can party lot charismatics!


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 5, 2005)

The Congregational church I grew up in used to have these elaborate choruses of chimes and bells during the Christmas ministry. neat-o...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 5, 2005)

A cappella


----------



## Peter (Aug 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Yeah bring in the electric guitars and the bongos, and we can party lot charismatics!



And the goats and bulls, and we can party like the Levites!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2005)

instruments


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Unless of course it is a pitch pipe - that doesn't count.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 5, 2005)




----------



## Solo Christo (Aug 5, 2005)

Wow. The vote is closer than I thought it'd be. Some of ya'll are burnin' the old organs, are ya? 

Question: is voice an instrument? Perhaps we should sing in our heads. Oh wait, is the mind an instrument? Yikes.


----------



## MICWARFIELD (Aug 6, 2005)

I agree with Phillip. I've read literature from the opposing view (from Dabney to modern writers) but I just dont see it in scripture.

Mike


----------



## Tirian (Aug 6, 2005)

No instruments (Except the pitch pipe )

Matt


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 6, 2005)

Acappella psalmody as opposed to acappella hymnody (which was held by Dabney, Girardeau, Peck, Thornwell and other Southern Presbyterians).
Girardeau's treatment is online in html and PDF at my church's website.
HTML
PDF http://www.fpcr.org/FreeEbooks.htm
Also something short on Psalm 150 is at http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/psalm150.htm
Something akin to what we do here on the PB is at http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/org1.htm]
which is a mid 19th century "chat" pro and con against the introduction of the organ into Presbyterian churches at the time.


----------



## Peter (Aug 6, 2005)

God loves it when we play the pipe organ to him with grace, melody and understanding in our hearts.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Peter]


[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Peter]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 6, 2005)

Organs
Crucifixes


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 6, 2005)

If you are going to be consisten you will have to throw out the pitch pipe. I was raised in an acapella setting. The pitch pipe is a musical instrument - period. It is no more than a round harmonica. To be consitent you will haver to learn to use a tuning fork either a 'C' or 'A 440'.

I disagree with the argument that acapella worship is commanded for the Christian. (Somehow I knew this was to be the next debate following EP.)


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> I disagree with the argument that acapella worship is commanded for the Christian. (Somehow I knew this was to be the next debate following EP.)



I really wasn't expecting the "no instruments" argument. I assumed we had moved on to "Pews or Chairs: Which violates the RPW?"


----------



## blhowes (Aug 6, 2005)

Regarding the use of hymns and/or instruments during worship, does it in some way break/violate one of the 10 commandments, or does it 'just' violate the RPW? Can worship violate the RPW without breaking one of the 10 commandments?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 6, 2005)

Calvin's Commentary on Psalm 98:

"When he speaks of musical instruments the allusion is evidently to the *practice of the Church at that time*, without *any intention of binding down the Gentiles to the observance of the ceremonies of the law."*

Cavlin on Psalm 148:

"The musical instruments he mentions were peculiar *to this infancy of the Church*, nor should we *foolishly imitate a practice which was intended only for God´s ancient people.*"

Calvin on Psalm 150:

Praise him with sound of trumpet. I do not insist upon the words in the
Hebrew signifying the musical instruments; only let the reader remember that sundry different kinds are here mentioned, which were in use *under the legal economy*, the more forcibly to teach the children of God that they cannot apply themselves too diligently to the praises of God "” as if he would enjoin them strenuously to bring to this service all their powers, and devote themselves wholly to it. Nor was it without reason that God under the law enjoined this multiplicity of songs, that he might lead men away from those vain and corrupt pleasures to which they are excessively addicted, to a holy and profitable joy. Our corrupt nature indulges in extraordinary liberties, many devising methods of gratification which are preposterous, while their highest satisfaction lies in suppressing all thoughts of God. This perverse disposition could only be corrected in the way of God´s retaining a weak and ignorant people under many restraints, and constant exercises. The Psalmist, therefore, in exhorting believers to pour forth all their joy in the praises of God, enumerates, one upon another, all the musical instruments *which were then in use*, and reminds them that they ought all to be consecrated to the worship of God.

Calvin on Psalm 32:

I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law:I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, 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 Law.* _The Papists,_ therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews.

Calvin on Psalm 71:

We are not, indeed, forbidden to use, in private, musical instruments, but they are banished out of the churches by the plain command of the Holy Spiri, when Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:13, lays it down as an invariable rule, that we *must* praise God, and pray to him only in a known tongue.


Calvin on Daniel Chapter 3:

Hence the immense heap of ceremonies in the Papacy, since our eyes delight in such splendors; hence we think this to be required of us by God, as if he delighted in what pleases us. This is, indeed, a *gross error.*

Calvin on Psalm 92:

In the fourth verse, he more immediately addresses the Levites, who were appointed to the office of singers, and calls upon them to employ their instruments of music "” not as if this were in itself necessary, only it was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God *in these ancient times.*

Calvin on Habakkuk 3:

"...but also with instruments of music, as we know it to have been the *usual custom under the Law*."



The crux of this is to determine *whether the instruments are part of OT ceremonial worship or not.* Don't waste your time arguing about anything else. If they are, then they are out. If they are not, then thay are in. But this is the question to discuss.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 6, 2005)

> I really wasn't expecting the "no instruments" argument. I assumed we had moved on to "Pews or Chairs: Which violates the RPW?"



That got my funny bone. The said thing is I've actually heard that argued. 

Bob, I can see no reason why it would violate either the 10 commandments or the RPW.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 6, 2005)

> _posted by Matt_
> The crux of this is to determine whether the instruments are part of OT ceremonial worship or not. Don't waste your time arguing about anything else. If they are, then they are out. If they are not, then thay are in. But this is the question to discuss.



If we throw out everything that was part of ceremonial worship then what have we left to offer to God?

Was not singing part of ceremonial worship? Praying? Reading the Word of God? Having it explained (expounded)? Confession of sins? Etc.

If we argue that any element used in ceremonial worship is out then frankly, worship is out.

Phillip

[Edited on 8-6-05 by pastorway]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 6, 2005)

It does my heart good to see that my position is winning. 
Because as I learned from Clinton, polls mean everything!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> It does my heart good to see that my position is winning.
> Because as I learned from Clinton, polls mean everything!



Ben, PastorWay, and I agree. That warms my heart, too. I always get nervous when I disagree too much with the status quo on the board. People might think that I am really argumentive and such in real life, when it is far from being the case. Just ask Patrick, Josh, Fred, I am really not that bad a guy in person!

Seriously, ditto to PastorWay.


----------



## blhowes (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Bob, I can see no reason why it would violate either the 10 commandments or the RPW.


...I'm guessing that to an EPer it might be considered breaking the 2nd commandment?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 6, 2005)

I would hope that everyone holds to the position that scripture and conscience dictate and not the majority. We are all in the quest of becoming more like Christ and less of ourselves. These discussions do us good; they do warm the heart, and hopefully draw us into a deeper relationship with our King.

PS; I voted 'middle' choice as I am split on the position.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 6, 2005)

The non-instrumental position must show not only that instruments were a part of temple worship, but that instruments are an *element* of worship. A positive Biblical case is so required.

I find that it is a huge strain (traditional formulations notwithstanding) to make such a case. That would make instruments the only element of worship that accompanies another element (_i.e._ singing). Every other element (prayer, preaching, reading, etc) stands by itself.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 6, 2005)

In addition to links given above, I failed to mention J. B. Adger's article
_A Denial Of Divine Right For Organs In Public Worship,_ which is available in 
PDF http://www.fpcr.org/pdf/Bluebanner12-3.pdf
Adger was also a Southern Presbyterian.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 6, 2005)

Just in case someone need to know, the 'C' fork is much easier to find pitch. Just solfetch from the fork to the key you need. I learned to lead singing this way. Many hymns contain first and second note intervals that will take you to the proper pitch. 

eg. To find 'F' you in your head sing, 'Stand up' as in 'Stand up, stand up for Jesus. . .' The first 'up' will be and 'F'. 

Oops, I gues you couldn't use them though . . . 

That was meant to be a joke by the way, although that is how I learned it. It is much easier than using the scale.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The non-instrumental position must show not only that instruments were a part of temple worship, but that instruments are an *element* of worship. A positive Biblical case is so required.
> 
> I find that it is a huge strain (traditional formulations notwithstanding) to make such a case. That would make instruments the only element of worship that accompanies another element (_i.e._ singing). Every other element (prayer, preaching, reading, etc) stands by itself.



I don't dare disagree with Fred, but I think I need to say this. This sentiment, I believe, is quite right if what Matt insists on for the argument is true. But I think the thing that needs to be proved is a whole lot more than that. I would think that anyone who plays an instrument would wonder why he is wasting his time on something that has a special aura all its own, if God is not at all pleased with this part of His creation being used in praise of Him. 

