# Using Instruments in Worship



## Ryan&Amber2013

I am a musician and have been thinking about how I use my gifting in the church.

For those of you who think it's okay to use instruments in worship, what is the best reasoning you have? I have been looking at some stances, and sadly, they haven't been convincing at all. 

Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse

While it's not directly to your question, there's no reason to believe that because we have a particular gifting or ability that it's appropriate to use it in the church. We don't bring in athletes to perform feats of athleticism or math wizards to derive equations in public worship. I'm not sure why churches so often expect otherwise of musicians (of which I am one too, at least by hobby).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> who think it's okay to use instruments



I'd simply point out that the criteria (given the RPW) is not only, "I think it's okay," but rather, "God commands us to use musical instruments," for us to safely use them.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Parakaleo said:


> I'd simply point out that the criteria (given the RPW) is not only, "I think it's okay," but rather, "God commands us to use musical instruments," for us to safely use them.



That is a good point. So that leads to a question: Psalm 55 says "with stringed instruments." Does that mean only stringed instruments can be used, or can we play percussion over it? Wouldn't that be against the command if we don't obey as God wrote it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> That is a good point. So that leads to a question: Psalm 55 says "with stringed instruments." Does that mean only stringed instruments can be used, or can we play percussion over it? Wouldn't that be against the command if we don't obey as God wrote it?



Or if one thinks the command to play instruments is for today, what about the harp which is specifically commanded?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH

We had a hurricane that knocked the power out in my home congregation for over a week and I had to find another church to attend the following Lord's day. I googled 'reformed churches near me' and found a Baptist congregation that adhered to the 1689 confessions. The place was very impressive, it was like a movie theater with seats that were upholstered and that folded up when you stood.
Very friendly people who greeted me and the friend who accompanied me. The worship service lasted a half an hour and there were three guitarists, a fellow playing something like a bongo drum, and four singers on stage, counting two of the guitarists. There were no hymnals. Instead they had three large screens hanging with the lyrics to the contemporary Christian music they played and sang.
The volume wasn't so loud that it hurt, but it was loud enough that for the two thirds of the congregation that sang they couldn't be heard. Only the singers on stage were audible to me. Perhaps that is why my estimate of one third of the people didn't sing. 
This Baptist worship service that I attended is emblematic of what I dislike in current contemporary Christian worship. A friend in an SBC congregation, a deacon there for over 10 years, plays guitar in their band. He is expert but it is not only too loud, but resembles rock music to my ear. I cannot stand it. They have a drummer !
I've had debates with him regarding the appropriateness of this sort of 'worship' and he says that "churches are dying and if you want to draw young people this is what you have to give them." Of course to my mind this is no justification for the cacophony they call worship and based on my observations in my congregation is not a valid conclusion. 
My home congregation uses the Trinity Hymnal and music geared to it specifically which, since we do not have a musician to play our piano or organ, is piped in from the computer in the back. This is what I am comfortable with, but I guess I am old fashioned.


----------



## tangleword

Parakaleo said:


> I'd simply point out that the criteria (given the RPW) is not only, "I think it's okay," but rather, "God commands us to use musical instruments," for us to safely use them.


Wouldn't that depend on whether instruments are considered an element or a circumstance of worship?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Repeating something I've said often; Even in the most minimal (as my present church) I've never been in a church that used musical instruments where they were strictly used circumstantially if by that it is meant merely to try and aid the singing (I would bet a good song leader is far more effective than a good or not so good piano player). When the prelude gets more _amens _or _praise the Lords_ than an _amen _or a _preach it_ after the sermon, they are clearly at the very least considered on a pare and the former is clearly not a circumstance. It is something folks pay attention to; it's a performance, etc.

Girardeau on this question:
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.
...
The other strict and proper act of worship is the singing of praise....

Let us submit it to the test of the criteria by which these circumstances are determined. First, they are not parts of the acts of worship by which they are modified; but this circumstance is a part of the act of singing praise by which it is performed. Secondly, these circumstances are common to the acts of human societies, not peculiar to, and distinctive of, those of the church. It is very certain that instrumental music is not such a circumstance. It will hardly be said that all societies play on instruments as well as the church. Thirdly, these circumstances are conditions necessary to the performance of the acts of worship, without which they either cannot be done at all, or not done decently and in order. That the singing of praise cannot be performed at all without instrumental music will be affirmed by none. But it may be affirmed that it cannot without it be performed decently and in order. Let it be noticed that the question is not whether it may be performed in an indecent and disorderly manner. Granted; but so may instrumental music. The question is, whether it cannot be done decently and in order without instrumental accompaniment. The question can only be determined by reference of the practice to a permanent and universal standard of propriety and decorum. And to say that the simple singing of God’s praise in His house is indecent and disorderly is to say, that for twelve centuries the church of Christ was guilty of this impropriety; for it is a matter of history that for that period not even the Church of Rome knew anything of instruments in her worship. To say that the simple singing of God’s praise violates the standard of decency and order of this age is to censure the glorious Free Church of Scotland and the Irish Presbyterian Church for an indecent and disorderly conduct of this part of divine worship. The ground, therefore, that instrumental music in public worship is one of those circumstances required by the rule that all things be done decently and in order cannot be maintained without a spirit of arrogance and censoriousness which would itself violate the higher principle of Christian charity. It is submitted, with all modesty, that this line of argument ought to be conclusive with Presbyterians, at least, against ranking instrumental music in public worship as one of the circumstances common to human actions and societies which fall under the discretion of the church.​

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Logan

Sorry that this isn't strictly related to your question, but I recently had a conversation with a friend who is a worship leader at his congregation. He was interested to find out that we didn't use instruments and then he made the comment that he had been very frustrated for a long time, trying to motivate the people to sing but the more they tried to lead with the singers and instruments, the more passive the people became. He was convinced that the instruments were part of the problem, becoming more worship on behalf of the people instead of leading the people in worship. At the very least, something to beware of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

JimmyH said:


> We had a hurricane that knocked the power out in my home congregation for over a week and I had to find another church to attend the following Lord's day. I googled 'reformed churches near me' and found a Baptist congregation that adhered to the 1689 confessions. The place was very impressive, it was like a movie theater with seats that were upholstered and that folded up when you stood.
> Very friendly people who greeted me and the friend who accompanied me. The worship service lasted a half an hour and there were three guitarists, a fellow playing something like a bongo drum, and four singers on stage, counting two of the guitarists. There were no hymnals. Instead they had three large screens hanging with the lyrics to the contemporary Christian music they played and sang.
> The volume wasn't so loud that it hurt, but it was loud enough that for the two thirds of the congregation that sang they couldn't be heard. Only the singers on stage were audible to me. Perhaps that is why my estimate of one third of the people didn't sing.
> This Baptist worship service that I attended is emblematic of what I dislike in current contemporary Christian worship. A friend in an SBC congregation, a deacon there for over 10 years, plays guitar in their band. He is expert but it is not only too loud, but resembles rock music to my ear. I cannot stand it. They have a drummer !
> I've had debates with him regarding the appropriateness of this sort of 'worship' and he says that "churches are dying and if you want to draw young people this is what you have to give them." Of course to my mind this is no justification for the cacophony they call worship and based on my observations in my congregation is not a valid conclusion.
> My home congregation uses the Trinity Hymnal and music geared to it specifically which, since we do not have a musician to play our piano or organ, is piped in from the computer in the back. This is what I am comfortable with, but I guess I am old fashioned.



Are you not letting your preferences, or what you are comfortable, with dictate what you think is proper?


----------



## JimmyH

earl40 said:


> Are you not letting your preferences, or what you are comfortable, with dictate what you think is proper?


I hadn't looked at it like that. Interesting question. On one hand I suppose I am. On the other hand, the congregation I am a part of is within the RPW and I am quite content there. If I had no other choice would I attend the other congregation in spite of my preferences, or would I be an A.W. Pink ? I'd have to think about that.


----------



## timfost

Hi Ryan,

I'm a professional musician (piano). I also lead the music in my church.

First, I agree with Chris that instruments should be considered a circumstance of worship. No need to make an argument as to whether or not they are commanded. Praise is commanded, and this can be done with or without instruments.

Second, as a musician, I have to consider how I play with the singing so that I am _aiding_, not _performing_. This doesn't mean that I don't play skillfully, rather the skill should bring attention to the words, not the performer.

I hope this helps...

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Andrew P.C.

timfost said:


> I agree with Chris that instruments should be considered a circumstance of worship.



I’m not sure that’s what Chris is saying.



NaphtaliPress said:


> It is very certain that instrumental music is not such a circumstance. It will hardly be said that all societies play on instruments as well as the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

As our church moved from a small location to a much larger building, I find the piano a much bigger distraction. The people are hard to hear when singing and the piano seems to become more overwhelming with such a large room.


----------



## timfost

Andrew P.C. said:


> I’m not sure that’s what Chris is saying.



Fair enough, although I do recall him saying this in another post. Chris, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks!


----------



## KBorg

timfost said:


> Hi Ryan,
> 
> ...instruments should be considered a circumstance of worship.



Two questions: a) Were musical instruments an element or a circumstance in OT worship? b) What criteria do you employ in discerning what is/isn't a circumstance? Cheers!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> That is a good point. So that leads to a question: Psalm 55 says "with stringed instruments." Does that mean only stringed instruments can be used, or can we play percussion over it? Wouldn't that be against the command if we don't obey as God wrote it?



One has to consider that Altars, Horns (psalm 118) and Dancing (Psalm 149) would have to be used and done with this line of reasoning. Clearly there are prohibitions but that’s where we understand “whatever is not commanded is forbidden”. The same question has to be asked of these things as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

KBorg said:


> Two questions: a) Were musical instruments an element or a circumstance in OT worship? b) What criteria do you employ in discerning what is/isn't a circumstance? Cheers!



1. I believe an element, though I haven't studied that one.

2. Please define your understanding of a circumstance of worship. We can take it from there. 

Thanks!


----------



## Ben Zartman

Ryan,

At our church we use the piano, and it's sole purpose is to keep us singing in key and at the correct tempo. We believe that the accompanying music MUST NOT overwhelm the singing: we would hear each other as we sing. But the singing is far easier when the piano helps to keep us decently in key and tempo. We want to offer God only those things that He commands, but they ought to be things we find lovely as well. So we do not bring the sick and lame--in other words, we do not bring songs unlovely when it is in our power, with a little effort, to bring songs that we can delight in bringing. In the same way I do not bring my wife an ugly flower: I bring her a beautiful flower that reminds me of her beauty, and I can rejoice in it's lovely-ness while I offer it to her.

If you play an instrument that can be used for keeping everyone decent and orderly as they sing, and there's a need, then I wouldn't take issue. But if it's superfluous--why bother? use your musical talents to raise your voice in song. I also make distinctions personally between one type of instrument and another, and different musical styles, but that should be discussed in another thread--this one is drifting enough as it is.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If it is what I recall, I have previously said that if they are to be argued for, musical instruments should be argued as circumstantial; I don't believe that is a successive argument; but arguing as an element gets us to the necessity of musical instruments which I'm not sure has been seriously argued by the Reformed.


Andrew P.C. said:


> I’m not sure that’s what Chris is saying.





timfost said:


> Fair enough, although I do recall him saying this in another post. Chris, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Thank you for the replies so far; they are helpful. The main thing I'm trying to understand is the Biblical stance for why it's okay to use instruments. What is it in the Bible that has convinced you that we have the freedom to use them and pick which ones, etc. Thanks!


----------



## timfost

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Thank you for the replies so far; they are helpful. The main thing I'm trying to understand is the Biblical stance for why it's okay to use instruments. What is it in the Bible that has convinced you that we have the freedom to use them and pick which ones, etc. Thanks!



Let me reiterate, we can praise God with or without instruments. 

With that said, let me try to answer your question:

1. "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms." (James 5:13) "Sing psalms" in Greek is *ψάλλω*. Strongs defines as such: "properly, pluck a musical instrument (like a harp); used of "_singing along_ with instruments"; "to _make music_," or simply _sing_." From an etymological standpoint, the word in its very definition has to do with playing an instrument. 

2. When musical instruments are used as an aid to singing, they assist in the congregation singing the words of praise together. This aid to singing in unison also is an aid to singing words with _clarity_. When words have clarity, they are more easily understood (think of children who cannot yet read but can speak, and therefore cannot follow the text). Paul says "I will sing [*ψάλλω*] with the spirit, and I will also sing [*ψάλλω*] *with the understanding*." (1 Cor. 14:15) Therefore if instruments can aid in understanding, why not use them? 

3. Praise is something that we do physically, but it comes from within, _then_ from without. Paul says again we are to be "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody [*ψάλλω*] in your heart to the Lord." Our singing, if not done with understanding (yes, our _uninspired_ understanding), wells up in us-- from the whole person overjoyed by the work of God in our lives-- and the _manifestation _of this joy is in physical praise. Our praise doesn't always come out in the same tunes, or the same words, or with the same instruments, but it always comes from the same place-- the heart, sung with understanding. Because of this, I want to be careful not to focus too much on the _external manifestation _of our praise, but from the place from which it comes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG

Tim, do you know of any place in the New Testament or the old where the term sing psalms means to play musical instruments other than in the temple.


----------



## TheOldCourse

timfost said:


> Let me reiterate, we can praise God with or without instruments.
> 
> With that said, let me try to answer your question:
> 
> 1. "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms." (James 5:13) "Sing psalms" in Greek is *ψάλλω*. Strongs defines as such: "properly, pluck a musical instrument (like a harp); used of "_singing along_ with instruments"; "to _make music_," or simply _sing_." From an etymological standpoint, the word in its very definition has to do with playing an instrument.
> 
> 2. When musical instruments are used as an aid to singing, they assist in the congregation singing the words of praise together. This aid to singing in unison also is an aid to singing words with _clarity_. When words have clarity, they are more easily understood (think of children who cannot yet read but can speak, and therefore cannot follow the text). Paul says "I will sing [*ψάλλω*] with the spirit, and I will also sing [*ψάλλω*] *with the understanding*." (1 Cor. 14:15) Therefore if instruments can aid in understanding, why not use them?
> 
> 3. Praise is something that we do physically, but it comes from within, _then_ from without. Paul says again we are to be "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody [*ψάλλω*] in your heart to the Lord." Our singing, if not done with understanding (yes, our _uninspired_ understanding), wells up in us-- from the whole person overjoyed by the work of God in our lives-- and the _manifestation _of this joy is in physical praise. Our praise doesn't always come out in the same tunes, or the same words, or with the same instruments, but it always comes from the same place-- the heart, sung with understanding. Because of this, I want to be careful not to focus too much on the _external manifestation _of our praise, but from the place from which it comes.



Much of this seems rather close to an etymological fallacy. The context determines the meaning of the term from its semantic range, not the etymology of the term itself. To assume that psallo has reference to instrument-accompanied singing in these passages is begging the question.

With regard to point #2, the church has sung psalms and hymns almost exclusively unaccompanied for more than a millennia and a half. Did it lack unison and clarity? My wife and I often sing along with a FCoS(C) church's webcast on Lord's Day afternoons since we rarely sing psalms in our church and that church sings unaccompanied. I have no more trouble understanding what they are singing than I do the accompanied hymns at my own church.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## bookslover

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> That is a good point. So that leads to a question: Psalm 55 says "with stringed instruments." Does that mean only stringed instruments can be used, or can we play percussion over it? Wouldn't that be against the command if we don't obey as God wrote it?



Look at Psalm 150, where all four categories of musical instruments are represented: percussion, brass, woodwinds, and strings. Different translations will translate the specific words used in different ways but, with these four categories, the whole orchestra, so to speak, is represented. (The piano, by the way, is a percussion instrument.) So, go for it!


----------



## bookslover

At another website, someone noted that the early church tied 1 Corinthians 14.7 and 19 together to produce an argument against musical instruments. Two or three of us who responded were skeptical of such "exegesis," to say the least. That entire chapter is devoted to a completely unrelated subject.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

TheOldCourse said:


> Much of this seems rather close to an etymological fallacy. The context determines the meaning of the term from its semantic range, not the etymology of the term itself. To assume that psallo has reference to instrument-accompanied singing in these passages is begging the question.
> 
> With regard to point #2, the church has sung psalms and hymns almost exclusively unaccompanied for more than a millennia and a half. Did it lack unison and clarity? My wife and I often sing along with a FCoS(C) church's webcast on Lord's Day afternoons since we rarely sing psalms in our church and that church sings unaccompanied. I have no more trouble understanding what they are singing than I do the accompanied hymns at my own church.



Could you share the church's webcast you sing with?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Held Fast

It may be that I have been fortunate to have worshipped with peoples in over 20 countries, in multiple languages, with Christians who were not so "blessed" as to have been instructed in the manner many here appreciate. There is something profoundly uplifting to worship with people who bring their best to their King; their best voices, their best instruments, their very best. Personally I am grateful for our worship team, all skilled volunteers, who faithfully give their best to lead the rest of us into worship ... moderately but not sedately. As with all things in the Christian walk, it is the heart of the worshipper that is most important, tempered with the awareness that while nothing is forbidden, not everything is edifying. To the OP, all gifts from God are ultimately for His worship; maybe not in the Lord's Day service, true, but definitely for His worship still.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Thank you for the replies so far; they are helpful. The main thing I'm trying to understand is the Biblical stance for why it's okay to use instruments. What is it in the Bible that has convinced you that we have the freedom to use them and pick which ones, etc. Thanks!