We all know that words are not enough, we need lyrical rhyme; that expression is not enough, we need crafting of words, sometimes words that are not real words in any other context; we all know that normal voice is not enough, we need tonal harmonies, cadences, triads, arpeggios, and single clear notes. There is so much to God's creation that we have only just tapped, and every musician explores it afresh. 

If this is not praiseworthy, then I may just as well waste my time in bars trying to make money at it, because no matter where I play, even 'round the campfire with a bunch of my Christian friends, it does not please God. And if it doesn't please Him, how can I be pleased to do it myself? 

The instruments I play are extensions of myself. They don't play on their own ( well, the only almost exception was that L'Arrivee that I tried once ) Its not the instrument but my hands and heart doing something very natural to me. It took a long time, but yet it was in me all the time. 

If instruments are excluded from the worship of God, then it cuts deep. I feel the same about hymns freely offered in praise of God. 

So the bottom line for me is the question of whether or not it is praiseworthy to play an instrument. Because if it is, then it is also in praise to God. It is a logical impossibility that playing an instrument, even poorly, is praiseworthy to some degree but not be in praise of God.

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 6, 2005)

> The non-instrumental position must show not only that instruments were a part of temple worship, but that instruments are an element of worship. A positive Biblical case is so required.



Better worded: The *instrumental* position must show not only that instruments were *not just* part of _temple_ worship, but that instruments are an element of Christian worship *equally binding on the Gentiels and Church for all ages*...a positive Biblical case is so required.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > The non-instrumental position must show not only that instruments were a part of temple worship, but that instruments are an element of worship. A positive Biblical case is so required.
> ...



Actually, no. Brush up on your RPW Matt. 

Unless you want to start finding a "positive Biblical case" that is "equally binding on Gentiles and the Church" for amplification (for preaching), light (for reading the word) and the use of plates/cups (for the sacraments), then there is no reason to find a "positive Biblical case" for instruments. It's called a "circumstance."

The task here is clearly for the EP crowd to show texts that prove that: (1) instruments are an element of worship, and (2) that two elements can co-exist in such an overlapped fashion (instruments and song). I know of no other example of two elements co-existing in such a fashion (especially since the EPers deny that we can sing any non-Psalter Scripture, so that strikes out reading and song).

As the EPers have insistently stated: there must be a command from the Bible for something to be an element of worship. The non-instrumental position is that instruments are an element (like drama) NOT a circumstance. So I will await the Scriptures that (a) state that instruments are commanded - OUTSIDE of the context of song, and (b) then state that such an element is no longer commanded - because even EPers state that such an element WAS commanded previously (which makes it different from the "only psalms were ever commanded argument).

Go ahead Matt. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 6, 2005)

Psalm 43: 3,4:
"Oh send out Thy light and Thy truth; let them lead me, let them lead me to Thy holy hill and to Thy dwelling! Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy; and I will praise Thee with the lyre, O God, my God."

These verses have in them reference to the Trinity, to the temple, to worship, to sacredness of place and worship, to an instrument used in worship, etc. But overriding these is the sense of communion between God and man, a holy communion involving praise and worship.


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



... that's so Churches of Christ, Fred 

[Edited on 8-6-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## JohnV (Aug 6, 2005)

That observation by Lawrence that a pitchipe is nothing but a round moutorgan has got me in stitches.:bigsmile:


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 6, 2005)

Actually, as one who grew up in the Churches of Christ, the argument that Matt is positing and Fred is showing the fallacy is the exact argument that they (and I) used.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> ...



Finally, something I can be in the majority with, unlike baptism.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 6, 2005)

Fred,

Maybe I'm just not following you. An element is something that we cannot do without. A circumstance is something like the time we meet for worship, which is not "set in stone."

You said:

"The non-instrumental position is that instruments are an element (like drama) NOT a circumstance."

This is reversed in my thinking as a result of the ceremonial law. If instruments are non-ceremonial and an element, then they would be required. If they are part of the ceremonial law (which as I said is the question at hand) then then are an element only for the Jews, and abrogated at the fulfillment of Christ.

So as I noted, what has to happen is that non-instrumentalists have to show why instruments are *not part of ceremonial worship.* We all agree that the ceremonial law was abrogated in Christ (fulfilled). 

EP and non-instrumentalism are really based on how one views OT worship in general, and how they view the ceremonial law.

People quote the psalms "Praise the Lord with with the harp," etc. It sounds to me like they are, as Dabney said, "reasoning shallowly." This is the same plea (exactly) which would draw us all back to human priests and bloody sacrifices. The Psalms also tell us to "bind your sacrifices with cords, even unto the horns of the altar." They want to use instruments, but do not seem to feel obligated to do this. Why? "Oh," they say, "such things were abrogated with the coming of Christ." I concur. So were the horns, altars, cymbals, harps and lyres when the temple was removed. We should not be borrowing, in this way with instruments, from the temple cultus of the Jews. If we do, then we are as obliged as Rome is to continue with all sorts of popish nonsense. Open the door, and it all comes sweeping in. Choirs are in too then (and how many times do we have to explain to ministers of the Gospel the RPW on choirs?) If instruments are in, the all of the OT temple cultus for worship is in. 

Dabney press the point, in the congregation, each person is to offer their own personal homage and worship to God. Anything detracting from that during worship is a division. In this was, worship is to be didactic (which is the point of it all). Paul settled this quite conclusively in 1 Corinthians that worship is to be done in a known tongue, otherwise it does not edify. Those speaking in an unknown tongue are to be silent, even though that person could claim being moved by the Spirit. Such a tongue, though, is not a vehicle for didactic teaching of truth. And what does he use as an example? 1 Cor. 14 - the clanging cymbal of temple worship.

Instead, it should be the faculty of the human voice used. Though it is musically inclined, it can propagate the divine truth of the character and work of God in the singing of psalms, in singing His praise. For the Christian, says Dabney, the non-appointment of musical instruments (mechanical accompaniment) is the prohibition.

It is not the burden of proof of the non-inst, or EP to deal with this. It is those who, in attempting to change the RPW, to allow such things, to prove it is so.

The only place even remotely speaking of instruments after the abrogation of the ceremonial law is in Revelation where the saints hold in one hand a harp, and in the other a bowl of incense. Obviously, they are not playing the harp since they are holding bowls. It is completely symbol on both accounts.

Instrumentalists must prove why the ceremonial law, in certain respects and not others, continues. Now that is feat which I am sure I will not hold my breath on. 



[Edited on 8-6-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 6, 2005)

Matt,

It really is this simple:

It matters not (in the first instance) if instruments are are part of ceremonial worship. The initial question is to determine whether instrumental worship is an element or a circumstance. If an element, THEN we go to the next step, and see whether they have been done away with by the passing of OT ceremonial worship.

What you have done is skip the initial, fundamental line of inquiry (as do all EPers). That (in my opinion) is the only way to forbid instrumental accompaniment. It is a kind of Animal Farm, "Ceremonial bad, non-Ceremonial good!" mantra, folled by the _assertion_ that because something was a part of ceremonial worship, it must have been done away with in the temple. Well, guess what? So was reading Scripture. So was prayer. But we don't do away with them?

Anyways, that is ALL BESIDES the point. For something to be forbidden, it must be an element. Only elements are forbidden by the RPW. Commanded elements MUST be done (your point taken there) - there is no option here. Prayer MUST be included. Preaching MUST be included. Non-commanded (as opposed to the Lutheran/Anglican view - forbidden) elements are impermissible. But we do not need a command for a circumstance. It is beside the RPW. We never even have that line of inquiry. It is a matter of liberty. We cannot forbid lights, because it might "distract some from attending on the preached word." We cannot forbid amplification, because it has some other negative effect. We can say that the use of lights or amplification in a certain situation or circumstance is unwise, according to Christian prudence, but we cannot say that lights or amplification are _per se_ impermissible for all churches at all times.

So likewise with instruments. In order to take the position (consistent with the RPW) that instrumental accompaniment is _per se_ impermissible, *you must first show that it is an element*. The way (consistent with the RPW) that one shows something is an element is by showing that it is commanded by God in Scripture. To fail to do that is to allow for elements that God has not commanded - and hence a violation of the RPW. 

So I am asking for a simple command (or even good and necessary consequence) that instrumental accompaniment is an element of worship in and of itself. Like we have for prayer, for song, for reading Scripture, for preaching. Exactly like that.

Then, if you can show such a command (again, I will not hold my breath), because you have shown a command from God to have instrumental accompaniment as an element of worship, you must show a positive command from God that retracts that element. Not a logical inference from Calvin, Owen, or any divine. A Biblical command.