It's OK to properly use instruments for the same reason it's OK to have chairs or pews, air conditioning or carpets. Or lights. The early church met in many different places--upper rooms, temple porches, people's houses: these were circumstances. We are not given specific details as to where to meet, what color of carpets to have, what color of psalter. Those are circumstances that are left to the wisdom of the elders.
Should we eschew printed psalters with musical notation because the church had no such thing for hundreds of years? Of course not: those are circumstances which aid us in bringing right worship. Pews that allow us to sit comfortably during a sermon; lights so that we may read the text; the design of the communion chalice--circumstances.
And so is accompaniment. Can worship still happen without it? Of course. So it is a circumstance, and as with all circumstances, care must be taken that the circumstance does not usurp the place of what it is there in aid of. Sadly, it seems to happen all the time.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

Held Fast said:


> It may be that I have been fortunate to have worshipped with peoples in over 20 countries, in multiple languages, with Christians who were not so "blessed" as to have been instructed in the manner many here appreciate. There is something profoundly uplifting to worship with people who bring their best to their King; their best voices, their best instruments, their very best. Personally I am grateful for our worship team, all skilled volunteers, who faithfully give their best to lead the rest of us into worship ... moderately but not sedately. As with all things in the Christian walk, it is the heart of the worshipper that is most important, tempered with the awareness that while nothing is forbidden, not everything is edifying. To the OP, all gifts from God are ultimately for His worship; maybe not in the Lord's Day service, true, but definitely for His worship still.


Hi Rob,
I think the context here is specifically Lord's Day worship.
But consider that a heart that is sincere in wanting to worship God will seek to do it in a way that pleases Him. The substance of what we bring in worship is a reflection of our hearts. How do we know that Cain's heart was wrong before God? Because he brought the wrong thing. However sincere you think your heart is, if you bring a thing not required, your heart is wrong. Perhaps wrong in ignorance rather than malice, but once you know God's will..."He who knoweth to do right and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay

TheOldCourse said:


> Much of this seems rather close to an etymological fallacy. The context determines the meaning of the term from its semantic range, not the etymology of the term itself. To assume that psallo has reference to instrument-accompanied singing in these passages is begging the question.


Exactly! I wish I could click _Like _four or five times on this. It's a classic example of the etymological fallacy.

Just imagine if someone tried to prove that Americans eat warm canines from a similar argument applied to the term _hotdog!_ 

Come on, Tim, we all know that The term came to refer to the lyrical composition itself!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG

Whatever side of this argument we fall on I think we can all agree on this: 1.) If God has commanded the use of instruments in worship then we must use them or we are in sin 2.)If God has commanded that we use trumpets and harps we must use them or we are in sin. We don't have the option of picking and choosing what is pleasing to God, that means no guitars or pianos they would be strange fire.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

TheOldCourse said:


> Much of this seems rather close to an etymological fallacy.



The word Psalms (ψαλμός) as used in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 has an etymological basis in instruments as well. Though I cannot prove that the language hasn't changed, it would also be a drastic change to take a word that people had been using for over one and a half millennia and insist that it changed within a few decades between the ushering in of the new covenant and when Paul wrote about it, and top it off by barring them from praise. The burden of proof is on you.

Concerning the context: the context seems favorable to your position if praise was something only external, or at least first external. Biblical praise wells from within and manifests from without. Those who make instruments unlawful, in my opinion, first make praise external, then internal. Such order seems contrary to NT worship and moves the emphasis away from worship from the heart.

Whether or not some can sing with clarity without instruments is irrelevant. Musical instruments are an aid to clarity. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> Let me reiterate, we can praise God with or without instruments.
> 
> With that said, let me try to answer your question:
> 
> 1. "Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms." (James 5:13) "Sing psalms" in Greek is *ψάλλω*. Strongs defines as such: "properly, pluck a musical instrument (like a harp); used of "_singing along_ with instruments"; "to _make music_," or simply _sing_." From an etymological standpoint, the word in its very definition has to do with playing an instrument.
> 
> 2. When musical instruments are used as an aid to singing, they assist in the congregation singing the words of praise together. This aid to singing in unison also is an aid to singing words with _clarity_. When words have clarity, they are more easily understood (think of children who cannot yet read but can speak, and therefore cannot follow the text). Paul says "I will sing [*ψάλλω*] with the spirit, and I will also sing [*ψάλλω*] *with the understanding*." (1 Cor. 14:15) Therefore if instruments can aid in understanding, why not use them?
> 
> 3. Praise is something that we do physically, but it comes from within, _then_ from without. Paul says again we are to be "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody [*ψάλλω*] in your heart to the Lord." Our singing, if not done with understanding (yes, our _uninspired_ understanding), wells up in us-- from the whole person overjoyed by the work of God in our lives-- and the _manifestation _of this joy is in physical praise. Our praise doesn't always come out in the same tunes, or the same words, or with the same instruments, but it always comes from the same place-- the heart, sung with understanding. Because of this, I want to be careful not to focus too much on the _external manifestation _of our praise, but from the place from which it comes.


Tim,

Since your argument hinges on the verb _psallo,_ and not on the noun _psalmos, _I can see that your post warrants a fuller answer than simply to point out that you're using an etymological fallacy. I'll answer each of your points in order.

1. What is James saying here? Let's try to apply each of the definitions you have provided.

"Is anyone cheerful? Let him pluck an instrument."
"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing along with instruments."
"Is anyone cheerful? Let him make music."
"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing."

Beforehand, I think that it's important to point out that James is speaking of private expression of joy--it's impossible to understand the verse in any other way.

"Let him pluck an instrument"--Do you think that everyone to whom James was writing could play instruments? I think it's doubtful. Was he recommending that they all learn to play instruments so that they can express their joy? Again, it's very doubtful. Further, what relationship does plucking an instrument have to prayer, which is given as a parallel activity in this verse? It is clear that he is referring to singing. So, option #1 is out.

"Let him sing along with instruments"--Do you think he was recommending that they find someone to accompany their singing when they want to express their joy? I hope you will agree that such an idea is ridiculous.

"Let him make music"--This translation is so vague as to allow for any kind of music. I've already refuted the idea that it refers to plucking instruments or singing with accompaniment in this context.

"Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing." Clearly, this is closer to what James is getting at. But what are they to sing? "Zip a Dee Doo Dah?" It's best to understand him as referring to the songs of the church, that is, the Psalms.

2. I frankly don't understand how instruments aid in the clarity of singing. I'm able to understand the Psalms in our congregation, and we don't use instruments. How does having instrumental music make words more intelligible? 

I think my treatment of the passage in James is sufficient to show that Paul need not be understood to refer to plucking instruments.

3. This doesn't seem to be an argument for using instruments. Instead, it seems like an argument to disregard particulars in worship. I'll only answer that if the heart is in the right place, diligence will be given to see that the outward things are ordered properly.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> The word Psalms (ψαλμός) as used in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 has an etymological basis in instruments as well. Though I cannot prove that the language hasn't changed, it would also be a drastic change to take a word that people had been using for over one and a half millennia and insist that it changed within a few decades between the ushering in of the new covenant and when Paul wrote about it, and top it off by barring them from praise. The burden of proof is on you.



Tim,

Your reference to Strong proved that the term _Psallo _could be used to mean _sing, _simpliciter.

Strong defines _Psalmos_ in this way: "a set piece of music, i.e. a sacred ode (accompanied with the voice, harp or other instrument; a "psalm"); collectively, the book of the Psalms."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9

I only wish to address the issue of the "heart" as it relates to regulated worship since it has come up several times. The RPW is designed to protect God's worship from our "hearts". Even when my "heart is right", it is not right and I fail to worship Him as is good, proper, and perfect. My own assessment of my "heart" at any particular time is, at best, an exercise of the fox guarding the hen-house rather than His perfect assessment. That is why God has taken that subjectivism from our hands and has given the RPW. I think that is the bare minimum on what we must agree. What goes on in pop-evangelicalism is the prosecutorial "exhibit A" against what happens when we follow our "hearts".....

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Parakaleo

Gforce9 said:


> I only wish to address the issue of the "heart" as it relates to regulated worship since it has come up several times. The RPW is designed to protect God's worship from our "hearts". Even when my "heart is right", it is not right and I fail to worship Him as is good, proper, and perfect. My own assessment of my "heart" at any particular time is, at best, an exercise of the fox guarding the hen-house rather than His perfect assessment. That is why God has taken that subjectivism from our hands and has given the RPW. I think that is the bare minimum on what we must agree. What goes on in pop-evangelicalism is the prosecutorial "exhibit A" against what happens when we follow our "hearts".....



Thank you! God tries the heart by his perfect Word. The folly of thinking a man's "right" heart is able to safely take him beyond what God has prescribed is perilous.


----------



## timfost

Tyler,

You have misrepresented my argument. Please reread. As a rule of thumb, try to be able to make your opponent's argument even when you don't agree.

If you have questions, please ask. If you think my argument is inconsistent, say so. If you want to make me say something that I haven't, I don't feel as if I need to defend _your_self.


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> Tyler,
> 
> You have misrepresented my argument. Please reread. As a rule of thumb, try to be able to make your opponent's argument even when you don't agree.
> 
> If you have questions, please ask. If you think my argument is inconsistent, say so. If you want to make me say something that I haven't, I don't feel as if I need to defend _your_self.


Tim,
I can't see where I have misrepresented you or dealt unfairly. Please let me know where I've done so, and I'll be glad to correct myself. It may be that I have misunderstood part of your argument.


----------



## timfost

BG said:


> Tim, do you know of any place in the New Testament or the old where the term sing psalms means to play musical instruments other than in the temple.



Do you think that David never used a harp in his worship?


----------



## timfost

TylerRay said:


> Tim,
> I can't see where I have misrepresented you or dealt unfairly. Please let me know where I've done so, and I'll be glad to correct myself. It may be that I have misunderstood part of your argument.



I likely won't have time to reply at least for a day or so due to work. Sorry...


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> I likely won't have time to reply at least for a day or so due to work. Sorry...


No worries, brother. Reply when you can.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Jeri Tanner said:


> Could you share the church's webcast you sing with?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Happily! Greenville Presbyterian Church in Greenville, SC is the church we sing with (http://www.greenvillepresbyterian.com/). Their second service is streamed live at 2pm EST which, for us an hour earlier, gives us most of an hour for lunch after we come home from our own morning service and is very convenient. They also put the words of the psalm up on the stream which makes it very easy to sing along to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

bookslover said:


> Look at Psalm 150, where all four categories of musical instruments are represented: percussion, brass, woodwinds, and strings. Different translations will translate the specific words used in different ways but, with these four categories, the whole orchestra, so to speak, is represented. (The piano, by the way, is a percussion instrument.) So, go for it!


How does appeal to the OT for the allowance of instruments today not effectively undermine the circumstantial position? One cannot appeal to _adiaphora _here, for the appeal to the _elemental_ OT mandate (it was not _circumstantial, _nor_ adiaphora_) thus becomes a mandate today.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Held Fast

Ben Zartman said:


> Hi Rob,
> I think the context here is specifically Lord's Day worship.
> But consider that a heart that is sincere in wanting to worship God will seek to do it in a way that pleases Him. The substance of what we bring in worship is a reflection of our hearts. How do we know that Cain's heart was wrong before God? Because he brought the wrong thing. However sincere you think your heart is, if you bring a thing not required, your heart is wrong. Perhaps wrong in ignorance rather than malice, but once you know God's will..."He who knoweth to do right and doeth it not, to him it is sin."



Ben, I would say the healthy place for the Christian is to live in the tension. The desire for the law, for regulation, destroys worship as handily as the desire for liberty, and just as quickly - each desire emanates from the heart of the worshipper. Neither extreme should claim superiority. Many likewise offered the smell of burnt animals as an act of worship, following the regulative principles as they understood them, when what God stated He wanted was their heart, and by so doing their sincere worship became a stench in His nostrils. This, coupled with your posts, suggests that sincere and ignorance are not exclusive to either extreme when it comes to worship.


----------



## earl40

For those who think instruments are circumstance? May I ask why now after Jesus and not before?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Held Fast said:


> Ben, I would say the healthy place for the Christian is to live in the tension. The desire for the law, for regulation, destroys worship as handily as the desire for liberty, and just as quickly - each desire emanates from the heart of the worshipper. Neither extreme should claim superiority. Many likewise offered the smell of burnt animals as an act of worship, following the regulative principles as they understood them, when what God stated He wanted was their heart, and by so doing their sincere worship became a stench in His nostrils. This, coupled with your posts, suggests that sincere and ignorance are not exclusive to either extreme when it comes to worship.


Why do you say that the desire to know God's will and do it carefully (law and regulation) destroys worship? It is the essence of worship to give God what is His due, and the desire of the sincere Christian to seek out God's will so that he may do that. Law and regulation are the Christian's delight. See Psalm 119 for this. Now there is no question that the right thing can be offered by an insincere and legalistic heart, but that does not negate the duty of the sincere heart to worship aright. "They that worship the Father shall worship Him in _spirit_ (sincerely) and in _truth_ (according to His prescription)".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

TylerRay said:


> Just imagine if someone tried to prove that Americans eat warm canines from a similar argument applied to the term _hotdog!_
> 
> Come on, Tim, we all know that The term came to refer to the lyrical composition itself!



I agree that a word's etymology is not _necessarily _proof of what is included in the usage. The comparison to the hotdog is ridiculous for the following reason: Hotdogs were never made out of dogs, unlike Psalms that were accompanied by musical instruments for... 1500 years (if we assume that this ceased under the new covenant). I would prefer not to waste time actually defending my position against such comparisons. I neither have the time nor desire.



TylerRay said:


> 1. What is James saying here? Let's try to apply each of the definitions you have provided.
> 
> "Is anyone cheerful? Let him pluck an instrument."
> "Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing along with instruments."
> "Is anyone cheerful? Let him make music."
> "Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing."
> 
> Beforehand, I think that it's important to point out that James is speaking of private expression of joy--it's impossible to understand the verse in any other way.



Isn't it a WCF proof text for what is acceptable in worship, public or private?



TylerRay said:


> "Let him pluck an instrument"--Do you think that everyone to whom James was writing could play instruments? I think it's doubtful. Was he recommending that they all learn to play instruments so that they can express their joy? Again, it's very doubtful. Further, what relationship does plucking an instrument have to prayer, which is given as a parallel activity in this verse? It is clear that he is referring to singing. So, option #1 is out.



You have not heard my argument. My argument all along is that the words _do not exclude instruments_. I made it clear on multiple occasions that one can offer praise to God without instruments. I made it clear that instruments, though they are an acceptable _circumstance _of praise, they are not requisite. Your argument hinges on me saying that instruments are _required_ under the RPW. Disagree with my argument if you wish, but disagreeing with an argument I didn't make doesn't offer any clarity in the matter.



TylerRay said:


> "Let him sing along with instruments"--Do you think he was recommending that they find someone to accompany their singing when they want to express their joy? I hope you will agree that such an idea is ridiculous.



Agreed. How does this apply to our conversation?



TylerRay said:


> "Let him make music"--This translation is so vague as to allow for any kind of music. I've already refuted the idea that it refers to plucking instruments or singing with accompaniment in this context.



Sure. Our praises are in psalms (religious), hymns (religious) and spiritual songs (religious because of the word "spiritual," an adjective that clarifies the word songs (odes) which could be either religious or secular). The NAS renders it "sing praises."



TylerRay said:


> "Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing." Clearly, this is closer to what James is getting at. But what are they to sing? "Zip a Dee Doo Dah?" It's best to understand him as referring to the songs of the church, that is, the Psalms.



Again, let's not make caracatures of a position I have never espoused.



TylerRay said:


> 2. I frankly don't understand how instruments aid in the clarity of singing. I'm able to understand the Psalms in our congregation, and we don't use instruments. How does having instrumental music make words more intelligible?



We actually sing verbatim Psalms in my church. We have not "translated" the psalms into CM, LM, etc. meters in rhyme. Singing verbatim Psalms that don't fit into Western poetic stanzas requires stronger musical leadership so that the melodies, meters, etc. do not dictate our translations. Since you have opted for the poetic license taken in your psalter and forced the inspired Word into the parameters of a Western stanza and musical idiom, the comparison is lacking.



TylerRay said:


> I think my treatment of the passage in James is sufficient to show that Paul need not be understood to refer to plucking instruments.



You have not proven that instruments are excluded as a circumstance. What you have proven was never disputed.



TylerRay said:


> 3. This doesn't seem to be an argument for using instruments. Instead, it seems like an argument to disregard particulars in worship. I'll only answer that if the heart is in the right place, diligence will be given to see that the outward things are ordered properly.



Do you believe that the early church was singing rhyming and metered psalms put to modern Western scales? At some point, if you are to be consistent, you're going to regulate praise right out of worship.

Brother, I have written strongly against some of the things you said. I am trying to be concise. Having spoken frankly with you before and received the same, I trust that you understand I'm opposing your position, not in any way trying to imply that you are less than sincere or have any other motive than to glorify God.

Blessings,

Tim

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

timfost said:


> You have not proven that instruments are excluded as a circumstance.



I know you aren’t addressing me, but doesn’t the one making the argument that it is circumstaial need to prove such a statement?

It seems that, as Ask Mr. Religion points out, the issue of it being elemental needs to be dealt with. We know that instruments were commanded specifically for the Levitical priesthood (2 Chron. 29:25).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

timfost said:


> Concerning the context: the context seems favorable to your position if praise was something only external, or at least first external. Biblical praise wells from within and manifests from without.


 That praise, in the Bible, is not primarily an external action is something I would dispute. I think that praise proper is not something God has left open for his people to stumble on. The book of Psalms is the Book of Tehillim- the Book of Praises. God has left nothing unfurnished or unfitted for his holy house. The content of our corporate duty to praise is supplied to us. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bookslover

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> How does appeal to the OT for the allowance of instruments today not effectively undermine the circumstantial position? One cannot appeal to _adiaphora _here, for the appeal to the _elemental_ OT mandate (it was not _circumstantial, _nor_ adiaphora_) thus becomes a mandate today.



If we are not to use musical instruments today, why are they not explicitly banned in the New Testament?


----------



## Parakaleo

bookslover said:


> If we are not to use musical instruments today, why are they not explicitly banned in the New Testament?



The common comeback to this is that beastiality is never condemned in the NT either, but it doesn't need to be because we know it violates the moral law of God.

To go a little more in-depth, when talking about worship, the RPW requires that we can reason a worship practice is specifically authorized by God and proven to be what he desires for his worship. That he desired musical instruments to be a part of his worship in the Old Testament is beyond dispute. What we must explore carefully, however, is whether musical instruments were properly part of the ceremonial worship of the Old Testament (worship by type and shadow) that God only appointed for his church under age, or whether musical instruments were part of the pure worship (worship in truth; untypified worship) that continues in all ages of the church. I think a pretty quick study of this question would show that musical instruments were a shadowy and ceremonial element meant for Old Testament temple worship and not reiterated in the New Testament as being fit for worship.

As others have pointed out here already, the _very only_ way musical instruments can be logically allowed in Christian worship is if a person views them as a mere _circumstance _of singing praise. I used to reason this way myself. However, I was challenged on how something that was once very much an element of worship could transform into a circumstance. Not finding any good answer to this question, I'm now very happy to worship God without musical accompaniment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

TylerRay said:


> Just imagine if someone tried to prove that Americans eat warm canines from a similar argument applied to the term _hotdog!_
> 
> Come on, Tim, we all know that The term came to refer to the lyrical composition itself!





timfost said:


> I agree that a word's etymology is not _necessarily _proof of what is included in the usage. The comparison to the hotdog is ridiculous for the following reason: Hotdogs were never made out of dogs, unlike Psalms that were accompanied by musical instruments for... 1500 years (if we assume that this ceased under the new covenant). I would prefer not to waste time actually defending my position against such comparisons. I neither have the time nor desire.


You're right--it was a bad comparison.



TylerRay said:


> Beforehand, I think that it's important to point out that James is speaking of private expression of joy--it's impossible to understand the verse in any other way.





timfost said:


> Isn't it a WCF proof text for what is acceptable in worship, public or private?


That may be so, but I have a hard time seeing how it applies directly to public worship. While I don't dismiss the proof texts that were added to the Confession, I don't agree with them in every place.



TylerRay said:


> "Let him pluck an instrument"--Do you think that everyone to whom James was writing could play instruments? I think it's doubtful. Was he recommending that they all learn to play instruments so that they can express their joy? Again, it's very doubtful. Further, what relationship does plucking an instrument have to prayer, which is given as a parallel activity in this verse? It is clear that he is referring to singing. So, option #1 is out.





timfost said:


> You have not heard my argument. My argument all along is that the words _do not exclude instruments_. I made it clear on multiple occasions that one can offer praise to God without instruments. I made it clear that instruments, though they are an acceptable _circumstance _of praise, they are not requisite. Your argument hinges on me saying that instruments are _required_ under the RPW. Disagree with my argument if you wish, but disagreeing with an argument I didn't make doesn't offer any clarity in the matter.



You used Strong's definitions of _psallo_ as support for your position. So, I applied each definition to the text you cited in order to discern how the term is to be defined in context.

If your argument is "that the words _do not exclude instruments,_" then you right--I missed it. I thought you were trying to vindicate the use of instruments based on the words. I'll grant that the words don't exclude instruments--they are positive commands to sing, and do not include any caveats.




TylerRay said:


> "Let him sing along with instruments"--Do you think he was recommending that they find someone to accompany their singing when they want to express their joy? I hope you will agree that such an idea is ridiculous.





timfost said:


> Agreed. How does this apply to our conversation?





TylerRay said:


> "Let him make music"--This translation is so vague as to allow for any kind of music. I've already refuted the idea that it refers to plucking instruments or singing with accompaniment in this context.





timfost said:


> Sure. Our praises are in psalms (religious), hymns (religious) and spiritual songs (religious because of the word "spiritual," an adjective that clarifies the word songs (odes) which could be either religious or secular). The NAS renders it "sing praises."





TylerRay said:


> "Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing." Clearly, this is closer to what James is getting at. But what are they to sing? "Zip a Dee Doo Dah?" It's best to understand him as referring to the songs of the church, that is, the Psalms.





timfost said:


> Again, let's not make caracatures of a position I have never espoused.


Again, I was applying each of the definitions you supplied to the context in order to discern how the word was to be understood according to its usage. I was not saying that you espoused any of these particular views. My point was to show that the use of instruments cannot be vindicated by this passage by trying out each of the definitions.



TylerRay said:


> 2. I frankly don't understand how instruments aid in the clarity of singing. I'm able to understand the Psalms in our congregation, and we don't use instruments. How does having instrumental music make words more intelligible?





timfost said:


> We actually sing verbatim Psalms in my church. We have not "translated" the psalms into CM, LM, etc. meters in rhyme. Singing verbatim Psalms that don't fit into Western poetic stanzas requires stronger musical leadership so that the melodies, meters, etc. do not dictate our translations. Since you have opted for the poetic license taken in your psalter and forced the inspired Word into the parameters of a Western stanza and musical idiom, the comparison is lacking.


This isn't the place to debate what is the best way to sing the Psalms; however, I still don't understand how the words are made more intelligible by the use of instruments. The Psalms have been chanted a capella for two thousand years.



TylerRay said:


> I think my treatment of the passage in James is sufficient to show that Paul need not be understood to refer to plucking instruments.





timfost said:


> You have not proven that instruments are excluded as a circumstance. What you have proven was never disputed.


We were discussing the definition of the word _psallo_, not the dogmatic categories of circumstance and element.



TylerRay said:


> 3. This doesn't seem to be an argument for using instruments. Instead, it seems like an argument to disregard particulars in worship. I'll only answer that if the heart is in the right place, diligence will be given to see that the outward things are ordered properly.





timfost said:


> Do you believe that the early church was singing rhyming and metered psalms put to modern Western scales? At some point, if you are to be consistent, you're going to regulate praise right out of worship.


No, sir, they were chanting them. You'll have to prove the logical necessity of the assertion in your second sentence. Our metrical Psalms are excellent translations, and often give a more literal rendering than the prose translations.



timfost said:


> Brother, I have written strongly against some of the things you said. I am trying to be concise. Having spoken frankly with you before and received the same, I trust that you understand I'm opposing your position, not in any way trying to imply that you are less than sincere or have any other motive than to glorify God.


No worries there. I hope that we have a mutual understanding on that point.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

bookslover said:


> If we are not to use musical instruments today, why are they not explicitly banned in the New Testament?


The regulative principle of worship (RPW) denies the often heard "_well, if it is not prohibited, it can be done_". The RPW requires something to be _commanded_ by God, expressly or by good and necessary consequence, for worship.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n

You either believe that worship can have instruments or you don't. If you're not convinced they can, then there's your answer. If you believe they can be used, I would ask your pastor how your particular gift (instrument) can be incorporated into the worship service.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

I hate to bring this up again but the only instruments that can be used in the worship of God are the instruments that God has commanded us to use, using anything else would be sinful. Pianos, guitars, kazoos, banjos are all forbidden, there is no way around this unless you embrace the normative principle of worship.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost

Andrew P.C. said:


> I know you aren’t addressing me, but doesn’t the one making the argument that it is circumstaial need to prove such a statement?



If microphones are a circumstance of worship because they aid in speaking/hearing, why not instruments which are an aid to singing?

Not sure what you want me to prove...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

What is required to perform every action is attached as a circumstance to that action, even _worship _(an action). "Aids" are not requirements, hence they are not circumstantial.


----------



## bookslover

BG said:


> I hate to bring this up again but the only instruments that can be used in the worship of God are the instruments that God has commanded us to use, using anything else would be sinful. Pianos, guitars, kazoos, banjos are all forbidden, there is no way around this unless you embrace the normative principle of worship.



Bill, if you look at the musical instruments spoken of in the Old Testament, you'll find that all four categories - brass, woodwind, strings, and percussion - are represented. (The piano, as I mentioned before, is a percussion instrument, by the way.) Therefore, instruments from all four groups are permitted. (I _would_ hesitate at the kazoo, though!)


----------



## Cymro

I hesitated to join in the discussion as I am on a short holiday in the Alsace, and have not deliberated on the responses as I should. But it is my view that the the question is, whether instruments belong to the old economy of the ceremonial, or that they continue in our day. The church being in a state of minority as to their spiritual ability, was accommodated by the support of these carnal elements. They were part of the glory of the old dispensation worship, which glory has been done away with by a more excellent glory. No longer shadow and type, but the day has broken and the shadows have fled away. If then I retain the one part of the ceremonial, I must logically and necessarily keep the the rest. So that candles and vestments, priesthoods and incense,these are a list of my Romish things.( sorry, I could not resist the rhythm). To my mind instruments were ceremonially tutoring the infant church of the glory of praising God. But now the simplicity of NT worship has supplanted the weak and beggarly elements, and given liberty to the tongue as man's chief organ of praise.
As to the original question, (if I might bring in a personal testimony in reference to my wife who has a good musical pedigree,) she exercised her gift in the church in Singapore. This was by teaching the Chinese children the tunes of the English metrical Psalms (Welsh ones included), and how to open their mouths in delivery. The children were between five and Fourteen, and can sing some in harmony, and have memorised many. They now can sing them in Mandarin also, though this was by the labours of another brother in the church. Employing a musical gift to promote and instil the word of God into young minds. As an aside, it is quite an experience hearing Chinese children, singing a Welsh tune to the Scottish metrical Psalms!

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What is required to perform every action is attached as a circumstance to that action, even _worship _(an action). "Aids" are not requirements, hence they are not circumstantial.


I've not heard this regarding circumstance before. Would you say that air conditioning or seats are not circumstances, since they are not required for the performance of worship? I though we spoke of circumstances as the, er, circumstances in which we worshipped: building, lights, psalters, microphones (at least we sing without those)--not essential parts of the service, but providing shelter and a lack of interruption while worship carries on.
Do you have a different view of the word 'circumstance'?


----------



## BG

bookslover said:


> Bill, if you look at the musical instruments spoken of in the Old Testament, you'll find that all four categories - brass, woodwind, strings, and percussion - are represented. (The piano, as I mentioned before, is a percussion instrument, by the way.) Therefore, instruments from all four groups are permitted. (I _would_ hesitate at the kazoo, though!)




A stone is a type of building material therefore the temple could be wood.
A lamb is a type of animal therefore you can sacrifice a turtle.
You see where I am going. If instrument are permitted in worship (I am EP and disagree) then only what God has specifically commanded are permitted other wise we are practicing the normative principle. We can't use our imaginations to come up with creative ways to justify what we want to do in worship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What is required to perform every action is attached as a circumstance to that action, even _worship _(an action). "Aids" are not requirements, hence they are not circumstantial.



In this case, microphones are not required either. Just get everybody really close or have speakers with loud voices as they've done for the past 400 years.

I believe your definition and application of circumstance is far too restrictive. The OPC's DPW is helpful in this matter. I I don't think I have much more to contribute to this conversation...


----------



## timfost

BG said:


> Pianos, guitars, kazoos, banjos are all forbidden, there is no way around this unless you embrace the normative principle of worship.



If you insist...

Sometimes I wonder why you don't worship on Saturday. After all, the Bible does not explicitly command Sunday worship.

Your arguments against instruments (and uninspired music) in worship sound much like the SDA's arguments against Sunday Sabbath.

https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/37/t/is-sunday-really-sacred-


----------



## BG

Wow Tim i did not expect that reply. I know we both want to glorify God in worship by obeying His word. I was just restating what the Confession teaches .

True worship is instituted by God.
Limited by his revealed will.
He may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of man.
God may not be worshiped in any way other than what He has prescribed in Scripture.

CHAPTER 21
Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day



1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.a But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.b

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922

timfost said:


> If you insist...
> 
> Sometimes I wonder why you don't worship on Saturday. After all, the Bible does not explicitly command Sunday worship.
> 
> Your arguments against instruments (and uninspired music) in worship sound much like the SDA's arguments against Sunday Sabbath.
> 
> https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/37/t/is-sunday-really-sacred-



Tim, the RPW is clear. I really can't tell if you follow the RPW by your use of this kind of argumentation. It is by direct command or by good and necessary consequence can be deduced from Scripture or by clear example (in God's public worship). Those things and those things only must we do and can we do in His worship. You seem to be cherry-picking facts from Scripture.

1) We worship on Sunday the Lord's day because of good and necessary consequence and due to clear example from Jesus Himself and the early church.

2) Back to instruments. There are a variety of instruments used, you can categorize them however you'd like, but this one truth and one truth alone you should know. That instruments were introduced only in the worship via the temple (i.e. ceremonial law) in the OT. You don't find them outside of that in public worship at any point in all of Scripture. It is always with reference to the priesthood (Levitical).

Further, there is no NT command, nothing by good and necessary consequence, and nothing given by example in the NT that would lead anyone to come to the conclusion that we ought to use instruments in public worship.

Next, Bill G is correct. Our God not only commands the elements of His worship and what is to be done but how to do it and with what. If you are committed to the pro-instrument position, then it is required in accord with the RPW that you use the instruments He has commanded. You don't get to choose your own or how you want to use the instruments, the instruments the Lord commands or can be deduced from good/necessary consequence must be used (not can be used, they must be used). In fact, you must be using the instrument of your heart, that is clear (Eph. 5:19).

Finally, Tim you stated,



> If microphones are a circumstance of worship because they aid in speaking/hearing, why not instruments which are an aid to singing?





> In this case, microphones are not required either. Just get everybody really close or have speakers with loud voices as they've done for the past 400 years.



Microphones aren't required. I'm happy you finally see this. For some they are needed as an aid to speaking/hearing. But the use of microphones as aides in worship, or lighting, or air conditioning for comfort, or the time to gather for worship on the Lord's day for being organized and orderly, while they are circumstances that doesn't prove then that instruments are circumstances as well. Because these things (e.g. microphones, etc) are not referred on in Scripture at all, therefore they are circumstances. Your 'why not' question is verging on Lutheran or normative principle thought. Instruments are specifically referenced in Scripture, they were required under the ceremonial law. For this reason alone they can't be circumstances of worship. The ceremonial law has been abrogated having been fulfilled in Christ, therefore instruments are not to be used in public worship today. Further, there is no command or anything by good and necessary consequence that would lead us to believe that we must use instruments in worship today from the Scriptures. If we are to use instruments in worship, then to be consistent, we must be sacrificing animals on the altar as well.


P.S. The OPC's Directory states,


> In matters of circumstance and form in worship not specifically provided for in Scripture...


 Circumstances aren't referred to in Scripture.


> ...the circumstances and forms of worship are consonant with God's Word...


 Circumstances are consonant with God's word.


> Moreover, in ordinary circumstances they are properly administered only in a gathering of the congregation for the public worship of God, baptism being a sacrament whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and the Lord's Supper signifying and sealing the communion of believers with Christ and with each other as members of his mystical body. Nevertheless, if a session judges that circumstances require otherwise, the sacraments may be administered elsewhere; but, in any event, the church must be represented in the service.


 Location (Location of worship and where we perform sacraments is not detailed in Scripture whatsoever - thus a circumstance).

So you say that the OPC's view of circumstance is good. I agree, but it appears you do not based in how you have argued your case here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Parakaleo

timfost said:


> If you insist...
> 
> Sometimes I wonder why you don't worship on Saturday. After all, the Bible does not explicitly command Sunday worship.
> 
> Your arguments against instruments (and uninspired music) in worship sound much like the SDA's arguments against Sunday Sabbath.



It isn't Bill insisting, it's God who insists.

The actual RPW does not require an explicit command, but soundly deduced proof of authorization is perfectly acceptable. For things such as the Sunday Sabbath and the baptism of women, this is easily found.

Where is the soundly deduced proof of authorization for musical instruments in the New Testament (I could also add uninspired songs here)? This is what all these brothers have been trying to help you understand: it isn't there. If the RPW is granted, God's silence on his desire for musical instruments in New Testament worship and the Holy Spirit's omission of anything that can be used to deduce proof of their authorization is altogether the same as God's command against them. Using them is sin. This is what I came to terms with myself (over much protest, I might add). The great encouragement is that it's worth losing anything-up-to-everything if it is for the sake of doing what God has commanded.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

BG said:


> Wow Tim i did not expect that reply. I know we both want to glorify God in worship by obeying His word. I was just restating what the Confession teaches .