You see, my position is simple - which you have conveniently missed in order to paint me into a corner - instrumental accompaniment is a circumstance of singing, like lights or amplification. Thus instruments are neither required, nor forbidden. But you must show that they are an element, in order to bind men's consciences. And unlike other elements (say, drama), you must show that it is an element from Scripture, because you have admitted that instrumental accompaniment *was once commanded by God* (i.e. in the temple).


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 6, 2005)

> Psalm 150
> 
> 1 Praise the LORD!
> 
> ...




It seems to me that verse 6 is indicating that the previously mentioned instruments should not be thought of as the only "sanctioned" instruments for praising God. To me it is saying, "God can be praised with a trumpet; He can be praised with a cymbal; He can be praised with a Stratocaster/Twin Reverb combo."

It is also unfathomable (to me) to think that under the old covenant musical praise could be expressed in such broad and glorious terms "everything that has breath", and under the new covenant it is restricted to the human voice alone. 

And the New is better?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> He can be praised with a Stratocaster/Twin Reverb combo."



ROCK ON!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> It is also unfathomable (to me) to think that under the old covenant musical praise could be expressed in such broad and glorious terms "everything that has breath", and under the new covenant it is restricted to the human voice alone.
> 
> And the New is better?



Interestingly, the argument about "the Old Covenant made provision... the New Covenant should too if it is actually BETTER" is part of what ultimately convinced me of paedobaptism. Funny that some don't see how this same line of reasoning applies to our worship just as much as to our children. 

I think you bring up a good point.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 6, 2005)

Fred,

"What you have done is skip the initial, fundamental line of inquiry (as do all EPers)."

I understand why you are saying this, but, its a result of leaving out a fundamental study overall. You are arguing backwards.

In none of the threads on EP, for example, did anyone really go through temple and synagogue worship, and the elements thereof. That is first. Once you establish how worship worked for the Jews, and then established what elements of their worship were part of the ceremonial law, could the discussion continue reasonably.

But at that point, that is what is going to collapse the non-EP, inclusive instrumental argument. That is why that portion of this discussion since its inception in every thread has been avoided.

Mark out the commands of God for temple worship and the Jews, mark out the OT offices of psalmist and music ministers, mark out the elements of worship and their commands, and then mark the ceremonial law overall, and you will have a guide by which to apply the RPW for them and how aspects of that have abrogated by Christ.

I've not painted you into a corner. Ive not sidestepped anything. I proposed before, that the duty of praise be sought out first, and then continue from t here how temple worship worked - your response was "I don't see how that applies to the subject at all" - and that, my brother, is the entire point of the subject at hand.

That is why all the reformers and all the puritans rejected what you are accepting (even if a few of them disagreed with EP) - they understood the RPW to exclude the ceremonial law which, as they thought, included instruments, and pressed the point of opening the floodgates to all cermonies if one accepted part of the ceremonial law.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 6, 2005)

Matt,

You keep missing my point. I am not saying that the ceremonial law distinctions are not important. But I am saying that the element/circumstance distinction is more important and more fundamental. We first have to determine whether something is an element or a circumstance. To start with the temple or synagogue and the distinctions thereof is to "start backwards." Begin with the element/circumstance.

I ask again: is instrumental accompaniment an element? This is foundational. If it is an element, it requires a command from God. If not, it does not. Nothing else matters at all until we answer that question. It is at the heart of what the RPW means. So I am still waiting for Biblical evidence that shows that instrumental accompaniment is an element, and that it was commanded (at least for the temple era). Discussing how temple worship "worked" is qa secondary line of inquiry - not unimportant, simply secondary.


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 6, 2005)

Ben wrote:


> ROCK ON!




But of course, it must be in a tasteful, tube-distortion kind of way-- thus the Fender Twin. 

Actually, I'm not a fan of contemporary worship in church. The contemporary approach has greatly dumbed-down worship on many levels. I think having a minimal amount of instrumental backup (a piano) is most edifying for congregational singing. Of course, I'm thinking pragmatically here and according to what is "most edifying for us", not "what is most acceptable to God". 


Josh wrote:


> But the question is, who gets to define "better"? Could it be that we define "better" arbitrarily?



Yes, it's very arbitrary and subjective-- just like my pitch for a single piano in worship. I don't know what the answer is, really, and being a musician (a guitar player no less!!) I've struggled with this issue quite a bit.

[Edited on 8-7-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 6, 2005)

I voted in the middle as well. I can't stand churches that have an entire orchastra or where the organ or drums overtakes the congregational singing. Acapella is beautiful by those who have been taught to sing (mennonite children are taught the old form of musical note recognition). However, I love hearing a celtic flute in the background or a small stringed instrument. As long as it stays in the the background (thus assisting in the singing not overtaking it).


----------



## JohnV (Aug 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> But the question is, _who_ gets to define "better"? Could it be that we define "better" arbitrarily?



Exactly, Josh. We are not just opening doors to everything, and having to explain choirs all over again. The question is not whether we bring in a Stratocaster, but what we bring in when we bring in a Stratocaster. What do we do when we have to have music "modernized" instead of epitomized? Is that the best we can do, imitate the world? Our prime question has to be who or what we think we are really worshipping. We are lacking the ability to look at modern music, both modern praise music and modern popular music, and being able to analyze it deeper than the world does. We can't look past the guitars and drums just as much as the world can't. Do we understand why "Miami Vice" used the music it did for its episodes, why "Star Wars" used the music it did? Did we even think about it? The world did. They know. They know the spirit that lives in certain kinds of music, that lives in a certain way of expression through music. But you'll never get them to admit to it in black and white, unless by inadvertancy. 

I follow both Fred's and Matt's lines of reasoning. In some cases I would cite the RPW to throw out the RPW, the way it is sometimes employed. Why can't I come before God to worship? Why does the RPW prohibit me? I know that that is stretching it a bit, but sometimes it feels like the RPW bars the door against me, when it is supposed to be barring the door to added elements. Music is seen, in my opinion, in a wholly wrong light. If there was one thing that stood out against the Girardeau argument in my mind it was his misunderstanding of what music is ( there was a lot more, but this does stand out. ) If we forbid singing the praises of the heart, unless they are first written in Scripture, then we have to forbid prayers that are not in Scripture; but mostly and most overtly we must forbid sermons that are not found in Scripture. After all, in praise the people are speaking their own hearts in response to the gospel, but mininsters in preaching are supposed to be speaking God's words, the gospel itself. Yes, the praise must be as doctrinally correct as we can get it, but that does not mean that everything that is said, sung or played must be in Scripture word for word. If that were so, we would have to throw out our Confessional Standards too, for I would wonder if they represent elements or circumstance. ( Some Dutch Reformed churches have only Psalms, but also have a catechism sermon every Sunday, read alongside the Word of God. )

If we may express ourselves in sentences, then we may do so in lyric and with accompaniment. Both are a form of communication and expression. It is a higher form of inflection. But if we can't be originally Christian in our expression, and have to copy the world, then it is not that we brought strange instruments into worship, we have brought a strange heart. 

This, I guess, is a long way of saying that we have to look even further than whether musical instruments are an element, or whether they were a commanded element of OT worship. We have to ask if music itself, the talent, the uniqueness of it for each person, the way it opens the heart of even the non-musically inclined, is an element of humanity that God created, or if it is an element of the Fall. The Fender Stratocaster came into being after the Fall, but I don't think music itself did. Music is a wonderful thing, because even though man is depraved in every aspect of his being, yet music itself remains untouched by it, just as truth is, or beauty, or goodness. Music is in the realm of beauty in expression, and hangs on goodness and truth. And to attain to it is praiseworthy, even for an unbeliever. That he still refuses to submit his heart to his Maker is not. But that does not ruin music itself, or using an instrument, but only his own expression through music. 

So the talk about the OT worship, or the talk about elements and circumstance, I think still misses the mark. Such discussions only close the doors to people, not to music or instruments in the right way. 

An instrument itself is a dead thing. It does nothing, and serves no purpose. Put it in the hands of a beginner and watch his heart liven up, not the instrument. Let him have some time to gain expertice and watch how he employs his budding talents to bring a lot of things together that were not possible before, and could not be without that expertice. And yet the instrument remains a dead thing througout. The life is in the heart. Our modern carelessness with this, even in Christian circles, ( How low can the bass go, how high the tenor, how long the held note, etc. ) is not an indictment against instruments, or even against good composition, but against carelessness. Music can become an idol, an end in itself or beside, in addition to, the worship of God. And that is wrong; that is what we forbid when we forbid a Stratocaster in church services. That is what the second law, or the RPW addresses. For the heart is the element of worship at stake in the centre of this, not the instrument that is employed. 

In other words, music has grown and is growing its way right out of the worship service in our time. And we're arguing over the RPW. In the end, its just legality, and nothing more. But address the modern music problem, and you've got my ear.

[Edited on 8-7-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 7, 2005)

Ok - I'LL summarize VERY briefly:

Elements of OT tabernacle/temple worship:

Construction of the tabernacle 
Exodus 25:9 Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it.

God expressed everything he desired in tabernacle/temple worship: fabrics, skins, colors, pins, poles, sockets, vestments, actions of officiating priests, holy ointment, incense, the parts and arrangements of worship. 

There is no mention of musical instruments for liturgical worship.

There is mention of silver trumpets used to call the congregation.
Numbers 10:2 "Make two silver trumpets. Of hammered work you shall make them, and you shall use them for summoning the congregation and for breaking camp.

There seems to be no mention of musical instruments at all during the tabernacle worship.

When the temple was erected, David changed the Mosaic legislation on this worship because he was divinely directed to do so.
1 Chron. 28:11-13 describes following the pattern. Then 2 Chron. 29:25ff describe the introduction based on divine command. 

2 Chronicles 29:25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for *thus was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.*

This is plain.

As Moses received a divine plan for worship which excluded certain aspects that God introduced later, David fulfilled what God commanded him by the prophets and as a prophet, as well as the "sweet psalmist" of Israel, the office being contained by him.

This was not only given, but enforced by Gad and Nathan. This would not have been part of temple worship if God did not divinely command David to add to what God had already given Moses. But, as we are not dispensational, and progressive in our understanding of divine revelation, this is the manner in which God progressed worship. God's positive enactment grounded the propriety of the change. This is basic to the RPW.

Only what God commands is permitted. He commanded the "stationed Levites" - where? - "in the house of the LORD" - how? - with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for *thus was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.*

David, Gad and Nathan attest to the prophetic truth of the command.

Elements are of two kinds: generic/essential and typical/temporary. The sabbath day, reading and exposition of the Word, preaching addresses, singing of psalms, alms giving, are elements which are not regarded as typical. They are essential. There was no differentiation between tabernacle worship, temple worship, and synagogue worship in these things. Essential elements remained. Whatever was absent from the synagogue and present in the temple was typical. Certain elements of temple worship which were typical were symbolic of Christ to come and fulfill all ceremonies pointing to Him. 

We could list dozens of various ideas ceremonially that were fulfilled in Christ: washings, anointing, sacrifices, external marks of all kinds. 

No musical instruments were employed, ever, by anyone in corporate worship outside the temple. They were not even used in the tabernacle until David heard from God. Whatever was embraced in the temple that was removed as typical for synagogue worship is gone. The Holy Spirit fulfilled many of these things under the Gospel "dispensation". 

The veil of the temple was torn by Christ, demonstrating the end of temple worship and all typical elements of temple worship in the progression of divine providence. (Also the destruction of the temple clues us in to some ideas as well.) It was not practiced in the Apostolic Church, nor by any example in the NT at any time. Nor by Christ. This fits the pattern of synagogue worship which, as James says, we "synagogue" together when we meet.

There is no one of historic significance during the early church, Reformation, or Puritanism of any kind that disagrees with the above line of thought, the ancient typical elements of the temple, and the manner of synagogue worship in the NT. Even men of our own day, close to it at least (Spurgeon, Thornwell, Hodge, etc.) did not employ them under the same circumstance. 

It would take up far too much room to name all those throughout history that rejected instruments based on these and other ideas on the RPW.

Non-instrumentalists need a postive command by God to engage as a generic element of worship instruments. 

Since the only picture is, as I said, in Revelation is wholly symbolic, it remains as Congregational singing in a known tongue following the NT command.

[Edited on 8-7-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## JohnV (Aug 7, 2005)

(1Ch 16:29) Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

(Psa 29:2) Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.

(Psa 96:9) O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 7, 2005)

Well, I dedicated the better part of this Lord's Day evening to reading Schwertly's article and I have to admit that the argument is compelling. I can't help but see how instruments _must_ be regulated in some sense-- and if so, how exactly are they to be regulated? How can anything except the non-instrumental view be anything but arbitrary? Taking the "instruments are a necessary circumstance of human action" view doesn't remedy the situation. Who decides what is necessary?

This thread has really hit me like a ton of bricks, as I have grown increasingly convicted of my own role as a guitar player in our "worship band". I've seen it all as far as contemporary worship goes-- starting out at my first church, a willow creek seeker clone where I played the electric guitar loud and hard-- all the way to my present church where I'm a mellow acoustic guy (while still interjecting my tasty little arpeggios whenever possible). The nagging feeling that I am doing something I really _shouldn't_ has grown stronger and stronger all the time. No matter how much I've tried to convince myself that it's all for the Lord and his glory, I just can't seem to find solace in it. 

It was very encouraging to read about the RPW tonight. I have never really sat down and actually studied it before. I obviously know only the tip of the iceberg, but I can totally see how this principle is meant to _free_ the children of God and not to restrict them. Left to our own devices, opinions, tastes, etc.., we can only create more bondage and division.

I guess this now means I'm going to be even more of a party pooper at church than ever. 

[Edited on 8-8-2005 by Rick Larson]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 8, 2005)

For benefit of those who do not have the ability to read a PDF file, I've appended below the last portion of John B. Adger's article written in reply to Thomas Smyth, "A Denial Of Divine Right For Organs In Public Worship," _The Southern Presbyterian Review, _20.1 January 1869, 69-104. I gave the link for this above somewhere. Adger addresses the nature of circumstances of worship noted in WCF 1.6, and adduces Owen and Cunningham on the subject, as well as Scott Bushey's favorite book, _Jus Divinum._ Adger also makes comments that may let us make the distinction between using an instrument like a pitch pipe to get folks going on the same and right note (which would be a circumstance according to him), and instrumental accompaniment and instrumental music in worship that is not used in singing at all (the prelude, postlude, etc. i.e. "mood music"). There are those while they do not have a problem with instrumental accompaniment to aid the singing (arguing for it as a circumstance for that purpose), who reject such _mood music_ (see Stephen Pribble's online article who makes such a distinction if I recall correctly).



> *Answers To Objections*
> 
> In answer to our argument, we anticipate a twofold reply. 1. In the first place, it will be said that the necessary circumstances of worship are not specifically commanded and yet are not forbidden; and that instrumental music is a mere circumstance of the praise of God, and as such is lawful. Now, we freely admit the necessity of the limitation upon its own doctrine, that all things necessary for God´s glory, man´s salvation, truth, and life, are revealed in Scripture, which the Confession places, viz, that "œthere are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (Chap. I.6). This limitation, "œso cautiously and exactly stated," is, as Dr. Cunningham says, a "œnecessary" one. "œCommon sense requires this limitation and Scripture itself sanctions it. And it is the more necessary to attend to it, in stating and discussing this question, because it is very easy to misrepresent and caricature the Presbyterian doctrine upon this subject, as is done even by Hooker in his _Ecclesiastical Polity;_ and because it is chiefly by means of this limitation, "¦ that the unwarrantableness and unfairness of the common misrepresentations of it [our doctrine] by Episcopalians are exposed."[1]
> 
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 8, 2005)

Since I'm at it, the following is John L. Girardeau's comments on this subject taken from his very important article on church power, _The Discretionary Power of the Church_ (full text here). After quoting Thornwell on circumstances, he applies the dotrine to the area of public worship.

*The doctrine of circumstances applied to musical instruments in public worship.*


> There are three criteria by which the kind of circumstances attending worship which fall under the discretionary power of the church may be determined: first, they are not qualities or modes of the acts of worship; they are extraneous to them as a certain kind of actions; secondly, they are common to the acts of all societies, and, therefore, not peculiar to the acts of the church as a particular sort of society -- they are not characteristic and distinctive of her acts and predicable of them alone; and thirdly, they are conditions necessary to the performance of the acts of worship -- without them the acts of this society could not be done, as without them the acts of no society could be done.
> 
> Let us now bring a liturgy to the test of these criteria; and it is instanced because it is an appendage to one of the acts in which worship is, in the strictest sense, rendered to God -- prayer. It cannot abide the first, because it qualifies and modifies the act of prayer itself -- it is a kind of prayer, a mode in which it is offered. It cannot abide the second, because it is not common to human actions and societies -- all societies, political, scientific, agricultural, mechanical and others surely do not, as such, use liturgies. It cannot abide the third, because a liturgy is not a condition necessary to the performance of the act of prayer. Its necessity could only be pleaded on one of two grounds: either that without it the act of prayer cannot be performed at all, and that is out of the question; or, that without it the act cannot be performed decently and in order, and to take that ground is to impeach the office of the Holy Ghost, who is specially promised to teach us how to pray and what things to pray for, to depreciate the capacities of the sanctified intelligence of man, and to pass a derogatory criticism upon some of the purest churches that have ever flourished, and some of the noblest saints who have ever edified the people of God by their ministrations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 8, 2005)

Very convincing arguments Matt. I am looking forward to reading the article by Schwertley and others. 


 to becoming the biggest "party-pooper" at church. It is very freeing though to realize that God is Spirit, and these are only ways to help us worship him in Spirit and Truth.