Dear Bill,

Yes, I agree that we both want to glorify God. I agree that the day to worship God is Sunday. It is discouraging when no matter how much I, or whole faithful denominations such as the OPC, have it imposed on us that we operate according to the NPW. We do not. It seems like you cover your ears and hear what you want. Disagreements should be expected when we operate using necessary consequence, but it does not mean that those who disagree with what you understand to be necessary consequence have thrown out the principle. I used the example of Sunday/Saturday Sabbath to illustrate the point. If you read through the arguments in the link from the Saturday Sabbath advocates, they resemble your arguments against both hymnody and instruments. 

I believe that your understanding of the RPW is unnecessarily restrictive. You may think otherwise, but it does not mean that we operate on different principles. Frankly, I think repeated allegations that we operate by the NPW are divisive and ignorant.

Did David play a harp when he worshipped? Consider 2 Sam. 6:5:

"Then David and all the house of Israel played _music_ before the Lord on all kinds of _instruments of_ fir wood, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on sistrums, and on cymbals."

We know that David was not of Levi, yet he praised God with instruments. Now if instruments are so tied to temple worship which was to be conducted by the Levites, either David was violating what was prescribed in worship, or he was able to use musical instruments as a circumstance of his own worship, even in the OT. Even if instruments were an element of temple worship in the OT, they were also a circumstance simultaneously. Consider other elements that were part of temple worship such as 1) plates (Lev. 8:9), 2) bowls (Ex. 25:31), 3) lampstands (Ex. 25:31, possibly equivalent to electric light fixtures?). If we set the communion cup on a plate, have we returned to OT worship because we have used the same object? If we sprinkle water in baptism from a bowl, have we returned to the old covenant? If we use lampstands (or have lights in fixtures), are we playing priest? If God commanded these things to be used in OT temple worship, should we avoid all of them under the new covenant?

Again, brother, I believe that you are seeking to glorify God. But at the same time, I think that your comparison of musical instruments to temple worship is wholly lacking.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

A bit of a ramble and I'm not of a mood to interact (family tragedy yesterday) but I think these thoughts are pertinent if jumbled. So I'm simply leaving them for what they may be worth for consideration. 

If the argument is for instruments on a circumstantial basis to aid the singing it has to be still a matter that is in the church's power to appoint (this is the point Girardeau is making; that the church cannot via a circumstance alter the nature of an element of worship). A true circumstantial matter is indifferent in the determination but not unregulated. 

So if the instrument is to aid merely staying on key like a pitch pipe or the voice of a trained precentor, it truly has to do that without altering the worship. But if it fails that measure of indifference (as with anything indifferent) and makes the worship foolish or gets in the way of the singing, like a kazoo or an all drowning out pipe organ, it simply is no longer indifferent and that choice is not an option. 

And so while on that subject; mood music (to fill the silence) is not a circumstance; mood music alters the worship in seeking to stir up the worshiper in a way a pitch pipe does not in aiding the singing, or a seat cushion the comfortable posture of a worshipper, the A/C a comfortable environment, etc. The choice of mood music is not in the church's power to impose. 

Now, as a matter of instruments as a circumstance to aid the worship, a large portion of the NT church over time viewed instrumental music as the sound track of OT typical worship and as much a part of it as the alter, the bloody sacrifice, the holy days, etc; so, if we can bring them back as something indifferent circumstantially as an aid to singing, and only that, why not bring back incense if that will make being in the room more pleasant, all the while avowing there is no intent to impose this via anything but some sort of circumstantial argument? Nicer dress for the minster; bring back the mitre? But these are only circumstantial matters? So that the things brought in circumstantially look like the OT worship doesn't matter, right? I don't' think so. 

We could make our worship look like a high RC mass through such arguing, much like the anglocatholics did in imposing the church calendar back onto Scotland, saying, '_but we don't mean the same thing as the RCC and our goal in making our worship look as similar as possible to them is to win them to the reformation_.' Indifferent circumstantial choices are regulated by the rules of indifference and these must be kept in mind. https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-of-piety-charity-purity.85390/#post-1064654

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## timfost

Andrew,

I believe I addressed some of your points in my last reply to Bill. In the OPC's DPW, it gives a key at the beginning:

"1. Practices that are mandated are denoted by "shall," "will," "is to be," "must," and "are to be."

The following three categories denote practices that are not mandated:

2. Practices that are strongly recommended are denoted by "should," "ought to," "is desirable," and "is advisable."

3. Practices that are commended as suitable are denoted by "is appropriate," "is well," and "*is fitting*."

4. Practices that are permissible are denoted by "may.""


When it speaks about musical instruments, it says:


"Because musicians and musical instruments serve the part of worship that is performed by the congregation, it *is fitting* that they be positioned with or behind the congregation."

In their thinking, musical instruments are consonant with the WCF's teaching on worship. Do you disagree with them?


----------



## Romans922

timfost said:


> If microphones are a circumstance of worship because they aid in speaking/hearing, why not instruments which are an aid to singing?





timfost said:


> When it speaks about musical instruments, it says:
> 
> 
> "Because musicians and musical instruments serve the part of worship that is performed by the congregation, it *is fitting* that they be positioned with or behind the congregation."
> 
> In their thinking, musical instruments are consonant with the WCF's teaching on worship. Do you disagree with them?



Absolutely I disagree with them. 

But what I was speaking of was their use of 'circumstance'. It seems your use of 'circumstance' disagrees with theirs. Of course, it seems they disagree with themselves there with their definition of circumstance before that. Clearly they do not believe it is an element of worship. But it is almost as if they don't consider it a circumstance either given their definition early in their DPW. That was all a side note though (hency, P.S.).

I don't believe you have addressed all the rest of my thoughts. I would also like to add that burden of proof has been brought up. When it comes to the RPW, the burden of proof always lies with the one wanting to do something in the public worship of God. Those things wanted to be done, must be proven that they must be done from God's word. In this case, it is not the burden of anyone who is against the use of instruments to prove they shouldn't be used. The burden falls upon the one believing instruments should be used to prove from Scripture they should be used. It would be the same thing if, for example, I wanted to have dance in public worship. I would have to prove that, not the one who doesn't want dance in public worship.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## timfost

NaphtaliPress said:


> (family tragedy yesterday)



Chris, I'm sorry to hear. Please let us know how we can pray.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

timfost said:


> Chris, I'm sorry to hear. Please let us know how we can pray.


My niece's husband passed away suddenly. Two young teenage children. They belong to a PCA in Pa.

Reactions: Praying 4 | Sad 1


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> Disagreements should be expected when we operate using necessary consequence


Not so, brother. The conclusion is the _necessary_ consequence of Scriptural propositions. We're talking about set-in-stone laws of logic, not something speculative.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

TylerRay said:


> Not so, brother. The conclusion is the _necessary_ consequence of Scriptural propositions. We're talking about set-in-stone laws of logic, not something speculative.



Brother, I think you have too high of an opinion of your logic...

As my pastor has said before, we will find out who was right someday and none of us will say "I told you so." 

Thank you all for conversing.


----------



## TylerRay

timfost said:


> Brother, I think you have too high of an opinion of your logic...


If that is the case, then so do the Westminster standards and all Reformed churches, who assert that the consequences are necessary.

Tell me, is the conclusion of the following syllogism logically necessary or not?

Major premise: All men are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.


----------



## timfost

TylerRay said:


> If that is the case, then so do the Westminster standards and all Reformed churches, who assert that the consequences are necessary.
> 
> Tell me, is the conclusion of the following syllogism logically necessary or not?
> 
> Major premise: All men are mortal
> Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
> Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.



Thanks again for discussing.

Reactions: Sad 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner

NaphtaliPress said:


> My niece's husband passed away suddenly. Two young teenage children. They belong to a PCA in Pa.



I'm so sorry.  The Lord be with them through this sorrowful valley. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bookslover

Romans922 said:


> . . .there is no NT command, nothing by good and necessary consequence, and nothing given by example in the NT that would lead anyone to come to the conclusion that we ought to use instruments in public worship.



This works exactly the other way, too: ". . .lead anyone to come to the conclusion that we ought *not* to use instruments in public worship."


----------



## Romans922

> This works exactly the other way, too: ". . .*there is no NT command, nothing by good and necessary consequence, and nothing given by example in the NT that would* lead anyone to come to the conclusion that we ought *not* to use instruments in public worship."


 (Bold for what you left out of my quote that brings clarity. I did not say, "*not*" so I underlined it.)

It doesn’t work both ways. Nor is your double negative helpful. You are employing the normative principle. We aren't looking for "what does God forbid?" We are looking for what does God command. That's the RPW, which shows what we ought to do in worship. To figure out what we ought the do in worship, we must find it in God’s word (RPW). If the word clearly shows what we ought not to do in worship that is great too.

However, there is nothing in scripture (RPW) to lead us to the conclusion that we ought to use instruments. There is everything to show that we ought not to use them. Given they were expressly set forth under the ceremonial law, and they have been fulfilled in Christ, we know then they are not commanded by God for His worship today.


----------



## Parakaleo

A pretty helpful article on this subject from Pastor Brad Freeman of the Presbyterian Reformed Church.

An excerpt:



> Even if instrumental music could be considered as an aid to worship, the Lord still strictly controls what aids are allowed in His worship. The Israelites, in their zeal to offer to the Lord true worship, nevertheless committed idolatry when they forged the golden calf at Sinai to magnify the great power of God. They weren’t blind pagans; they intended to worship the God of Israel, not some pagan deity. But in their desire for an aid to worship, they sinned and instead provoked the wrath of God. To them the golden calf was an aid to worship that they thought the Lord would have allowed, but to the Lord it was an unauthorized aid that He abhorred. In matters of worship, both reason and the will of man is a fatal guide. We would do well to remember the words of Solomon in Prov. 16:25, _“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

Rather pertinent to the topic and highly edifying!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922

Here's a good sermon series (1-25 especially for this topic) by our own Todd Ruddell. It covers every mention of music throughout Scripture and covers Psalmody and Instruments. Edifying for all.

http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/sermons/distinctives/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

I'm studying the issue some more and have some questions. Please answer any or all. Thanks in advance.

1. Were instruments an element of worship in the OT? What proof texts can you provide?

2. Could saints in the OT sing to God without musical instruments?

3. What, if any, differences in praise do we find in Temple worship and synagogue worship in the OT?

4. What was prescribed for private worship in the OT? How was it different from temple worship? How was it different from synagogue worship?

5. Did Moses establish the use of instruments in temple worship?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

Tim, perhaps helpful to a couple of your questions, 2 Chronicles 29:25--30 has been rather poignant for me. The entire passage is about the re-institution of temple worship under Hezekiah, and over and over it states that it was done in accordance with what the Lord had prescribed (through Moses), or David, then this section on the instruments:



> And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, *according to the commandment of David,* and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: *for so was the commandment of the LORD* by his prophets. And the Levites stood *with the instruments of David,* and the priests with the trumpets. And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began _also_ with the trumpets, and *with the instruments ordained by David* king of Israel. And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: _and_ all _this continued _until the burnt offering was finished. And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped. Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD *with the words of David,* and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.



Nothing was done in accordance with the command of Hezekiah. The writer goes out of his way to say that the worship, including instruments and the songs themselves, had been ordained by God. So as some others have pointed out, if instruments are part of worship, then it seems that those would necessarily be the same instruments which had been commanded.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Logan said:


> Tim, perhaps helpful to a couple of your questions, 2 Chronicles 29:25--30 has been rather poignant for me. The entire passage is about the re-institution of temple worship under Hezekiah, and over and over it states that it was done in accordance with what the Lord had prescribed (through Moses), or David, then this section on the instruments:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing was done in accordance with the command of Hezekiah. The writer goes out of his way to say that the worship, including instruments and the songs themselves, had been ordained by God. So as some others have pointed out, if instruments are part of worship, then it seems that those would necessarily be the same instruments which had been commanded.



Thanks, Logan. Would you say that David's command to use instruments had prophetic authority? Would temple praise have been sinful without instruments? Would any OT praise be sinful without instruments? Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

timfost said:


> Thanks, Logan. Would you say that David's command to use instruments had prophetic authority? Would temple praise have been sinful without instruments? Would any OT praise be sinful without instruments? Thanks!



Yes God commanded it.
1chr 28;12
1chr 28;19
2chr 29;25

It would have been sinful to not use instruments during the sacrifice and sinful to use them after.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Additionally, were instruments appropriate for praise prior to David commanding them?


----------



## Afterthought

Just some observations on one of the Scriptures cited.

2 Sam. 6:5.

a) I would note that David is the one in charge of these innovations as commandments of the Lord and even has a priestly role to play (e.g., the linen ephod he later dons), so this should not be viewed as an issue.
b) It is also not clear whether David himself actually played the instruments or commanded them to be played by representatives because we see similar language when we know only Levites are playing (1 Chronicles 15).
c) From the Chronicles, we see that the occasion in 1 Sam. 6:5 was not done after the due order. When the Lord was sought for the due order, only the Levites were appointed to play the instruments.
d) It is also interesting to notice the progress of instruments in biblical history. We have trumpets appointed to blow over the sacrifice in reminder of Sinai (indeed, Hebrews tells us we have not come to the sound of a trumpet). These trumpets remain, but they are embellished by instruments associated with prophecy and with joyful celebration. It's as if this is a picture way of stating law and gospel prophecy are associated with the sacrifice and service of song (and these themselves have a prophetical character).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans922

Afterthought said:


> d) It is also interesting to notice the progress of instruments in biblical history.



Yes, interesting that those Levites who carried the ark, when there was no more reason for them to carry the ark anymore, the Lord through David gave them a new task of instrument players for the worship in the temple.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Afterthought said:


> a) I would note that David is the one in charge of these innovations as commandments of the Lord and even has a priestly role to play (e.g., the linen ephod he later dons), so this should not be viewed as an issue.



Did Miriam violate the RPW, Ex. 15:20-21 having used instruments before they were commanded?


----------



## Romans922

timfost said:


> Did Miriam violate the RPW, Ex. 15:20-21 having used instruments before they were commanded?



Tim, an important thing to remember when looking at the many verses in Scripture pertaining to music (and there are many - I believe all documented by the sermon series by Todd Ruddell that I linked above), or really any other topic - preaching/prophesying/singing/praying...when we are talking about the RPW we must ask the question, "Does the example of this (e.g. Ex. 15:20-21 or whatever) come in the context of God's Public/corporate worship?" 

For example, David dancing before the ark? Is that occasion of David dancing before the ark come in the context of public worship? The answer is "no". I believe if we study what Miriam was doing and the context of it, that we would conclude that she was playing these instruments with the women and dancing in the context of the private life (or outside of public worship). Remember for Israel, public worship wasn't instituted yet not until Mt. Sinai. And again, if we were to say this is an instance of public worship (which I think we would all agree it isn't) for argument sake, then we would also have to consider dancing in public worship given the context. I hope that makes sense, namely, we have to ask in particular examples "Does this come in the context of public worship?" Now if it doesn't, asking what can we learn from this text about music or dancing and what they were all doing in regular life outside of corporate worship? Hope that helps.

So in this case I would say that no Miriam didn't violate the RPW because she was not doing this in the context of corporate worship, she was doing this in celebration of life outside of holy corporate worship in which the Lord had just delivered Israel from the Egyptians. A fine thing to celebrate just as we would celebrate hopefully with a party and music, dancing perhaps if someone with cancer was healed by the Lord.


----------



## timfost

Romans922 said:


> .. Mecontext of God's Public/corporate worship?"



Are we permitted to act according to the NPW in worship?

Can we prove that Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16 and James 5:13 are speaking about public worship?

Can we prove that congregational singing is commanded explicitly or by necessary consequence?

Thanks for your help.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Afterthought

Miriam is mentioned to be a prophetess, and "the women going out after" shows them to participate in her prophetic act. That is sufficient warrant for then; the mention of her being a prophetess means that this is a prophetic action and so it is also an action authorized by the Lord. Additionally, prophecy continues to go together with musical instruments throughout the OT, including something like a taboret or timbrel. In this case, Miriam takes up the customary mode of celebration in Israel (women dancing with timbrels) into the prophetic act.

As for this providing a precedent now (or afterwards in Israel, for that matter; although we find women dancing with timbrels, it is as a customary mode of civil celebration; we do find prophets continuing to use instruments), we need someone with a prophetical gift to duplicate the warrant. (There are different views concerning the details of the passage, but I think this provides a sufficient response for the question at hand.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

Ligonier says this in regards to Psalm 150. Thoughts?

Today’s passage orders us to praise God with virtually every kind of instrument available. In fact, any instrument not included in Psalm 150 is only a new form or derivation of the ones listed. This tells us there is no instrument that is inherently improper for use in our services of praise. To be sure, there may be instruments that are not wise to use in a particular context, but we cannot say that God absolutely forbids certain instruments in worship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Ligonier says this in regards to Psalm 150. Thoughts?
> 
> Today’s passage orders us to praise God with virtually every kind of instrument available. In fact, any instrument not included in Psalm 150 is only a new form or derivation of the ones listed. This tells us there is no instrument that is inherently improper for use in our services of praise. To be sure, there may be instruments that are not wise to use in a particular context, but we cannot say that God absolutely forbids certain instruments in worship.


It begins by saying to praise God in his sanctuary, i.e., his holy place. The instruments passed away with the holy place itself.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Afterthought

Robert Godfrey has an interesting understanding of Psalm 150: https://www.wscal.edu/resource-center/praise-the-lord-psalm-150

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Held Fast

Ben Zartman said:


> Why do you say that the desire to know God's will and do it carefully (law and regulation) destroys worship? It is the essence of worship to give God what is His due, and the desire of the sincere Christian to seek out God's will so that he may do that. Law and regulation are the Christian's delight. See Psalm 119 for this. Now there is no question that the right thing can be offered by an insincere and legalistic heart, but that does not negate the duty of the sincere heart to worship aright. "They that worship the Father shall worship Him in _spirit_ (sincerely) and in _truth_ (according to His prescription)".