This quote from Thomas Watson is a reminder to me of how we are to worship our Lord.



> What is it to be spiritual?
> 
> To be refined and sublimated, to have the heart still in heaven, to be thinking of God and glory, and to be carried up in a fiery chariot of love to God. 'Whom have I in heaven but thee' (Ps. 73:25)? Which Beza paraphrases thus, Apage terra, utinam tecunt in calo essem! 'Begone earth! Oh that I were in heaven with thee!' A Christian, who is taken off from these earthly things, as the spirits are taken off from the lees, has a noble spiritual soul, and most resembles him who is a Spirit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Poimen (Aug 8, 2005)

I'm against instruments as an element of worship.

I am for instruments as being a circumstance of worship to aid us in our singing. 

I really see no difference between a piano and a pitch pipe. 

I know some churches that have a person lead the singing from up front. I forget what the name of this 'office' is... I see no difference between this and using an instrument in our worship. Is this person appointed for this task in the NT? No. Circumstance... 

For example: at the Trinity PCA in Escondido CA, Pipa used to have the piano in the back of the sanctuary to assist the congregation in their singing. This was done so that no one would be focused upon the player and his/her abilities.


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> I'm against instruments as an element of worship.
> 
> I am for instruments as being a circumstance of worship to aid us in our singing.
> ...



Can I just ask, why a piano and not a guitar? Or an organ? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I am honestly trying to work through this myself.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



There is no reason why a piano and not a guitar - unless it is not a good aid in singing.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 8, 2005)

How about bongos, tamborines, and electric guitars--- have yourself a little charismatic hoe-down!!! I've walked into some _funny_ churches while in college and try very hard not to laugh as I start grinnin' ear to ear.
:bigsmile:


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 8, 2005)

Oh no, I'm having a conundrum...

If EP is true, am I supposed to sing Psalm 150? 

Wouldn't this be kind of silly if the non-instrumental view is correct?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> Oh no, I'm having a conundrum...
> 
> If EP is true, am I supposed to sing Psalm 150?
> ...



Here is what the 1599 Geneva Bible has to say about it:



> "Exhorting the people only to rejoice in praising God, he maketh mention of those instruments which by Gods commandment were appointed in the old Law, but under Christ the use thereof is abolished in the Church."


----------



## JohnV (Aug 8, 2005)

From a personal experience, I was the only semblance of a pianist that was available at a church I attended. I could only play about five hymns or psalms well enough, and I needed to really concentrate and shut out the singing in order to accompany on only those five songs. I did not have a piano or any keyboard at home to practice on. I would be faced with the songs chosen for the services the same time that the congregation was, upon entering and picking up a program. But I prayed fervently before God that He would grant me what was needed to lead the fledgling congregation in singing, because they knew very little of music. And He enabled me, so that in very short order, that very hour, I could play all the songs that were on the program, and well enough that the congregation sang well too. From that time on I could do things on the piano that I could never do before, or at least didn't know I could do. And I did not ask to have the list of songs before the service after that. 

I stumbled sometimes, but I could always lead the singing. I noticed that I stumbled when I was less prayerful beforehand, approaching the hour of worship. Sometimes that happened when I was "too busy" talking to people as they came into the door. I had to set aside time for myself for prayer and preparation. Yet the talking also helped, because I got the feel of the congregation, what weight they were coming to the services with, or what joys they had, so that I could unify the congregation with my preludes. I would practice the songs before the afternoon service, because I would know which ones from the already printed program. But I found that it didn't help. I had to play the words, not the music, and for that I needed prayer according to the words of the songs. That helped most. 

I know, it sounds strange, but that's what happened. After I left that church my abilities waned again. I could still play, but I could not do it like I did then. I retained a lot, but the ability to play on demand was gone. It may have been focus, but that doesn't explain everything; it may have been a number of things, like prayerfulness, earnestness, even shutting myself out for the sake of others, but all these fail to explain the fact that it was a time of spiritual growth for me, and that I played beyond my abilities. 

I had played organ for church many years before, but I practiced hard for days beforehand, knowing usually by Wednesday what songs I had to play for one service on Sunday. I thought I could learn. But I fouled up more often than I did well. I finally quit trying, because I knew I just couldn't do it. I quit playing the organ altogether. 

So if you ask if God approves of instruments, I would have to say He does. It is backed up by Augustine's treatise on intepreting God's Word, where he makes distinction between things for use and things that use, between things for enjoyment and things lead us away through enjoyment. Music can fall into either category. It wouldn't be right, for example, to bring George Harrison into the worship service by presenting an imitation of him as praise to God. Or ACDC, or The Grateful Dead, or The Rolling Stones. That's what I see often when I see electric bands leading worship. Sure, it makes the musicians happy, but it is a strange fire before God. 

Where I think our problem lies is not whether musical instruments may accompany, but with discernment. And I see that ever so plainly in our utter lack of discernment in the preaching of the Word. We are so worried whether or not certain views are acceptable under the WCF, but fail to see that ministers are preaching willy nilly whatever they themselves are convinced of, and all that they need is a lack of disapproval from the denomination to do so. The denomination doesn't disapprove of the FH, for example, and so ministers think they have warrant to preach it, just because they themselves are convinced of it more than other views. But Christ never gave them leave to do that. But to question the minister's right to his opinions, and to preach them from the pulpit, is a big no-no. I disagree. Ministers are commissioned to preach God's Word, not their opinions. So we've become Reformed legalists instead of Reformed preachers. And we're trying to do the same thing with music and instruments. 

Instruments can be used to beautify worship, just like better woodworking beautifies the sanctuary. Composition and talent can be used to enhance worship, without taking anything away from the inspired Word. If these are part of God's creation, and they can be used by man to enhance his expression, to beautify it, then it is also part of God's command to use it in worship of Him. And that it beautifies, there can be no question in our day, as there is a multi-billion dollar industry built upon that very fact. Why would anyone go to an Allison Kraus concert? Why do they go in droves? Why go to a Steven Curtis Chapman concert? Because they can make things beautiful through their music. And if music makes things beautiful, do we need any further command from God? 

Instead, what we do is let it control us. It uses us. That is how bands get into the worship service, playing riffs from the latest worldly band. That is how contentless "hymns", which are nothing more than choruses or refrains denuded of their stanza content, replace asolid hymnology. That is how the great plethora of doctrine and NT salvation gets missed in the singing of the psalms. Its not that we don't just sing the Psalms, its that when we do we miss most of what they say to the whole of doctrine. And its not that hymns are "uninspired", for there is no such thing. Its that we sing to our own convenience, to our own satisfaction, to our own feelings, letting the music control us, instead of using it and commanding it, having dominion over it. 

The world knows how to do that, and do it very well. And they have the power over us because we let them have it. Our ignorance of music, our lack of command over it, is our downfall. So we want to throw it out. Well, it won't help, because the world will still have command over us through it. Unless we can take it back, no amount of appeal to the RPW is going to avail in the slightest. It misses the mark. 

I believe that Schaeffer was right, that the creative ability is a reflection in us of God's image. It is not part of the Fall, but a retention of God's image in us after the Fall. It is not worldly, it is holy. And we have conceded almost the entire field to the enemy. I say shame on us. Shame on us that we're even debating these things instead of working on them.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2005)

More quotes for consideration:

"The Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, the better to accomplish the blessed Reformation so happily begun, and to remove all offences and things illegal in the worship of God, do Ordain, That all representations, of any of the persons of the Trinity, or any Angel, or of Saint in or about any Cathedral, Collegiate, or Parish Church, or Chapel, or in any open place within this Kingdom, shall be taken away, defaced, and utterly demolished; And that no such shall hereafter be set up, And that the chancel-ground of every such Church or Chapel raised for any Altar, or Communion-table to stand upon, shall be laid down and leveled; And that no Copes, Surplices, superstitious Vestments, Roods, or Roodlofts, or holy water fonts, shall be, or be any more used in any Church, or Chapel within this Realm; And that no cross, crucifix, picture, or Representation of any of the persons of the Trinity, or of any Angel or Saint, shall be or continue upon any place or other thing used, or to be used in or about the worship of God; And that all Organs, and the frames or cases wherein they stand in all Churches and Chapels aforesaid, shall be taken away, and utterly defaced, and none other hereafter set up in their places; And that all Copes, Surplices, superstitious Vestments, Roods, and fonts aforesaid be likewise utterly defaced: whereunto all persons within this Kingdom whom it may concern, are hereby required at their peril, to yield due obedience." Ordinance of British Parliament for the removal of Superstition and Idolatry from Britain. May 9, 1644. 