Sorry for the delayed response. The Pharisees and many before them desired to know God's will and do it carefully, and destroyed worship soundly, and split Israel with it. It is the Christian's delight to please God, and the tension is not to confuse legalism with pleasing God. I can be sincere in my legalism, and it bring a stench to the nostrils of God. The opposite extreme is likewise displeasing to God.


----------



## TylerRay

Held Fast said:


> Sorry for the delayed response. The Pharisees and many before them desired to know God's will and do it carefully, and destroyed worship soundly, and split Israel with it. It is the Christian's delight to please God, and the tension is not to confuse legalism with pleasing God. I can be sincere in my legalism, and it bring a stench to the nostrils of God. The opposite extreme is likewise displeasing to God.


Sir, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but it really sounds like you are maintaining that a serious study of the law of God destroys piety. Why do you think that God gave us his law, and commanded us to meditate in it day and night? Why does he require that it be in our hearts and never depart out of our mouths? Why does he command that we speak of it when we sit in our house, when we walk by the way, when we lie down, and when we rise up? Why does he require us to teach it diligently to our children? Surely he means us to increase our piety by meditating in his law, not thereby to destroy it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Gforce9

Held Fast said:


> Sorry for the delayed response. The Pharisees and many before them desired to know God's will and do it carefully, and destroyed worship soundly, and split Israel with it. It is the Christian's delight to please God, and the tension is not to confuse legalism with pleasing God. I can be sincere in my legalism, and it bring a stench to the nostrils of God. The opposite extreme is likewise displeasing to God.



Pastor,
I would like to state upfront that I am not yet convinced of Acapella EP. It is early in the investigation process. Manifestly, I understand that it is a serious offense to _add_ to what God has commanded (legalism). Also, it _should_ be the Christians delight to please God. As Tyler stated, the Law should be our delight (3rd use). If Christians, through careful study of God's word conclude that He has commanded something, either explicitly or through good and necessary consequence, should we not do it? How could that _possibly_ be legalism? We also know that our hearts are a cesspool of unrighteousness. Is it not much better to follow what is more sure than the ground we walk upon than to either, 1) do what pleases us or 2) trust our corrupt hearts to worship rightly?

If we don't do what God has commanded, what is that called?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Held Fast said:


> Sorry for the delayed response. The Pharisees and many before them desired to know God's will and do it carefully, and destroyed worship soundly, and split Israel with it. It is the Christian's delight to please God, and the tension is not to confuse legalism with pleasing God. I can be sincere in my legalism, and it bring a stench to the nostrils of God. The opposite extreme is likewise displeasing to God.


Our Lord called the Pharisees hypocrites and whitewashed sepulcres. He accused them of elevating the traditions of men above God's law. They were adding to what God had said. Sincere? Jesus din't think so. Careful? only for outward appearances. No, if they had been circumcised of heart, they would have wanted to do exactly what God commanded, and they would have done it out of love to God, rather than love of self.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Held Fast

I would imagine you read my previous post where I stated I believe the Christian should be in tension. The simple truth is the Pharisees believed they were sincere in observing the law, and yet they were not. The difference then is significant - simply stating that one is sincere in their piety does not sincere piety make, as scripture attests. It is the heart of the worshipper ... the spirit, in "spirit and truth." One would be assuming very much to imagine that I am opposed to a serious study of the law, or a sincere desire to keep it. Likewise one would be assuming much to imagine that serious study of the law and a sincere desire to keep it is a sure defense against becoming a white washed tomb. That same heart that is a cesspool of unrighteousness will just as surely twist the law, as it will license and liberty - is that not the testimony of Christ in all of His dealings with the Pharisees? They have the law, but their hearts were far from Him. I will simply repeat: I believe the Christian should live in the tension, and not become complacent in imagining that their sincere devotion to the commandments of God is somehow different that that of the Pharisees. It is the heart of the one following the law that reveals the motives of their law keeping - keeping the law itself is no guarantee that the motive within is pure.

One's definition of legalism must acknowledge subjectivity due to the corruptness of the human heart. One can feel very strongly that the Lord has commanded, or due to necessary and reasonable consequence, a practice of worship. They can validate that with their confession and tradition, and even the testimony of good Godly counsel. And yet legalism is when the human heart elevates the law over worship, when the object of worship in the heart of the person is law-keeping, and not the law-Giver. A tell-tale sign of this subtle form of idolatry, is when it matters most to them when others are not law-keeping. The serpent is the most subtle of all creatures, and our hearts are prone to subtle sins, particularly when we consider ourselves most knowledgeable of righteousness. Pastorally then I implore you to examine your hearts constantly in your pursuit of "right worship" for the subtle shifts that make idols of the very laws God gave us for our good and His glory. I'd rather you always question yourself, be uncomfortable, lean on mercy and grace, than to risk feeling settled and wind up with the Pharisees. Their worship was distinctly absent of any God orientation, or need for God in worship, even though it observed all the forms commanded, and was highly regulated.


----------



## TylerRay

Held Fast said:


> I would imagine you read my previous post where I stated I believe the Christian should be in tension. The simple truth is the Pharisees believed they were sincere in observing the law, and yet they were not. The difference then is significant - simply stating that one is sincere in their piety does not sincere piety make, as scripture attests. It is the heart of the worshipper ... the spirit, in "spirit and truth." One would be assuming very much to imagine that I am opposed to a serious study of the law, or a sincere desire to keep it. Likewise one would be assuming much to imagine that serious study of the law and a sincere desire to keep it is a sure defense against becoming a white washed tomb. That same heart that is a cesspool of unrighteousness will just as surely twist the law, as it will license and liberty - is that not the testimony of Christ in all of His dealings with the Pharisees? They have the law, but their hearts were far from Him. I will simply repeat: I believe the Christian should live in the tension, and not become complacent in imagining that their sincere devotion to the commandments of God is somehow different that that of the Pharisees. It is the heart of the one following the law that reveals the motives of their law keeping - keeping the law itself is no guarantee that the motive within is pure.
> 
> One's definition of legalism must acknowledge subjectivity due to the corruptness of the human heart. One can feel very strongly that the Lord has commanded, or due to necessary and reasonable consequence, a practice of worship. They can validate that with their confession and tradition, and even the testimony of good Godly counsel. And yet legalism is when the human heart elevates the law over worship, when the object of worship in the heart of the person is law-keeping, and not the law-Giver. A tell-tale sign of this subtle form of idolatry, is when it matters most to them when others are not law-keeping. The serpent is the most subtle of all creatures, and our hearts are prone to subtle sins, particularly when we consider ourselves most knowledgeable of righteousness. Pastorally then I implore you to examine your hearts constantly in your pursuit of "right worship" for the subtle shifts that make idols of the very laws God gave us for our good and His glory. I'd rather you always question yourself, be uncomfortable, lean on mercy and grace, than to risk feeling settled and wind up with the Pharisees. Their worship was distinctly absent of any God orientation, or need for God in worship, even though it observed all the forms commanded, and was highly regulated.


Rev. Nelson,

I think the root of the problem is a mistaken notion about law keeping and the nature of the law itself. The law is summarized and under-girded by two commandments--to love God, and to love one's neighbor. If these are not done, the law is not kept.



> The simple truth is the Pharisees believed they were sincere in observing the law, and yet they were not.


The Pharisees didn't love God with all of their hearts and their neighbor as themselves; ergo they weren't keeping the law, whatever their self-deluded notions might have been.



> It is the heart of the worshipper ... the spirit, in "spirit and truth."


That's the law.



> Likewise one would be assuming much to imagine that serious study of the law and a sincere desire to keep it is a sure defense against becoming a white washed tomb.


If one loves God and his neighbor (i.e., keeping the law), he will not become a whitewashed tomb.



> They have the law, but their hearts were far from Him.


If their hearts were far from him, they weren't keeping the law. What they needed to do was to repent and keep the law by loving God and their neighbors.



> And yet legalism is when the human heart elevates the law over worship, when the object of worship in the heart of the person is law-keeping, and not the law-Giver.


Again, the law cannot be "elevated over worship" because worship is law keeping--it is loving God. Further, if the law is worshiped, it is not kept.



> Pastorally then I implore you to examine your hearts constantly in your pursuit of "right worship" for the subtle shifts that make idols of the very laws God gave us for our good and His glory.


That is an important exhortation, and I would add my amen to it. However, it should be noted that to examine one's heart is to test one's law keeping--it is to see if one is loving God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself. The end goal in self-examination is faithful law keeping.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Held Fast

Tyler, I do not disagree with anything you've posted. And yet I have seen the law elevated over worship when one places the regulation at odds with love of God and love of Neighbor. And I have seen it so many times, in so many churches that I believe what you posted above is what is oft stated as what a church is doing, and yet is not in fact what a church is doing. I have witnessed on more than one occasion the Regulatory Principle of Worship used as a garrote to throttle one's neighbor; the exact language used in this thread and others was proliferate, and any attempt to suggest that what was being done was not, as you identify, actually keeping the law, was soundly rejected just as some of my posts have been, as a desire to abandon the law. We speak of it here in the thread as though its a simple matter, clean, precise, well understood and practiced well by all in agreement. Reality though reveals that no one keeps the law, not one, even amongst the elect, and the serpent loves to shift well intentioned law keepers just a 1/2 bubble off plumb.

I would be having this same conversation with those who observe no regulatory principle in worship, and indeed have had to do so recently in my official duties as we have some junior pastors that seem to think worship is a free for all - all that matters is sincerity. But the bent of this forum is to law keeping, so my replies have only been to that view. I've said my piece, I urge caution to myself and all those whose desire is to keep the sum of the law in worship, to ensure that the law stays in its proper place, and to recognize my heart is prone to wander.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922

Held Fast said:


> I would say the healthy place for the Christian is to live in the tension.





Held Fast said:


> Tyler, I do not disagree with anything you've posted. And yet I have seen the law elevated over worship when one places the regulation at odds with love of God and love of Neighbor. And I have seen it so many times, in so many churches that I believe what you posted above is what is oft stated as what a church is doing, and yet is not in fact what a church is doing. I have witnessed on more than one occasion the Regulatory Principle of Worship used as a garrote to throttle one's neighbor; the exact language used in this thread and others was proliferate, and any attempt to suggest that what was being done was not, as you identify, actually keeping the law, was soundly rejected just as some of my posts have been, as a desire to abandon the law. We speak of it here in the thread as though its a simple matter, clean, precise, well understood and practiced well by all in agreement. Reality though reveals that no one keeps the law, not one, even amongst the elect, and the serpent loves to shift well intentioned law keepers just a 1/2 bubble off plumb.



Rob,

There is no tension needed. What you are espousing is some form of antinomianism. God is a holy God. His law gives us perfect righteousness. He requires of us perfect righteousness, as Christians in Christ we are to be holy as He is holy. PERIOD. Further, He requires a perfect heart. A heart that zealous, passionate, sincere, and willing to serve Him. That word 'serve' in scripture deals with really the duty of worship, and God desires our hearts. It's not a healthy tension. A healthy tension would be 50%/50%. But Yahweh requires 100% willing dedication and service to Him from our hearts and He requires 100% joyful keeping His law. There is no other option. The Scriptures are filled with examples of this. So here when we are discussing God's law, we are working as iron sharpening iron to come to a full knowledge, understanding, and wisdom (application) of the truth. And the truth we are seeking, as God is truth, we are to do so with all our heart devoted fully to the Lord. Seeking a more sincere devoted heart does not allow us to leave one millimeter from God's law. And all this we will do, if God permits. 

I am sorry for what you have experienced, but legalism should not ever be applied to someone fully devoted in their heart of love and joy for the Lord wanting to follow Him perfectly in accord with His law. Otherwise, you will have to call David, the one who loves God's law a legalist, and that won't fly.

Now, if we could please get back to talking about instruments in worship, I think we would all be the better off seeking after what God's word says. Hopefully doing this with devoted hearts to the Lord.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Held Fast

Brother Barnes, you'd be hard pressed to find in me an anti-nomian; I am an anti-Pharisee. However I recognize this thread is not really about the broader discussion of interpreting the law as it relates to instruments in worship, but rather a discourse amongst a particular tradition of which I am not a part nor confessionally bound. As such, my comments have been filtered through the lens of a tradition and viewed as something they are not. I too would like to see God's word in this thread, and will look forward to following how the conversation moves, as y'all seek to figure out what is forbidden and what is edifying in worship under the law.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Rob, Trying to follow your arguments but with some difficulty. I am advocating that we obey God's word with our whole heart in spirit and truth, but it seems that you see that as not living in the tension (not sure what you mean by that). Based on what you have said how can a Christian know that he is worshipping God correctly, what is the tension, is it a feeling, is it knowable for all of us, where in Scripture can this idea be found?


----------



## TylerRay

Held Fast said:


> However I recognize this thread is not really about the broader discussion of interpreting the law as it relates to instruments in worship, *but rather a discourse amongst a particular tradition of which I am not a part nor confessionally bound.*


Rev. Nelson,
I'm a little bit confused about that last statement. Baptists have an identical history to Presbyterians in regard to instruments in worship, and the 1689 Baptist Confession teaches the same doctrine of worship that the Westminster Confession does.

This page has a list of interesting quotes from Spurgeon and other Baptists against the use of instruments in worship (NOTE: as far as I can tell, the website I have linked to is a Campbellite site, and I do not in any way mean to endorse the heresies of that sect).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

TylerRay said:


> Rev. Nelson,
> I'm a little bit confused about that last statement. Baptists have an identical history to Presbyterians in regard to instruments in worship, and the 1689 Baptist Confession teaches the same doctrine of worship that the Westminster Confession does.
> 
> This page has a list of interesting quotes from Spurgeon and other Baptists against the use of instruments in worship (NOTE: as far as I can tell, the website I have linked to is a Campbellite site, and I do not in any way mean to endorse the heresies of that sect).


Spurgeon says in one of the quotes in that site that he has no problem with men using instruments as an aid, but that he needs no such aid. I concur with that, and could wish that we needed no such aid in our congregation, while I'm grateful that the piano playing is used solely as an aid and not treated as element nor performance.
But I agree that this is indeed an issue with which confessional Baptists must grapple, and search the Scriptures, and seek to know God's will and do it. It has been a point of discussion in our past tradition, and continues so to this day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Held Fast

Brother Ben has addressed it; Chapter 22 of the 1689 simply says "
the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures." And while the 1742 added a special section advocating the use of Psalms in worship (in addition to songs, hymns, and spiritual songs) the Sandy Creek Confession is essentially a paragraph en toto and left worship up to the local church. As Baptist life moved out of its sense of persecution and into mainstream, it also grew more comfortable in its local church autonomy so our heritage has not had the regulatory effect that other traditions have. But as one who upholds the 1689, I see no prohibition against instruments in worship, nor indication of which are and which are not acceptable. While I am like Spurgeon in that I prefer the instruments to be viewed as supplemental to worship, and not central, I have now shared a congregation with 3 Presbyterians (EPC, PCA, PCUSA) each of whom had differing views on the subject, but all were in agreement that piano & guitar were acceptable. Their difference was in how much more they would add.


----------



## Held Fast

BG said:


> Rob, Trying to follow your arguments but with some difficulty. I am advocating that we obey God's word with our whole heart in spirit and truth, but it seems that you see that as not living in the tension (not sure what you mean by that). Based on what you have said how can a Christian know that he is worshipping God correctly, what is the tension, is it a feeling, is it knowable for all of us, where in Scripture can this idea be found?



Bill, I am not suggesting a feeling or special knowledge. I put two things up against each other which necessarily create tension: 1) we must obey God's word with our whole heart in spirit and truth; 2) we do not obey God's word with our whole heart in spirit and truth. Somewhere between the must and our doing it, there is tension. One way we fail consistently in obeying God's word is understanding God's word (i.e. rightly dividing). A common vector in cases where we have failed to rightly divide is when we turn descriptive language into prescriptive, and that practice has been common on the issue of worship. I use the term Pharisee on purpose - of all the people of Israel, they had the least excuse of ignorance. They sincerely "rightly divided" the word of God for years longer than its been since our Reformation, and yet wound up sincerely wrong. It was not merely a factor of addition, there was also subtraction, multiplication and division. If in the covenant we see the relationship between Israel and the Church, then we must also see the sins and temptations of Israel when we look at the Church, and guard ourself from it - intentionally guard ourself from the tensionless existence of our own self-confidence that we have rightly divided. A fallen human should always doubt his own abilities to know and do the will of God, but try anyways by faith in Christ on the basis of what he knows, constantly ready to admit when he's wrong and adjust accordingly. That is a tense existence.


----------



## Parakaleo

Held Fast said:


> A fallen human should always doubt his own abilities to know and do the will of God



This is precisely why I don't use instruments (or man-made hymns) to worship God. Knowing I am a sinful person, I listen carefully to what God has said about his worship in the New Covenant. I do not see him say he wants instruments to be a part of his worship, like he did in the Old Covenant (though this was done only by Levites). I look around cautiously at the apostles. Did they use instruments in worship? Did they give the slightest indication that instruments should be used in worship? No, not the faintest.

You acknowledge that we cannot trust ourselves to worship God rightly. Yet, here you are saying you think it's probably okay to use instruments in worship? No, they are not authorized. While an evil, Pharisaical heart can certainly nullify someone's authorized worship and make it very vain, no amount of sincerity and good intention can transform unauthorized worship into what is authorized.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922

Parakaleo said:


> This is precisely why I don't use instruments (or man-made hymns) to worship God. Knowing I am a sinful person, I listen carefully to what God has said about his worship in the New Covenant. I do not see him say he wants instruments to be a part of his worship, like he did in the Old Covenant (though this was done only by Levites). I look around cautiously at the apostles. Did they use instruments in worship? Did they give the slightest indication that instruments should be used in worship? No, not the faintest.
> 
> You acknowledge that we cannot trust ourselves to worship God rightly. Yet, here you are saying you think it's probably okay to use instruments in worship? No, they are not authorized. While an evil, Pharisaical heart can certainly nullify someone's authorized worship and make it very vain, no amount of sincerity and good intention can transform unauthorized worship into what is authorized.



Wouldn't it be Pharisaical to use instruments in this case? For example, the Pharisees to keep God's commandments added methods and instructions and commands to what God had said (we see many examples of this especially in the Gospels). The way brother Rob is arguing seems Pharisaical itself as you bring out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo

Romans922 said:


> Wouldn't it be Pharisaical to use instruments in this case?



Interesting thought. However I would say that the Pharisees, with all their pride and all their corruption, and all their twisting of God's Word for their own ends, actually had enough "sense" not to desecrate God's worship in such a conspicuous way as introducing an unauthorized element into it.

Now I do think there are modern-day versions of Pharisees, who add elements to God's worship and try to bind men's consciences to doing what they do. This is probably more in line with what you're talking about.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I know we've had several side trails, but has it been established as far as the OP's question, that the argument must proceed from whether musical instruments can or cannot be established on a circumstantial basis? I think the argument needs to try to stay there. 
*And, speaking as an Admin,* since no one is establishing their case on the commandment of men as the Pharisees sought to do with their traditions, let's not go further down that road.



Parakaleo said:


> Interesting thought. However I would say that the Pharisees, with all their pride and all their corruption, and all their twisting of God's Word for their own ends, actually had enough "sense" not to desecrate God's worship in such a conspicuous way as introducing an unauthorized element into it.
> 
> Now I do think there are modern-day versions of Pharisees, who add elements to God's worship and try to bind men's consciences to doing what they do. This is probably more in line with what you're talking about.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Rob, it seems to me that in your system we can not know what God wants us to do in worship due to our sinful heart.

The Scribes, Pharisees, and Priests were not guilty of obeying God with a wrong heart they were guilty of creating their own standard of righteousness and then thinking that by keeping the traditions and teachings of men they were therefore righteous before God. 

If we are ever to have unity in the Church on the topic of worship it will be founded on what God has commanded in his word, not on what he has not commanded or not forbidden. There can never be unity in the things not forbidden because that makes the mind of man the supreme authority and since there are millions of men that will mean millions of different opinions and thus no unity.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Parakaleo

BG said:


> If we are ever to have unity in the Church on the topic of worship it will be founded on what God has commanded in his word, not on what he has not commanded or not forbidden.



Brother, you've hit on something so important here. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Cymro

At the risk of simpling myself by vain repetition, the question of instrumental usage in worship is subject to other queries that precede. Were instruments commanded in the old dispensation? Were their use part of the whole typical representation under the glory that was to be done away with? Did they figure a prophesying aspect of worship for the time that then was? Were instruments used in tabernacle worship before David was "commanded" to institute them for the transitional period as an introduction to Temple worship? Were the instruments ceremonial, along with snuffers , pans, incense, vestments, candles and all the carnal appurtenances that adorned the Temple? Did not Christ abrogate all that, and fulfill all that in Himself, the Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and every typical embellishment, and ushered in the simplicity of worship in spirit and in truth?
All that lay under the dark clothing of typology has been uncovered by Christ, for grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The truth under the types. What makes instruments different to the lamp stand, the pot of manna,the High Priest's mitre, the laver of water or the brazen altar? Nehushtan, said Hezekiah about the brazen serpent that he destroyed (which means, just a piece of brass). 
The Jews only heard instruments in their obligatory annual attendance at the Passover in Jerusalem. They never heard a harp string plucked in their local synagogue until the modernising movement of the twenty first century adulterated synagogue worship.
Let the best instrument sound melodiously, the small member of the tongue, to sing forth the praises of the only Redeemer of God's elect.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Cymro said:


> The Jews only heard instruments in their obligatory annual attendance at the Passover in Jerusalem.


Probably turning aside again, but this is interesting. Do you think the Jews had no harps for private use? Did they have no secular music? Where did David the shepherd get a harp to learn on if they were unknown among Jewry? What was the music he played for Saul?

What did the minstrels play to quiet the heart of the prophet before the kings of Israel and Judah? Do you think it was secular music or some sort of Psalm?

It seems safe to assume that instruments were commonly known, owned, and played in those days (do we not hear of Miriam playing timbrels, and there are instruments mentioned before Noah's flood). So I ask why you say that Jews only heard instruments at Jerusalem?

Further on, Jesus tells of children who piped. Surely pipes were known outside of Temple worship?
Thanks


----------



## Free Christian

I do get those who think/accept the use of instruments as aids, not for mood, are ok.
I have been in churches where the music was really more an entertainment, like watching a band and i know they dont mean that. 
But i have been in churches which dont use instruments and it was at times an overall struggle to stay in tune! Sometimes the singing stopped briefly to get back into tune. Or we restarted because the wrong tune began it.
That can feel a bit or quite disjointed when that happens. 
I have been in churches where a piano was used merely as an aid to give the tune to sing by. 
If i was asked to be 100% honest and bare my true thought's on which provided the best way to sing in a more consistently in tune manner it would be the latter.
Just my thoughts from my church going experience's.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

I was not planning on writing any more on this thread since most of what can be said has been said. But in leaving the discussion for a while and watching the last handful of posts, I'll try from a new angle. 

What was a psalm in the OT? EP No Instruments (NI) argue as if psalms have always been the book of Psalms, when in fact they were religious songs with instrumental accompaniment. The book of Psalms is a collection of psalms, not an exclusive collection of the only pieces that were ever called "psalms." Even if we argue the usage of "psalms, hymns and spiritual psalms" as categories of the book of Psalms (from the LXX), we also see these terms as referring to other songs of the OT and NT. The EP(NI) must _assume _that psalms _only _refers to the book of Psalms. 

A similar assumption is necessary for instruments. Do any EP(NI)s believe that David only thought of having instruments used in temple worship when God instructed them to do so? Even if we grant that instruments had a ceremonial aspect to them in relation to temple worship, can it be proven that instruments were never part of non-temple, private worship?

But this uncovers another hole in the EP(NI)'s argument. In the focus on temple worship, we often fail to realize what private worship would have looked like in the OT. Did people worship God with psalms _before_ the book of Psalms was compiled? Job 35:8 says:

"But no one says, ‘Where _is_ God my Maker,
Who gives songs [זָמִיר, Hebrew for Psalms] in the night..." 

If Elihu spoke of these songs with instrumental accompaniment prior to a) the canonical Psalms and b) prior to temple worship, we must conclude that instruments cannot be _only _ceremonial in nature but were part of (private?) worship antecedent to their use in corporate temple worship. In this light, it is safe to say that the idea of accompanying praise with instruments was not unique to the temple but in all probability part of private worship long before.

Having established that instruments are not _only _ceremonial in nature, the burden of proof lies on the EP(NI) to a) prove that instruments are _only_ ceremonial in nature, b) prove that their use (again as a circumstance) has been abolished both in their ceremonial use and in their use in worship _apart _from the ceremonies. Further, the burden of proof lies on the EP(NI) to establish that the use of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs can _only_ refer to inspired scripture. If the EP(NI) insists in a distinction between what is acceptable in public and private worship, it needs to be proven that any of the NT passages about praise refer to public worship at all (I would suggest that they all refer to private worship-- I would also suggest that it _cannot_ be proven that they refer to public worship). 

Further, as I've said before, though the etymology of the word "psalms" does not prove the inclusion of instruments in praise, it also must be disproven since the word through history always included instruments, not only as a ceremonial part of temple worship, but in its private usage as a circumstance.

EP(NI) love to throw around the "burden of proof" argument, but when their own standard is exercised against their assumptions, the standard seems to change or not apply. In contrast, we can prove that a) psalms included instrumental accompaniment, b) psalms do not only refer to the book of Psalms and c) psalms with instrumental accompaniment were used apart from temple worship.

NT worship has become less exclusive, not more. Women receive the sign of the covenant now. The priesthood has been extended to all believers (including being prophets and kings!). If the praise of OT saints were not limited to the canonical Psalms, what basis do we have to restrict NT saints to only the Psalms without the non-ceremonial use of instruments? Your arguments are backwards!

Often those of us who sing uninspired music and use instruments get frustrated with the reasoning of the EP(NI)-- I can at least speak for myself. Why? Consider the course of this conversation. Recent posts discussed how the use of instruments likened to the Pharisee's inventions. It has even been suggested to be worse or less reverent than the Pharisees! Let's be clear. Arguing for the use of instruments as a circumstance of worship should moot the argument since the Pharisees bound the _commandments_ of men to the people. We are not arguing that the use of instruments are commanded_. Please listen to our argument and reason with us according to this premise_. 

I do know that this thread particularly has to do with instruments, but since it is the _EP_(NI) who primarily endorse this doctrine, I've felt it necessary to speak to both issues to the extent that I have.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Cymro said:


> Were the instruments ceremonial, along with snuffers , pans, incense, vestments, candles and all the carnal appurtenances that adorned the Temple? Did not Christ abrogate all that, and fulfill all that in Himself, the Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and every typical embellishment, and ushered in the simplicity of worship in spirit and in truth?


Spurgeon would agree with this; Martyn Lloyd-Jones allowed an organ in Westminster Chapel.

So Jeff, in this particular situation you would say an Englishman is correct, the Welshman is wrong?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

timfost said:


> We are not arguing that the use of instruments are commanded_. Please listen to our argument and reason with us according to this premise_. The fact that it keeps coming around to this kind of reasoning is less than honest and not becoming of men of truth.


Tim, To cast aspersions on the honestly on one side is unjust. Folks post in reaction to a number of things on a thread and there has been plenty of confusing stuff on the pro instrument side that I do believe keeps pulling the focus away from the circumstantial argument. This has been clear for a while; hence my couple of posts trying to steer all back to the argument based upon circumstance. This is not a lack of honesty or of comeliness on the one side.


----------



## BG

Tim, I will not respond again in this thread so you don't have any fear of getting into a long conversation with me but I am curious as to how you would answer this question:

What Scriptures or section of the confession would you point someone to in order to defend your position on instruments being circumstances of worship? Please keep in mind that I am not interested in what people did out side of corporate worship in the OT or NT. 

Thanks for your response in advance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

NaphtaliPress said:


> Tim, To cast aspersions on the honestly on one side is unjust. Folks post in reaction to a number of things on a thread and there has been plenty of confusing stuff on the pro instrument side that I do believe keeps pulling the focus away from the circumstantial argument. This has been clear for a while; hence my couple of posts trying to steer all back to the argument based upon circumstance. This is not a lack of honesty or of comeliness on the one side.



Thanks Chris, I take your point.

I'll edit.


----------



## timfost

BG said:


> What Scriptures or section of the confession would you point someone to in order to defend your position on instruments being circumstances of worship? Please keep in mind that I am not interested in what people did out side of corporate worship in the OT or NT.
> 
> Thanks for your response in advance.



I thought I gave a scripture defense. I view instruments like microphones. Besides the scriptural argument I made, do we need a scriptural passage in support of microphones?

I believe there are obvious differences between corporate and private worship, though what is appropriate for one is often appropriate for the other. We can derive the appropriateness of singing in public worship from what scripture tells us of private worship.

It was actually an EP who explained that whether Col. 3:16 spoke of public or private worship was irrelevant.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Let's take a breather from this topic for a few days.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Reopening. Please stick 1. to the subject of musical instruments per the OP, 2. discussion for and against based upon a justification via circumstance within the framework of the Reformed confessions of this board.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40

Not knowing much about singing how are instruments used as circumstance for metrical singing? In my *very limited* understanding I may even be able to play an instrument to assist in singing Psalms metrically. If so may I use a Kazoo?


----------



## Romans922

NaphtaliPress said:


> Reopening. Please stick 1. to the subject of musical instruments per the OP, 2. discussion for and against based upon a justification via circumstance within the framework of the Reformed confessions of this board.



What does Gillespie say on what a circumstance can be?


----------



## iainduguid

earl40 said:


> Not knowing much about singing how are instruments used as circumstance for metrical singing? In my *very limited* understanding I may even be able to play an instrument to assist in singing Psalms metrically. If so may I use a Kazoo?


*If *instruments are a circumstance, then in principle all instruments are permitted. But normal rules of wisdom would still apply. Almost everyone would agree that tunes are circumstantial; that doesn't mean it would necessarily be wise to sing Psalm 1 to the tune "The House of the Rising Sun". You could equally well have asked, "If we can use a pitch pipe to aid unaccompanied singing of the psalms, may we use a kazoo for the similar purpose?" The answer is of course yes, but why would we?

Note: this has nothing to do with the fundamental question of whether instruments are or are not a circumstance.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

So how can someone make a biblical argument that instruments are a circumstance?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Romans922 said:


> What does Gillespie say on what a circumstance can be?



I believe most of what Gillespie has to say on circumstances in the worship of God which may be determined by church authority are cited in the introduction I provided to: Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D. D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D., “Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore,” _The Confessional Presbyterian_ 1 (2005): 116–150 (online in full here). I've already cited Girardeau (who cites Gillespie or perhaps he cites G by way of Thornwell, I forget), as to how Presbyterians had before his time understood this w.r.t. musical instruments in worship. I may have also alluded to the fact that as with any circumstance to be determined, such are governmend by the Scriptural rules governing the use of things supposedly indifferent in nature. See these rules adduced by Gillespie (the rule of piety, of charity and of purity), in English Popish Ceremonies, part four, chapters 2ff.
One of the key reformational doctrines1 determinate of the health if not the being of a “Presbyterian” Church is the aptly named Regulative Principle of Worship.2 This principle which was clearly championed from the beginning of the Scottish Reformation, and central to English Puritanism,3 was refined and classically presented in the Westminster Standards, from whence it has been an integral doctrine of Presbyterianism ever since.​
The Westminster Assembly determined: “But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.” (_Confession of Faith,_ 21.1). The Princeton professor, Dr. Samuel Miller, gives a succinct statement of the principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference.” 4 A briefer statement still which sums up the Presbyterian principle of worship, is that in the worship of God, “Not to Command is to Forbid,” 5 or “Whatever is not commanded is forbidden.” 6​
As this brief definition can lead to misunderstanding, a necessarily corollary to this principle states that there 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.” (_Confession of Faith,_ 1.6). Defining these “circumstances,” is part and parcel with the discussion of what authority the church has in ordering the worship of God. As for the church’s power in this regard, George Gillespie gives three conditions:7​

I direct my course straight to the dissecting of the true limits, within which the church’s power of enacting laws about things pertaining to the worship of God is bounded and confined, and which it may not overleap nor transgress. Three conditions I find necessarily requisite in such a thing as the church has power to prescribe by her laws: 1st It must be only a circumstance of divine worship; no substantial part of it; no sacred significant and efficacious ceremony. For the order and decency left to the definition of the church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehends no more but mere circumstances.… 2nd That which the church may lawfully prescribe by her laws and ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such things as were not determinable by Scripture because _individua_ are _infinita_…. 3rd If the church prescribe anything lawfully, so that she prescribe no more than she has power given her to prescribe, her ordinances must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for the satisfaction of tender consciences.”​

Also, in his letter to “All in the Reformed Churches,” Gillespie defined circumstances this way: “...there is nothing which any way pertains to the worship of God left to the determination of human laws, beside the mere circumstances, which neither have any holiness in them, forasmuch as they have no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil things, nor yet were particularly determinable in Scripture, because they are infinite.” (_EPC,_ xli). James Henley Thornwell gives a more detailed definition:8​

Circumstances are those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all, or cannot be done with decency and decorum. Public worship, for example, requires public assemblies, and in public assemblies people must appear in some costume and assume some posture…. Public assemblies, moreover, cannot be held without fixing the time and place of meeting: these are circumstances which the church is at liberty to regulate…. We must distinguish between those circumstances which attend actions as actions—that is, without which the actions cannot be—and those circumstances which, though not essential, are added as appendages. These last do not fall within the jurisdiction of the church. She has no right to appoint them. They are circumstances in the sense that they do not belong to the substance of the act. They are not circumstances in the sense that they so surround it that they cannot be separated from it. A liturgy is a circumstance of this kind…. In public worship, indeed in all commanded external actions, there are two elements—a fixed and a variable. The fixed element, involving the essence of the thing, is beyond the discretion of the church. The variable, involving only the circumstances of the action, its separable accidents, may be changed, modified or altered, according to the exigencies of the case.​

Gillespie’s third condition raises another principle which relates to the church’s power regarding worship, which is the doctrine of Christian Liberty or Liberty of Conscience. The Westminster divines state at Confession of Faith 20.2: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship.”9