"...we cannot but admire the good hand of GOD in the great things done here already, particularly; That the Covenant (the Foundation of the whole Work) is taken; Prelacie and the whole train thereof, extirpated; The Service-Book in many places forsaken, plain and powerful preaching set up; Many Colledges in Cambridge provided with such Ministers, as are most zealous of the best Reformation; Altars removed; The Communion in some places given at the Table sitting; The great Organs at Pauls and of Peters in Westminster taken down; Images and many other monuments of Idolatry defaced and abolished." John Maitland, Alexander Henderson, Samuel Rutherfurd, Robert Baillie and George Gillespie. The Letter from the Commissioners at London to the General Assembly. 1644. 

"We were greatly refreshed to hear by Letters from our Commissioners there with you... of the great good things the Lord hath wrought among you and for you... many corruptions, as Altars, Images, and other Monuments of Idolatry and Superstition removed...the great Organs at Pauls and Peters taken down." General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The General Assemblies Answer to the right Reverend the Assembly of Divines in the Kirk of England. 1644. 

"It would be nothing but mimicry if we followed David today in singing with cymbals, flutes, tambourines and psalteries. In fact, the papists were seriously deceived in their desire to worship God with their pompous inclusion of organs, trumpets, oboes and similar instruments. That has only served to amuse the people in their vanity, and to turn them away from the true institution which God has ordained.... In a word, the musical instruments were in the same class as sacrifices, candelabra, lamps and similar things.... Those who take this approach are reverting to a sort of Jewishness, as if they wanted to mingle the Law and the Gospel, and thus bury our Lord Jesus Christ." John Calvin. Sermons on Second Samuel. 1562. 

"The eleventh fault they finde, is, for that wee use no Organs in our Churches.... commonly we doe therefore not use them: whilest we finde more hindrance to proceed thereof then profit, by the worship of God: and also in this case we desire to remaine by the simplicity of the Apostolicall Churches, which neither had nor used any such things in their congregations." A Full Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies Professed in the Dominions of the Most Illustrious and Noble Prince Fredericke, V. Prince Elector, Palatine (1614). 

"The Rejoynder after some words spent about singing, (about which he bringeth not the least resemblance of that in question, untill the fourth age after Christ) excepteth first, that Organall musicke was gods ordinance in the old Testament, and that not significant, or typicall; and therefore is sinfully called Idol-service. 2. That all men whose hearts are not averse, by distraction, stupidity, or prejudice, feele such musicke to worke much upon their affections. To this I say 1. That his denying of Organall musicke to have beene significant or typicall, is without reason, and against the current of our Divines; taken (as it may seeme) out of Bellarmine (de missa. Lib. 2. Cap. 15.) who useth this evasion against those words of P. Martyr: Musicall organs perteyne to the Jewish Ceremonie, and agree no more to us, than Circumcision. So that we may neglect it, and take him as saying, that nothing which was ordained in the old Testament (no not sacrificing beasts) is now an Idol-service. 2. For that, and the other, both together, it is fit the Rejoynder should be put in minde how many, and what kinde of men, he accuseth of distraction, stupidity or prejudice!" William Ames. A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship. 1633. 

"though' instrumental musick were admitted and appointed in the worship of God under the Old Testament, yet we do not find it practised in the synagogue of the Jews, but only in the temple. It thence appears to have been a part of the ceremonial pedagogy, which is now abolished; nor can any say it was a part of moral worship. And whereas the common usage hath now confined instrumental musick to cathedrals, it seems therein too much to Judaize; which to do is a part of the Anti-Christian apostacy, as well as to Paganize." Cotton Mather. Magnalia Christiana Americana. 1702. 

"Besides, though we read of the use of music in the temple-service, yet it does not sufficiently appear that it was ever used in the Jewish synagogues; the mode of worship observed in which more resembled that which is at present performed by us in our public assemblies. But what may sufficiently determine this matter, is that we have no precept nor precedent for it in the New Testament, either from the practice of Christ, or his apostles." Thomas Ridgeley. A Body of Divinity: Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are Explained and Defended, Being the Substance of Several Lectures Upon the Assembly's Larger Catechism. 1732. 

"Q. May we not use harps, organs, and other musical instruments in praising God? A. No, for these, though used in the temple services, were not used in the Jewish synagogues, nor in the New-Testament worship..." -John Brown, of Haddington. A Help for the Ignorant; or An Essay, Towards an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive Explication of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism. 1758.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 8, 2005)

Okay, totally off topic...but I just visited my inlaws church last night and I ended up feeling like I was at a concert (please, dad...don't read this!). The lyrics were fine...but the music was loud...you couldn't hear the congregation sing for it or the ensemble on stage.  This is where I think instruments can become a problem (but not against their use either)

[Edited on 8-8-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay, totally off topic...but I just visited my inlaws church last night and I ended up filling like I was at a concert (please, dad...don't read this!). The lyrics were fine...but the music was loud...you couldn't hear the congregation sing for it or the ensemble on stage.  This is where I think instruments can become a problem (but not against their use either)



This is one of my biggest pet peeves-- the "band" being so loud that you can't hear yourself sing. Not only that, but it encourages people _not_ to sing. Why waste your breath? Add to that that it's a sappy pop ballad like Michael W. Smith's "Above All" (which I had to endure yesterday to my nausea) and you've got a real problem.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> ...



This would be an example of a bad circumstance - like lighting that was SO bright that you could not see in the sanctuary.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 8, 2005)

But, who decides what makes a good aid in singing? Some might think a rock band is better. Again, this is not to argue, I'm just trying to imagine all the questions I'm going to be asked if I decide to put in my worship band resignation!


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 8, 2005)

When the instruments becomes the focal point and and not simply an aid to singing, then you have bad circumstances. Unfortunately a lot of these praise bands become the focal point of the worship service rather than the singing.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 8, 2005)

Roman Catholics would claim that images of Christ are an aid to worship.

Really, what do instruments AID in worship? Pitch? Is pitch worship to God? Does it help the understanding? Does it edify?

Microphones, lighting etc. all help people understand what is going on during the service. Instrumentation does not do this, it simply makes the song sound prettier to US. Does the song sound prettier to God?

Just throwing some thoughts out there. I'm not decided on this issue either.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> But, who decides what makes a good aid in singing? Some might think a rock band is better. Again, this is not to argue, I'm just trying to imagine all the questions I'm going to be asked if I decide to put in my worship band resignation!



The leaders of the church. That is one of the reasons that they are there.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Roman Catholics would claim that images of Christ are an aid to worship.
> 
> Really, what do instruments AID in worship? Pitch? Is pitch worship to God? Does it help the understanding? Does it edify?
> ...



Jeff,

Not to be smart, but if you ask that question, then you have never seen a congregation try and sing acappella without extensive training and some serious musicians in their midst.

99% of congregants (myself included) cannot carry a tune on any but the MOST familiar of songs without accompaniment.


----------



## heartoflesh (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> When the instruments becomes the focal point and and not simply an aid to singing, then you have bad circumstances. Unfortunately a lot of these praise bands become the focal point of the worship service rather than the singing.



If I used this line argumentation to replace our worship band with a single piano I would receive the response, "maybe the band seems to be the focal point to _you_, but _we_ don't have any problem focusing on God during the worship". 

Why is it that I have time and again been reminded by some worship leader "remember gang, it's not about us!" Why should I need this reminder? Does someone have to tell the pastor before he heads to the pulpit, "remember, it's not about _you...._"? 

Sorry, I'm ranting.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Rick,

This is why churches are "more or less pure." The disappointing thing is that many pastors do need to be reminded before they enter the pulpit to preach that it is "not about you." Too much preaching is not centered on God, Christ and the Bible.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 8, 2005)

I'm not getting "there"; once the songs or tunes are learned, it seems to me the only circumstance needed filling is the need for an aid to get the congregation started singing and the precentor to keep the congregation on track. That's how it works with our church. Given the "offense" that much instrumentation is, on which there seems little disagreement, if we are going to argue circumstance, the better choice is to abandon musical instruments altogether and use means less abused and stumbling to the church generally to aid the singing; I mean, the church didn't _need_ musical instruments for 1500 years (and not in Presbyterianism till the mid to late 19th century). Did they lack for something? Musical accompaniement is not _necessary_ to meet the circumstantial need. And besides, in Presbyterianism at least, we didn't get musical instruments in worship based upon circumstancial arguments; we got them because people wanted them, didn't want to lose folks to the Episcopal church, etc. Some might say it would help to understand the sermon if it was illustrated by some drama; now is that an argument from circumstance?


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_ Some might say it would help to understand the sermon if it was illustrated by some drama; now is that an argument from circumstance?