The language of the Confession at these several points is reminiscent of both the writings of Gillespie, and of his Westminster colleague, Samuel Rutherford. In one of Rutherford’s works circulating in the Assembly during the early part of the discussion on Christian Liberty, and cited at the same time during debate on the subject of Excommunication, he writes (Rutherford, 109):10​
In actions or Religious means of Worship, and actions Morall, whatever is beside the Word of God, is against the Word of God; I say in Religious means, for there be means of Worship, or Circumstances Physicall, not Morall, not Religious, as whether the Pulpit be of stone or of timber, the Bell of this or this Mettall, the house of Worship stand thus or thus in Situation.​

Our _Formalists_ will have it in the power of rulers to Command in the matter of Worship, that which is beside the Word of God, and so is negatively Lawfull, though it be not Positively conform to Gods Word, nor Commanded or warranted by practice; which I grant is a witty way of _Romes_ devising, to make entry for Religious humane Ceremonies.​

Gillespie wrote the following a decade before the Assembly, which not only contains similar thoughts as the Confessional statements, but relates as well to the common usage, popularized later by men such as James Bannerman and William Cunningham, respecting the power of the civil magistrate _circa sacra_ [about religion] as opposed to _in sacris_ [in religion] (_EPC,_ 288, 314, 316, 318):11​

The church is forbidden to add anything to the commandments of God which he has given unto us, concerning his worship and service (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6); therefore she may not lawfully prescribe anything in the works of divine worship, if it be not a mere circumstance belonging to that kind of things which were not determinable by Scripture.… These _praecognita _[_things foreseen_] being now made good, come we to speak more particularly of the power of princes to make laws and ordinances about things which concern the worship of God.… But in all the Scripture princes have neither a commendable example, nor any other warrant, for the making of any innovation in religion, or for the prescribing of sacred significant ceremonies of men’s devising.… Now as touching the other sort of things which we consider in the worship of God, namely, things merely circumstantial, and such as have the very same use and respect in civil which they have in sacred actions, we hold that whensoever it happens to be the duty and part of a prince to institute and enjoin any order or policy in these circumstances of God’s worship, then he may only enjoin such an order as may stand with the observing and following of the rules of the word, whereunto we are tied in the use and practice of things which are in their general nature indifferent.​

These lengthy citations and definitions are given because the regulative principle of worship is often misunderstood or mischaracterized when they are ignored. For instance when the doctrine regarding circumstances is ignored, one may see questions in reaction to the regulative principle such as, “If you believe in this regulative principle then why do you use pews in public worship, since they are not mentioned in Scripture?” As William Cunningham writes, just before alluding to Confession of Faith 1.6, “Those who dislike this principle, from whatever reason, usually try to run us into difficulties by putting a very stringent construction upon it, and thereby giving it an appearance of absurdity.…” 12 Also, without any reference to historical theology, or to the theological milieu in which the language of the Westminster Standards were drafted, the meaning of the divines may be recast and the traditional/historical meaning divorced from their foundational statements by some postmodern deconstruction of their words. This leads to statements like, ‘I hold to the regulative principle of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but not to the Puritan understanding of that principle.’​-------------------
1. “I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word.” (John Calvin, “On the Necessity of Reforming the Church,” _Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, _edited by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet. Edited and translated by Henry Beveridge [Edinburgh: 1844; Rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983] 1.128-129). “All wirschipping, honoring, or service inventit by the braine of man in the religioun of God, without his own express commandment, is Idolatrie.” (John Knox, “A Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry,” _The Works of John Knox,_ ed. David Laing [Edinburgh: Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1854; Rpt NY: AMS Press, 1966] 3.34).


2. While it may have been used earlier, the term Regulative Principle of Worship apparently was coined from or at least popularized by usage in the 1946 report of the OPC, “Report of the Committee on Song in Worship Presented to the Thirteenth General Assembly, on the Teaching of Our Standards Respecting the Songs That May Be Sung in the Public Worship of God,” specifically section ‘A’ by John Murray (_Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Minutes of the General Assembly_ [1946] 101-107). Research by Sherman Isbell supports Murray authorship. See Endnote A.


3. The regulative principle of worship was the established doctrine of Scottish Presbyterianism, and of the English Puritans. See Endnote B.


4. _Presbyterianism the Truly Primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ,_ “The Worship of the Presbyterian Church” (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 64-65.


5. Samuel Rutherford, _The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication_ (London, 1646) 96. 


6. John B. Adger, “A Denial of Divine Right for Organs in Public Worship,” Southern Presbyterian Review, 20.1 (January 1869) 85.


7. George Gillespie_, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies,_ ed. Christopher Coldwell (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1993) 281-284. Hereafter_ EPC._ “This large volume is the most elaborate defense of the classic Puritan-Scottish Presbyterian view of the regulative principle, recently reprinted. Gillespie was an influential member of the Westminster Assembly.” John M. Frame, _Worship in Spirit and Truth_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1996) 157. Hereafter,_ Spirit and Truth._


8. Cited from John L. Girardeau, D.D. LL.D., “The Discretionary Power of the Church,” _Sermons,_ ed. by Rev. George A. Blackburn (Columbia, SC: The State Company, 1907. Rpt. in _Life Work and Sermons of John L. Girardeau,_ Sprinkle Publications, nd) 400-401. See also, “Church Boards and Presbyterianism,” _The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell_ (Rpt. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974) 246-247. On the nature of circumstances, see also: _The Works of John Owen,_ v. 15, “Discourse Concerning Liturgies,” ed. William H. Goold (Rpt. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966).


9. Regarding the long incorrect text, “contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship,” Dr. S. W. Carruthers notes: This double error is the most important in the whole Confession. It has obscured a distinction of great significance … The divines’ argument is this: men are free in all things directly contrary to God’s word; but, in addition, if the question is one of faith or worship, they are free in matters not stated in the word. The distinction between matters civil and religious, and the great doctrine concerning things indifferent in the ecclesiastical world, are completely obscured by the change of a single letter and an alteration of punctuation.” S. W. Carruthers, _The Westminster Confession of Faith: Being an account of the Preparation and Printing of its Seven Leading Editions, to which is appended a critical text of the Confession with notes thereon_ (Manchester: R. Aikman & Son, [1937]) 127-128.


10. See the Minutes of the Assembly, 196-197. Alexander F. Mitchell and John Struthers, eds. _Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines._ (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1874).


11. James Bannerman, _The Church of Christ_ (Edinburgh : T&T Clark, 1868. Rpt. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960; and 1974) 154-155. William Cunningham, “Church Power,” _Discussions on Church Principles_ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863) 230.


12. William Cunningham, “The Reformers and the Regulative Principle,” in _The Reformation of the Church: A collection of Reformed and Puritan documents on Church issues_ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965; Rpt. 1987) 38-39. This is an extract from Cunningham’s _The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation_ (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1979 Rpt) 31-46.

​

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I am a musician and have been thinking about how I use my gifting in the church.
> 
> For those of you who think it's okay to use instruments in worship, what is the best reasoning you have? I have been looking at some stances, and sadly, they haven't been convincing at all.
> 
> Thanks!


I used my musical gifts in various churches over the course of 30+ years. Then as my understanding of what was going on changed (and in my view, grew), I came to see that there was no biblical warrant for using musical gifts any more than any other kind of natural talent-type gifts in the public worship of God. Which leads to the question, if there's no biblical warrant for it, then can playing a musical instrument simply be thought of as a circumstance- no need for a warrant for it because it's something about which Scripture is "neutral" (like types of seats or carpet vs. wood floor, etc); something we have freedom to choose to use because it's useful, or even pretty.

I came down on the "no" side because I saw from the Old Testament use of musical instruments in public worship that they were carefully prescribed, and were actual elements of the worship. As elements and not just circumstances of worship, it would have been a flagrant sin against God not to have used them, and not to have used them exactly as prescribed. You see this when you read through 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles; the full story behind their prescription and usage isn't revealed until 2 Chronicles 29:25, though we should have understood from the Pentateuch that all such things are prophetically commanded and prescribed. 

The commanded elements of worship that carried over into the NT are specifically listed in Scripture (reading of Scripture, preaching, singing of Psalms, prayer, baptism, Lord's Supper- did I leave anything out?). Only the commanded elements of worship have ever been part of the ordained activities of the church, OT and NT, in public worship. To re-introduce the OT musical elements into NT worship as a circumstance is without warrant; we might as well reintroduce the incense if we're going to reintroduce musical instruments. 

An interesting thing to note: _Keliy_ is the Hebrew word most often translated as "instrument" in the Old Testament. Strong's defines _keliy_ as "an article, a vessel, an implement, a utensil, a tool." The word first appears in the Bible in describing the furnishings of the Tabernacle--the ark, the mercy seat, the cherubim, the table, and the candlestick. God commanded Moses to make and use these _keliy_ exactly according to the pattern He showed him on the mountain (Exodus 25:9).

Later, God gave a further pattern to David which included the use of musical _keliy (_"instruments"_)_ in the Temple worship of God. It's no accident that the musical instruments are also described as _keliy_. We know that David, like Moses, was careful to furnish the worship of God exactly according to this pattern; we're told in 2 Chronicles 29:25-30 that all was done "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."

The prescribed musical instruments were commanded for use then. They are no longer commanded, just as incense is no longer commanded; that they have been reintroduced into the church is, to me, a fearful thing.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## BG

earl40 said:


> Not knowing much about singing how are instruments used as circumstance for metrical singing? In my *very limited* understanding I may even be able to play an instrument to assist in singing Psalms metrically. If so may I use a Kazoo?




Sure. Once the barn door is open eventually all the animals come out. Once you make mans opinion the rule you will be ruled by mans opinion.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## richardnz

Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?


----------



## Logan

Just pure speculation, but perhaps one very practical reason was to mask the noise of the bellowing animals to be sacrificed. 

Another reason could be to symbolize the mediation between God and the people (the Levites played the instruments), whereas now we are each part of the royal priesthood and have direct access, where we each sing directly without the mediation of instruments.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

The instruments were used particularly at the offering up of the morning and evening sacrifice, a great cacophony of noise, depicting praise attending the sacrificial meaning.


----------



## Romans922

richardnz said:


> Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?



There was no singing in the tabernacle worship before the Temple, nor instruments played. There was no song in worship at all. That is until the Temple was built, the Lord through David instituted musical instruments to play along with songs (Psalms) to be sung (1 Ch. 16, 23, 25, 28). They sang/played in morning and evening (1 Ch. 23), which is at what time? The same time as the sacrifices being offered. So Logan is correct above. When the sacrifices were completed the music/singing stopped. The singing/instruments covered the sounds of the sacrifices. All of which being part of the ceremonial law foreshadowed Christ. 

So as the incense pointed to the prayers of the saints perfected by the propitiation of Christ, and the lampstand pointed to the work of the Spirit and the light of Christ upon, in and through His people, so even the musical instruments point us to grace in the heart. You have the sacrifices being offered, blood splatter, priests are covered in blood, the sight and sounds of all of that, its gruesome (pointing to the reality of our sin) and it is covered by the music being played at the same time. Christ was sacrificed violently but because of grace in the heart we look on that sacrifice with gladness. 

Grace in the heart - Colossians 3:16 and the instrumentation that we do today in worship is the "making melody" in our hearts (or "plucking the harp strings of our heart") of Eph. 5:19. Or what about Heb. 13:15. You see the connection there being made between the sacrifice of praise (which in OT is bloody and used with instruments), and he says let’s offer that up in the NT, we do it with our lips as we sing that wells up from the grace in our heart.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## iainduguid

Logan said:


> Just pure speculation, but perhaps one very practical reason was to mask the noise of the bellowing animals to be sacrificed.
> 
> Another reason could be to symbolize the mediation between God and the people (the Levites played the instruments), whereas now we are each part of the royal priesthood and have direct access, where we each sing directly without the mediation of instruments.


It will hardly do to say that the instruments were there to mask out the noise of the animals, since equal quantities of animals were sacrificed in the tabernacle, which had no instruments. This absence of instruments in the tabernacle also refutes the argument that instruments belong to the "immature" phase of the church; the most "immature" phase didn't have them, so why introduce them and then remove them? If something in the OT is to be identified as ceremonial, rather than moral or civil law, then there has to be something specific in the New Covenant to which it points forward, otherwise we are simply allegorizing the text. Girardeau understands this and attempts to argue that the instruments are typical of joy. I find that unconvincing, since instruments can convey a wide range of emotions, and it's not obvious why instruments should point forward typologically to joy (in contrast, for example, the the rather obvious way in which the Bible makes the connection between the rising incense and the prayers of the saints). There is a lot of detailed and complex work to do to see how the worship of the OT saints acts (and does not act) as a guide for our worship.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

richardnz said:


> Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?



This is from something I wrote a while back:

The musical instruments used by the prophets in the Old Testament had a prescribed, prophetic use for that dispensation: you especially see it in some texts, such as in 1 Chronicles 15:16:

"And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of music, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding (shama`) by lifting up the voice (qowl) with joy."

The word qowl, often translated "voice" in the KJV and other translations, does not necessarily mean the human voice, though here it does. Strong's concordance shows it to also be translated as "noise,' "sound," "thunderings,' and "proclamation." 

The Levitical priesthood appointed to song were, by use of their human voices and with instruments of music, to lift up a voice that produced this "sounding," this shama`. You can see how the idea of proclamation could apply here.

In 2 Chronicles 5:13:

"It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound (qowl) to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up their voice (qowl) with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the LORD, saying, For he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the LORD..."

The human voices together with voices of the trumpets, cymbals, and instruments of music "were as one;" lifted up together, they made one voice "to be heard."

And in 2 Chronicles 7:6:

"And the priests waited on their offices: the Levites also with instruments of musick of the LORD, which David the king had made to praise the LORD, because his mercy endureth for ever, when David praised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them, and all Israel stood."

The musical instruments made by David were unique in that dispensation, for they had a specific use; David praised God by their ministry; these musical instruments were commanded by God through David, Gad the seer, and Nathan the prophet (2 Chronicles 29:25) to serve God's prophetic purpose for that time. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JimmyH

richardnz said:


> Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?


What first comes to my mind is Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms. Handel's The Messiah, with the Hallelujah Chorus. Why were these people gifted with the ability to create such music ?


----------



## TylerRay

JimmyH said:


> What first comes to my mind is Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms. Handel's The Messiah, with the Hallelujah Chorus. Why were these people gifted with the ability to create such music ?


Why are others gifted with skills in sculpting, cooking, or painting?


----------



## Parakaleo

richardnz said:


> Although it is clear that certain instruments were prescribed for the temple, what I cannot work out is why they were prescribed. Why did the Lord want more than just singing? Did the instruments in some way enhance the quality of the praise? What were they for?



I can't find it right now, but our beloved Matthew Winzer has theorized that the musical instruments of the temple were typical of the voices of the Gentiles adding their praise to God in the New Covenant. It's a compelling thought.


----------



## Romans922

Parakaleo said:


> I can't find it right now, but our beloved Matthew Winzer has theorized that the musical instruments of the temple were typical of the voices of the Gentiles adding their praise to God in the New Covenant. It's a compelling thought.



While I'm sure Rev. Winzer did a much better job of articulating this, I made that argument above. When we think of how the NT handles the music of the OC, we see clearly this is true (Col. 3, Eph. 5, and Hebrews 13:15). Looking at the original language helps here too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

All I find is this brief post.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/instruments-and-dancing-in-ep.92390/page-2#post-1129556


Parakaleo said:


> I can't find it right now, but our beloved Matthew Winzer has theorized that the musical instruments of the temple were typical of the voices of the Gentiles adding their praise to God in the New Covenant. It's a compelling thought.





Romans922 said:


> While I'm sure Rev. Winzer did a much better job of articulating this, I made that argument above. When we think of how the NT handles the music of the OC, we see clearly this is true (Col. 3, Eph. 5, and Hebrews 13:15). Looking at the original language helps here too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid

NaphtaliPress said:


> All I find is this brief post.
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/instruments-and-dancing-in-ep.92390/page-2#post-1129556


I'm afraid I don't find that speculation compelling at all. Why should instruments = Gentiles? You'll have to actually build a Biblical case, not just assert it. Psalm 98 certainly says no such thing. After all, Gentiles also were included from time to time under the old covenant. And why should instruments be added under the Davidic order on this view, when they weren't there under the Mosaic?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner

JimmyH said:


> What first comes to my mind is Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms. Handel's The Messiah, with the Hallelujah Chorus. Why were these people gifted with the ability to create such music ?



lt seems to me that many in this world, Christian and non-Christian, are gifted with talents and skills for the benefit and enjoyment of the rest of us!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Afterthought

I don't have time to make the biblical case, since it requries a systematic understanding of the nature of OT worship and the changes into the NT. I believe it was offered as a "compelling thought" rather than an argument anyway. To leave some more pieces in this way of thinking, the psalms need to be understood as prophetic literature. David is viewed as prophet in the OT and the NT. The NT often makes use of their prophetic nature for the instruction of the church. If one views the psalms with an eye to prophecy, one will notice the psalms have a universal call to praise the Lord. This call grows as the books within the psalms move forward to the end point of psalm 150. As with all prophecy, there are NT realities described in terms of OT institutions (such as in Isaiah; note that the usage of the psalms in the NT show that they speak from the perspective of the NT, "today"), but the point of the prophecy is to describe the NT realities.