Exactly my point with Catholics and images. 

Fred, 

Some of the arguments you made above were also convincing until I read Matt's post tracing instruments to O.T. ceremonial (commanded) elements. How do you respond to his claims given your position?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 8, 2005)

> The disappointing thing is that many pastors do need to be reminded before they enter the pulpit to preach that it is "not about you." Too much preaching is not centered on God, Christ and the Bible.



Very true my brother!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 8, 2005)

Where is Gabe? I am surprised he hasn't chimed in on this.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Where is Gabe? I am surprised he hasn't chimed in on this.



Sending you a u2u.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Having been a member or visitor to numerous a cappella congregations (most of which have precentors), I can report that this assumption is incorrect. Talent and skill are desirable when singing a cappella, but anyone can learn how to do it. For those who have great trouble, there is the practice of lining the psalms to help. Talent is not a prerequisite for acceptable congregational a cappella singing. I am all for singing tunefully, but the neccesary aspect of congregational singing is that it be done with grace in the heart. But metrical psalm-singing is specifically designed so that anyone can do it. Again, I speak from personal experience. To obey is better than instruments! 


[Edited on 8-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Andrew,

The heart and skill are two different matters. Of course any congregation could sing heartily without any accompaniment. But that does not mean that any congregation can do this. I would respectfully say that your experience with "acapella congregations" is not the norm. For the most part, such congregations have great experience singing acappella, and have several singers who not only have excellent talent, but have been singing the same metrical psalms for decades. And again, to be honest, such congregation are almost invariably small enough that 3-4 singers can "carry" the entire congregation (i.e. about 100 or less).

It should also not be forgotten that even the "helpful" practice of lining the psalms is so controversial that it has caused fractures in fellowship (both by those who _insist_ that it be done, and by those who say it _must not_ be done) among those who agree on just about everything else (including EP and no-instruments).

My experience at least with congregations (and there are many) that have been unable to procure accompaniment or are without it for the day, is that the singing is half-hearted, weak and bad. That does not mean that it HAS to be that way; I was simply observing what is fact in the overwhelming majority of churches today.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_ Some might say it would help to understand the sermon if it was illustrated by some drama; now is that an argument from circumstance?
> ...



Jeff,

I'm sorry that I have not had time to do more than fire off a few brief comments. Just a couple for now:

1. Matt's position about David holding the "office" of "sweet psalmist"and how that acts as a command and authorization of elements is very strained. We read nowhere of such an office, there is no parallel to Christ (as with pastor, elder and deacon). There is even (by the EP argument, no other to ever hold he office). I could just as easily say that Daniel held the office of "pious prayer" of Israel, and thus uninspired prayer ceased with his prayers in the book of Daniel.

2. What has been offered regarding instruments is descriptive. Again, the exact same argument could be offered for clothing. There were specific clothes that were prescribed in the temple. Why is clothing not "ceremonial" ? Why is it not done away with?

3. While there is certainly instruction from synagogue worship, it is interesting that a RPW case can be made for worship which is neither commanded nor set forth in the Bible. The closest synagogue worship makes it is by description in the gospels, and that is slim.

4. There is also a major difference between the other "ceremonial aspects" of worship and instruments. God positively declares the former element of sacrifice (for example) to be done away with. He does so in the Bible. There is no confusion, no conjecture, no "process of reasoning." Like all parts of worship, He gives revelatory command. Not so with instruments. The NT is completely silent.

Hope that helps some,


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 8, 2005)

Thanks Fred.


----------



## Tirian (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...




Fred,

Coming from the RP's I guess I could be judged as being biased in my response  however - we have 3 people in the congregation who can lead in for us, and the congregation joins by the second note or word. Most have not had formal training however we make a habit of singing Psalms whenever we meet (On the Lord's day of course, in family worship, at each bible study and on Psalm singing/fellowship meals which are held once a month). As such I suppose you could argue each generation has had extensive training - by the generation before them.

Many people only sing the melody, but typically some find themselves able to pick out the bass/tenor/alto/harmony parts. Those with the ability to do so usually sit near others who can sing those parts so that they can grow most accostomed to the part each time they sing it.

Of couse, using the right Psalm book also helps :bigsmile:

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Matthew Glover_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Matt,

I do understand that. And hear me - I am not saying that it is a good thing that most congregations are not capable of what you describe. I am just trying to describe what is the reality today. There are whole host of other factors that come into play, many of which we could discuss on their own merits.

For example, are there any 2,000 person worship services in America that are EP without accompaniment? Please note, I am not offering that as proof for the correctness of the non-EP position here. I merely say that it is a very different matter to lead 2,000 in song as opposed to 60 or 80.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 8, 2005)

> 1. Matt's position about David holding the "office" of "sweet psalmist"and how that acts as a command and authorization of elements is very strained. We read nowhere of such an office, there is no parallel to Christ (as with pastor, elder and deacon). There is even (by the EP argument, no other to ever hold he office). I could just as easily say that Daniel held the office of "pious prayer" of Israel, and thus uninspired prayer ceased with his prayers in the book of Daniel.



Actually, you couldn't since there is no command in this respect for "pious prayerer" as part of temple worship. What will have to happen is that the specific command God gave to David, Gad and Nathan will have to be overthrown by non-instrumentalists, which, we all know, will simply be skirted.



> 2. What has been offered regarding instruments is descriptive.



Actually, it was a specific command of God. It was AS descriptive as Moses' instruction FOR the specific clothing that the priest wore.



> Again, the exact same argument could be offered for clothing. There were specific clothes that were prescribed in the temple. Why is clothing not "ceremonial" ? Why is it not done away with?



Specific temple clothing (Ephod, headband, etc.) is done away with. No one in the synagogues, at any time, wore those "clothes" for synagogue worship. Only those specific instances where God instructed Moses about what they should wear and how they should wear it was associated with t he Tabernacle and the Temple.



> 3. While there is certainly instruction from synagogue worship, it is interesting that a RPW case can be made for worship which is neither commanded nor set forth in the Bible. The closest synagogue worship makes it is by description in the gospels, and that is slim.



This is simply a matter of taking the RPW and believing it or not. Either 1) we do what God commands. Or 2) we do what we want. I've already given specific verses that demonstrate Temple worship as typical elements, and how they differed from what would have happened int he synagogue, those having generic elements. What MUST happen is for the NT to demonstrate OTHERWISE, which, as you said, it makes no mention of at all. Sounds like the same necessary inferences that we use for infant baptism! But I'm guessing you won't hedge on that bet. 



> 4. There is also a major difference between the other "ceremonial aspects" of worship and instruments.



This would only be the case if it was inferred and not commanded. As we have seen, its commanded for TEMPLE worship which means it has the same value as the other ceremonies, and was done away with progressively when t he Temple was destroyed by God. 



> God positively declares the former element of sacrifice (for example) to be done away with. He does so in the Bible. There is no confusion, no conjecture, no "process of reasoning." Like all parts of worship, He gives revelatory command. Not so with instruments. The NT is completely silent.



If ceremonial law is abrogated, then instruments, being ceremonial, (which has yet to be proven otherwise) are as well.



> Hope that helps some



Not really.  But I love ya nonetheless....


----------



## Tirian (Aug 8, 2005)

> For example, are there any 2,000 person worship services in America that are EP without accompaniment? Please note, I am not offering that as proof for the correctness of the non-EP position here. I merely say that it is a very different matter to lead 2,000 in song as opposed to 60 or 80.



It is indeed different, but I suppose that given my background in the RP's I still don't see it as being an issue. Here is a link to a picture of 1500 people at the RP International Conference 2004 singing unaccompanied Psalms exclusively 

I understand what you are saying though if you were to consider a 2000 member congregation giving up their instruments and trying to sing unaccompanied. It would require some co-ordination. Of course, many of the modern worship songs don't lend themselves to being sung unaccompanied and so they would have to transition to Psalms only at the same time 

Matt

PS. I forgot the link - here 'tis - http://www.reformedpresbyterian.org/act_conferences_international.html

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Matthew Glover]

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Matthew Glover]


----------



## Augusta (Aug 8, 2005)

When we worship, the invisible church that is, we are transported in the Spirit to the heavenly temple not made with hands. 

Acts 17:24-25
24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 *Nor is He worshiped with men´s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.*

When we assemble we are in the company of angels and all the other saints wherever they may be. That is why we need only our voice to join with theirs. We need nothing but what God has given us. It is so simple. All of this nitpicking seems to me to be a lot of fist clenching and foot stomping to get what we want in the service because we think it would be too dull otherwise. 

Hebrews 12:22-24
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Again the worship service which included all of the elements is for God's glory not ours. What we want does not matter. If it sounds bad to our ears that means nothing. God doesn't care about the actual sound, he is pleased by our obedience and self-sacrifice. That we would do something out of obedience with no thought to self but love for Him and love for his commandments and precepts.


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 8, 2005)

Two questions:

1. What is "lining the psalms"???

2. (Specific to the instrument-tolerant side) What about instrumental music (without singing) accompany the collection of the tithe/offering or the distribution of the Lord's Supper? Can any argue that such is circumstance in the same manner as lights and microphones? If it is not aiding in the singing of psalms and hymns, is it lawful?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Andrew,
> 
> The heart and skill are two different matters. Of course any congregation could sing heartily without any accompaniment. But that does not mean that any congregation can do this. I would respectfully say that your experience with "acapella congregations" is not the norm. For the most part, such congregations have great experience singing acappella, and have several singers who not only have excellent talent, but have been singing the same metrical psalms for decades. And again, to be honest, such congregation are almost invariably small enough that 3-4 singers can "carry" the entire congregation (i.e. about 100 or less).



I think my experience with a cappella congregations is fairly extensive, and I would again assert that a cappella singing is not difficult. On the contrary, it is the simplest form of singing that there is and, frankly, the most beautiful. The human voice, it has been said, is the greatest musical instrument ever "invented." Even when I hear bad vocal sounds (as I do in fact whenever I myself sing) I am not in the least moved to consider the expedient of instrumental accompaniment. The technical quality of a cappella song is not the chief goal in worship. Whether the group is small or large (I have heard a cappella psalm-singing in both contexts) and whether the talent/skill level is high or low, who cannot be inspired when they hear the words indited by God's Holy Spirit sung to his praise? All a cappella psalm-singers aim to sing God's praise joyfully and tunefully, in that order. 

There are lawful aids to a cappella singing, including a precentor, a pitch pipe (which we never use), notes from the tunes found in the psalter, the sounds of others in the congregation singing along as best as they can, personal training and experience. If children can do it, there is simply no reason why the average adult can't sing a cappella. 



> It should also not be forgotten that even the "helpful" practice of lining the psalms is so controversial that it has caused fractures in fellowship (both by those who _insist_ that it be done, and by those who say it _must not_ be done) among those who agree on just about everything else (including EP and no-instruments).



I grant that we Presbyterians have a tendency to divide over the smallest of matters. Lining the psalms is a practice that started to help the uneducated laity. It should be a matter of circumstantial discretion and adiaphora. Human nature, being what it is, a matter of adiaphora can and has been abused, which is much to be lamented. 



> My experience at least with congregations (and there are many) that have been unable to procure accompaniment or are without it for the day, is that the singing is half-hearted, weak and bad. That does not mean that it HAS to be that way; I was simply observing what is fact in the overwhelming majority of churches today.



Half-hearted, weak and bad are also to lamented. But it seems that you are speaking of congregations that are in the state of _temporarily lacking accompaniment_ rather than affirmatively trying to sing a cappella in principle. What I would gather that they are really lacking is the desire to sing tunefully. It is easy to become dependent upon a crutch, which is really what instruments are in worship. Good singing though is simply not dependent upon muscial instruments. 

Moreover, as an argument in favor of instruments, this line of reasoning is purely pragmatic. If reformation is needed in worship or musical training, there is work to be done. As I have mentioned though, the Scriptural criteria for good praise in song is that it be done with grace in the heart and regulated by God's Word, not that it be done to meet the standards of a recital or concert performance. A cappella psalmody puts the emphasis of song on the two elements that Scripture commands and emphasizes for pure spiritual worship: 1) the word of God 2) sung with grace in the heart. Uninspired hymnody and instruments detract from both of these aspects of worship, apart from the fact that they are not commanded for Christian worship.

[Edited on 8-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 1. What is "lining the psalms"???



It is a practice specified in the Westminster Directory of Publick Worship whereby a line from the psalm is read first by a precentor or some other appropriate person before the congregation sings the line. The practice arose because of the fact that some persons were illiterate, as to the written word or the word sung, hence, it was a help for the uneducated. 

WDPW:



> Of Singing of Psalms.
> 
> IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 8, 2005)

Thanks Andrew. I've heard the concept before, I just didn't know the tecnical name.

So do you end each line with a whole note to make the flow sound better (i.e., while the congregation is holding the last note for a full measure, the leader recites the next line), or do all voices stop while the leader recites the next line???


[Edited on 8-9-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Thanks Andrew. I've heard the concept before, I just didn't know the tecnical name.
> 
> So do you end each line with a whole note to make the flow sound better (i.e., while the congregation is holding the last note for a full measure, the leader recites the next line), or does all svoices stop while the leader recites the next line???
> ...



As it was practiced by the old Scots or today's Steelites, I don't have the first-hand experience to answer this question. As it practiced by our church, the psalm selection is read (not sung) and then we sing. Our practice is motivated not by illiteracy in the congregation, but by the desire to sing with understanding.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 9, 2005)

Okay, I'm going to open another related can of worms. 

>>For the record-I'm not opposed to the use of instruments in worship. I am very familiar with acappella worship - as in most of my life.

Given that, I'm troubled at the seeming proposition that all music in the church house must be 'good'. I've pastored congregation of acapella only folks that in no way could their singing be 'good' by man's measure, yet I'm sure that God found it beautiful. Pitch, tone, metre and rythm are never found in Scripture to be benchmarks of acceptable worship.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 9, 2005)

I'm opposed to the use of mimes in worship...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 9, 2005)

*Lining Psalms*

For an argument against the necessity of lining the psalms, and some historical background, see _The Westminster Directory for Public Worship and the Lining of the Psalms,_
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/lining.htm


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Pitch, tone, metre and rythm are never found in Scripture to be benchmarks of acceptable worship.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Two questions:
> 
> 1. What is "lining the psalms"???
> ...



To question two, I would compare it to the circumstance of the beauty of the building, not things like lights or microphone. There are two camps there too. A plain unadorned building, compared with one appropriate to the reverence and respect the people pay to the house of worship. Or clothing: some would say, "You'd get all dressed up to meet the President, wouldn't you? So shouldn't you do so even more to meet with God?" And some would say that it is not how you dress outwardly, but how you dress inwardly. Over opulence is as wrong a reckless slovinliness. These are circumstances of the heart, not of the technical necessities.


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 9, 2005)

John,

Thanks for the input.

I'm not sure that answers the question.

Let me rephrase the question. The instrument-tolerant are arguing that the instrument is a circumstance of worship, just like the lights, the microphone, the pews, heat and a/c (and I guess you can say, even the building). These "circumstances" are meant to aid the worshiper, that he may be more attentive, that he be not distracted, etc...

The use of musical instruments, the instrument-tolerant argue, is to aid the worshippers in their singing psalms and hymns, that their be less distractions (e.g. that might be caused by singing off key, etc...).

Following that line of reasoning, can anyone give a valid or similar reason to have instrumental accompaniment to the collection of tithes and offerings (at which point, I've never seen the congregation singing) ? 

Simply put: Can instrumental music be played at any time during the worship service apart from congregational singing? If so, why? How can one defend this practice in light of the RPW?


----------



## JohnV (Aug 9, 2005)

Dan:

I wasn't trying to answer the question. I've already put my view in that I think it too wooden to think of this as mere circumstance or element. We're talking _about_ music, but we're not talking about _music_.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Our church doesn't use pitch pipes.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 13, 2005)

> *Fred said:*
> As the EPers have insistently stated: there must be a command from the Bible for something to be an element of worship. The non-instrumental position is that instruments are an element (like drama) NOT a circumstance. So I will await the Scriptures that (a) state that instruments are commanded - OUTSIDE of the context of song, and (b) then state that such an element is no longer commanded - because even EPers state that such an element WAS commanded previously (which makes it different from the "only psalms were ever commanded argument).





> 2 Chronicles 26 *The Levites* stood with *the instruments of David*, and the priests with the trumpets. 27 Then Hezekiah commanded that the *burnt offering* be offered on the altar. And *when the burnt offering began, the song to the Lord began also*, and *the trumpets*, accompanied by *the instruments of David* king of Israel. 28 The whole assembly worshiped, and the singers sang and the trumpeters sounded. *All this continued until the burnt offering was finished*.
> 
> 1 Chronicles 15:16 David also commanded the chiefs of *the Levites* to appoint their brothers as the singers who should play loudly on *musical instruments*, on harps and lyres and cymbals, to raise sounds of joy.
> 
> ...



+



> Hebrews 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through *the Levitical priesthood* (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For *when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well*.
> 
> Hebrews 7:18 On the one hand, *a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness* 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
> 
> Hebrews 10:1 For since the law has but *a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities*, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.



=



> Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, *he makes the first one obsolete*. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
> 
> Heb 13:15 Through him then let us continually offer up *a sacrifice of praise* to God, that is, *the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name*.


----------