When this is understood, one will notice that psalm 98 calls the Gentiles to praise with harps, trumpets, etc. One will notice psalm 150 calls everything that has breath to praise the Lord with a variety of instruments. How are the Gentiles supposed to do this? These instruments were appointed by David for Levites and not for the common person to take up and use in the worship assembly. How will they join this Levitical choir and instrumentation? And these instruments, being attached to the temple, have long since disappeared. This suggests that the instruments here are speaking of the praise of the Gentiles, which we know continues. Yes, there were some Gentiles under the OT praising the Lord, etc., but this must be looked at redemptive-historically, since psalms such as 98 are looking toward that time when the Gentiles are brought into Israel to praise the Lord.

Other lines of evidence that lead to this. 1 Chronicles 16 (already mentioned) has the Davidic instruments set up in connection with a psalm that calls to the Gentiles. Even some pro-instrument authors (as in, instruments as an _element_; although I'm not sure whether that is conscious or not) recognize the connection between the orcestration of the instruments and the calling of the Gentiles to praise the Lord. Almost every psalm (potentially all of them; I have not finished studying this part yet; there are some on-the-surface counter-examples, but I need to think through the literary units in the Book of Pslams and message of those particualr psalms) that mentions the use of Davidic instruments has some connection to the calling of the Gentiles, e.g., psalm 108 mentions David praising the Lord among the nations upon the heels of praising the Lord with the psaltery and harp. Psalm 33 has a call for the earth to fear the lord, after telling the righteous to praise the Lord with an harp. Furthermore, in Revelation where all OT imagery returns, we see harps return in connection with the praise of the saints. As incense symbolized their prayers, harps symbolize their praise; confirming the association of OT Davidic instruments with praise under the NT and so the manner in which the Gentiles could be said to praise the Lord with an harp in psalm 98 (indeed, in Revelation 5 we note again a reference to redemption from all nations). Romans 15 connects the praise of Christ among the nations to various OT psalms, some including mentions of praise with Davidic instruments (and has the Gentiles praising with one voice with the rest of God's people, even as the instruments were said to do in Chronicles). Hebrews 13 shows that the sacrifice of praise is to be made with the fruit of lips, rather than with Davidic instruments, further suggesting their association with praise.

Questions as to why these instruments were not used before seem to me irrelevant to the question as to what they represented once they were instituted. But although I am not sure exactly what's up with the trumpets, it is clear that they represented something terrifying in the Mosaic institution but became associated with joy in the Davidic institution; perhaps a representation of how the law is sweetened under the gospel (for though the Mosaic ritual had sacrifice, etc., the gospel is more clearly seen under the Davidic ritual given the addition of a service of song with songs that call the Gentiles to praise)? Also, it is clear the Davidic institution is an embellishment of the previous one: the trumpets remain and more instruments are added as the Levites who had one task are now needing another task. It should also be noted that there is a progressive nature to revelation, so I do not see why everything that the Davidic instruments represented ought to have been present in the Mosaic worship ritual. If one feels one must answer the question: it would seem the Lord was pleased in the progress of revelation to await the Davidic institution, especially given the connection between David and Christ in the NT, since Christ is the key to the calling of the Gentiles (Romans 15). Given how much the calling of the Gentiles occurs in jubilant psalms, it also seems fitting that this part of the progress of revelation (i.e., including Gentile praise in the stated worship; the mystery of the Gentiles was revealed earlier, of course) would occur with the institution of a service of song to praise the Lord.

There are still some minor difficulties to sort out (to my own mind; I'm still thinking about this/studying this), but they do not seem to me to be insuperable. It is hard to ignore the evidence of the connection of the Davidic instruments with the calling of the Gentiles, however other details fit into this evidence.


in my opinion (seriously, just opining/wondering), those who are pro-instrument and view instruments as an element of worship or as something circumstantial to the OT worship will likely not see this as a compelling thought because of a different systematic understanding of the OT worship rituals, etc. But those who are anti-instrument in worship will likely find this a compelling thought (although no careful argument has been made) because the process used to arrive at the view will have already started incorporating that systematic understanding needed to see it.


To clarify the acapella position, it is freely acknowledged that instruments were used in connection with prophecy by individuals or groups, not just with sacrificial worship; but I think few would argue that prophecy continues; perhaps this is why it is sometimes seen by otheres to be overlooked by acapella advocates. Also, it is not necessary to figure out what exactly the instruments represented to know they were part of the ceremonial worship system, as with any other ceremonial worship practice. It is clear from the OT that they were especially incorporated into its worship and associated with sacrifice. It is clear they came with specific instructions for their use that cannot be carried out today. It is clear from the NT that worshipping God by "elements of the world," by "things that are made," or by "carnal ordinances" are what constitutes ceremonial worship. Instruments are material objects and things that are made and were used to worship God. The NT also classifying instruments as "lifeless things" puts beyond doubt that the instruments were part of those carnal ordinances, the NT being characterized by living stones and calling for living voices (and only worshipping God by two material ordinances: baptism and the Lord's supper). Hebrews also points out we have not come to the sound of a trump, showing the ceremonial usage of the instruments that we no longer are to have (the trumpets were in place to symbolize the sound of the trump on Sinai; the other instruments were embellished upon this; since NT reality is something other than Sinai, this shows the instruments belonged to a former dispensation). And so forth (e.g., the arguments from Hebrews 13 and Ephesians/Colossians given by Rev. Barnes above).

(Of course, in the OT, the worship ordinances were simply all there together. We cannot determine what was or was not ceremonial without instruction from the NT as to what constitutes ceremonial worship. Having consulted the NT, we can then also see indications in the OT of the ceremonial nature of some ordinances, e.g., how praise is preferred to sacrifice shows its non-ceremonial nature.)


But this is somewhat irrelevant for those arguing instruments to be circumstances, since I do not know many who argue that instruments _must_ be used today, as they would have to do if they argued from the OT sacrificial use. I have my own thoughts about instruments as a circumstance, but I don't know if I will post them (depends on time and collecting my thoughts together). I do agree with the quotations by Chris Coldwell concerning circumstances/instruments.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Romans922 said:


> While I'm sure Rev. Winzer did a much better job of articulating this, I made that argument above. When we think of how the NT handles the music of the OC, we see clearly this is true (Col. 3, Eph. 5, and Hebrews 13:15). Looking at the original language helps here too.





NaphtaliPress said:


> All I find is this brief post.
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/instruments-and-dancing-in-ep.92390/page-2#post-1129556


That post by MW is not arguing what is being claimed he argued.

This is probably the more prudent quote:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/instruments-and-dancing-in-ep.92390/#post-1128765


----------



## Andrew P.C.

iainduguid said:


> why should instruments be added under the Davidic order on this view, when they weren't there under the Mosaic?



Are you saying they weren’t around under Moses?

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. 3 And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 4 And if they blow _but_ with one _trumpet_, then the princes, _which are_ heads of the thousands of Israel, shall gather themselves unto thee. 5 When ye blow an alarm, then the camps that lie on the east parts shall go forward. 6 When ye blow an alarm the second time, then the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journey: they shall blow an alarm for their journeys. 7 But when the congregation is to be gathered together, ye shall blow, but ye shall not sound an alarm. 8 And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with the trumpets; and they shall be to you for an ordinance for ever throughout your generations. 9 And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the Lord your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies. 10 Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God: I _am_ the Lord your God.”

Numbers 10


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Okay, so what does claiming use of musical instruments is a circumstance actually justify? I understand the argument that some say it aids the singing. But that is not all they are used for. As I've said often, I've never been in a Presbyterian church that used musical instruments that solely used them 'as an aid to the singing.' Before the worship, there is usually a prelude and usually with no singing, and I'm sure never with singing by the congregation. It is a performance (the more irrepressible cannot refrain from amening or clapping if it is especially pleasing/moving to them). Ditto the offertory. How is the offertory aiding the collection (for those that approve of such a thing during the service)? What circumstance that is in need of meeting is the prelude answering?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid

Afterthought said:


> I don't have time to make the biblical case, since it requries a systematic understanding of the nature of OT worship and the changes into the NT. I believe it was offered as a "compelling thought" rather than an argument anyway. To leave some more pieces in this way of thinking, the psalms need to be understood as prophetic literature. David is viewed as prophet in the OT and the NT. The NT often makes use of their prophetic nature for the instruction of the church. If one views the psalms with an eye to prophecy, one will notice the psalms have a universal call to praise the Lord. This call grows as the books within the psalms move forward to the end point of psalm 150. As with all prophecy, there are NT realities described in terms of OT institutions (such as in Isaiah; note that the usage of the psalms in the NT show that they speak from the perspective of the NT, "today"), but the point of the prophecy is to describe the NT realities.
> 
> When this is understood, one will notice that psalm 98 calls the Gentiles to praise with harps, trumpets, etc. One will notice psalm 150 calls everything that has breath to praise the Lord with a variety of instruments. How are the Gentiles supposed to do this? These instruments were appointed by David for Levites and not for the common person to take up and use in the worship assembly. How will they join this Levitical choir and instrumentation? And these instruments, being attached to the temple, have long since disappeared. This suggests that the instruments here are speaking of the praise of the Gentiles, which we know continues. Yes, there were some Gentiles under the OT praising the Lord, etc., but this must be looked at redemptive-historically, since psalms such as 98 are looking toward that time when the Gentiles are brought into Israel to praise the Lord.
> 
> Other lines of evidence that lead to this. 1 Chronicles 16 (already mentioned) has the Davidic instruments set up in connection with a psalm that calls to the Gentiles. Even some pro-instrument (as in, instruments as an _element_) recognize the connection between the orcestration of the instruments and the calling of the Gentiles to praise the Lord. Almost every psalm (potentially all of them; I have not finished studying this part yet) that mentions the use of Davidic instruments has some connection to the calling of the Gentiles, e.g., psalm 108 mentions David praising the Lord among the nations upon the heels of praising the Lord with the psaltery and harp. Psalm 33 has a call for the earth to fear the lord, after telling the righteous to praise the Lord with an harp. Furthermore, in Revelation where all OT imagery returns, we see harps return in connection with the praise of the saints. As incense symbolized their prayers, harps symbolize their praise; confirming the association of OT Davidic instruments with praise under the NT and so the manner in which the Gentiles could be said to praise the Lord with an harp in psalm 98 (indeed, in Revelation 5 we note again a reference to redemption from all nations). Romans 15 connects the praise of Christ among the nations to various OT psalms, some including mentions of praise with Davidic instruments (and has the Gentiles praising with one voice with the rest of God's people, even as the instruments were said to do in Chronicles). Hebrews 13 shows that the sacrifice of praise is to be made with the fruit of lips, rather than with Davidic instruments, further suggesting their association with praise.
> 
> Questions as to why these instruments were not used before seem to me irrelevant to the question as to what they represented once they were instituted. But although I am not sure exactly what's up with the trumpets, it is clear that they represented something terrifying in the Mosaic institution but became associated with joy in the Davidic institution; perhaps a representation of how the law is sweetened under the gospel (for though the Mosaic ritual had sacrifice, etc., the gospel is more clearly seen under the Davidic ritual given the addition of a service of song with songs that call the Gentiles to praise)? Also, it is clear the Davidic institution is an embellishment of the previous one: the trumpets remain and more instruments are added as the Levites who had one task are now needing another task. It should also be noted that there is a progressive nature to revelation, so I do not see why everything that the Davidic instruments represented ought to have been present in the Mosaic worship ritual. If one feels one must answer the question: it would seem the Lord was pleased in the progress of revelation to await the Davidic institution, especially given the connection between David and Christ in the NT, since Christ is the key to the calling of the Gentiles (Romans 15). Given how much the calling of the Gentiles occurs in jubilant psalms, it also seems fitting that this part of the progress of revelation (i.e., including Gentile praise in the stated worship; the mystery of the Gentiles was revealed earlier, of course) would occur with the institution of a service of song to praise the Lord.
> 
> There are still some minor difficulties to sort out (to my own mind; I'm still thinking about this/studying this), but they do not seem to me to be insuperable. It is hard to ignore the evidence of the connection of the Davidic instruments with the calling of the Gentiles, however other details fit into this evidence.
> 
> 
> in my opinion (seriously, just opining/wondering), those who are pro-instrument and view instruments as an element of worship or as something circumstantial to the OT worship will likely not see this as a compelling thought because of a different systematic understanding of the OT worship rituals, etc. But those who are anti-instrument in worship will likely find this a compelling thought (although no careful argument has been made) because the process used to arrive at the view will have already started incorporating that systematic understanding needed to see it.
> 
> 
> To clarify the acapella position, it is not necessary to figure out what exactly the instruments represented to know they were part of the ceremonial worship system, as with any other ceremonial worship practice. It is clear from the OT that they were especially incorporated into its worship and associated with sacrifice. It is clear they came with specific instructions for their use that cannot be carried out today. It is clear from the NT that worshipping God by "elements of the world," by "things that are made," or by "carnal ordinances" are what constitutes ceremonial worship. Instruments are material objects and things that are made and were used to worship God. The NT also classifying instruments as "lifeless things" puts beyond doubt that the instruments were part of those carnal ordinances, the NT being characterized by living stones and calling for living voices (and only worshipping God by two material ordinances: baptism and the Lord's supper). Hebrews also points out we have not come to the sound of a trump, showing the ceremonial usage of the instruments that we no longer are to have (the trumpets were in place to symbolize the sound of the trump on Sinai; the other instruments were embellished upon this; since NT reality is something other than Sinai, this shows the instruments belonged to a former dispensation). And so forth (e.g., the arguments from Hebrews 13 and Ephesians/Colossians given by Rev. Barnes above).
> 
> (Of course, in the OT, the worship ordinances were simply all there together. We cannot determine what was or was not ceremonial without instruction from the NT as to what constitutes ceremonial worship. Having consulted the NT, we can then also see indications in the OT of the ceremonial nature of some ordinances, e.g., how praise is preferred to sacrifice shows its non-ceremonial nature.)





Andrew P.C. said:


> Are you saying they weren’t around under Moses?
> 
> “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. 3 And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 4 And if they blow _but_ with one _trumpet_, then the princes, _which are_ heads of the thousands of Israel, shall gather themselves unto thee. 5 When ye blow an alarm, then the camps that lie on the east parts shall go forward. 6 When ye blow an alarm the second time, then the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journey: they shall blow an alarm for their journeys. 7 But when the congregation is to be gathered together, ye shall blow, but ye shall not sound an alarm. 8 And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with the trumpets; and they shall be to you for an ordinance for ever throughout your generations. 9 And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the Lord your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies. 10 Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God: I _am_ the Lord your God.”
> 
> Numbers 10


Yes. Trumpets were employed as a signal. to summon the people to war or to worship, but that is not really a musical function. It's like the military use of drum and bugle. Musical instruments as part of the worship belongs distinctly to the Temple ritual, as opposed to the Tabernacle. So you could have sacrifices without instruments - and you can also have instruments without sacrifices as Nehemiah 12:27 makes clear It is simply false to say that instruments are inseparably linked to sacrifice.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost

NaphtaliPress said:


> Okay, so what does claiming use of musical instruments is a circumstance actually justify? I understand the argument that some say it aids the singing. But that is not all they are used for. As I've said often, I've never been in a Presbyterian church that used musical instruments that solely used them 'as an aid to the singing.' Before the worship, there is usually a prelude and usually with no singing, and I'm sure never with singing by the congregation. It is a performance (the more irrepressible cannot refrain from amening or clapping if it is especially pleasing/moving to them). Ditto the offertory. How is the offertory aiding the collection (for those that approve of such a thing during the service)? What circumstance that is in need of meeting is the prelude answering?



Isn't a prelude _before_ the worship service?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Usually before the call to worship, yes. But given the use of music similarly after the call, I think knowing what circumstance it is meeting needs answering. I mean, why do it? And if prior to the call gives carte blanche, why is my irrepressible friend shushed for clapping? Or, why is a dance troupe or any other kind of performing art off limits for the prelude? 


timfost said:


> Isn't a prelude _before_ the worship service?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Afterthought

iainduguid said:


> Musical instruments as part of the worship belongs distinctly to the Temple ritual, as opposed to the Tabernacle. So you could have sacrifices without instruments - and you can also have instruments without sacrifices as Nehemiah 12:27 makes clear It is simply false to say that instruments are inseparably linked to sacrifice.


The trumpets were also blown over the sacrifices as a memorial on the feast days. That is a use of instruments in worship. But it is fine if sacrifices could be performed without instruments, especially before the Temple ritual, since that is not the issue at hand.

Nehemiah makes mention of "purification" and afterwards burnt offerings on the occasion, paralleling 2 Chronicles 5 when the ark was moved to the temple (also with burnt offerings; indeed, Solomon sacrificed not on the brasen altar because of all the sacrifices). 1 Chronicles 16 shows how the musical instruments can be linked to sacrifice without an actual sacrifice taking place at the same location as the instrumentalists. We are not told in Nehemiah when the sacrifices were made so far as the instruments are concerned, but everything is said to be done as according to the commandment of David. Furthermore, Nehemiah is clear that these were those who were to give thanks and praise unto the Lord with instruments; the idea of their temple service that was associated with sacrifice is implicit, even if they are bringing these instrumentalists outside of their ordinary role to perform their ceremonial service in another way for this extraordinary occasion (there must have been a prophet around to write the book, so presumably there would be a prophet around to assist them with these directions and/or deduce from 2 Chronicles 5 what to do for this service; or maybe some deduction from Numbers 10 since this would be a day of gladness, thus further solidfiying how the instruments elaborated on the trumpet).


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

So, honestly I am more confused than when I first started the thread. I know it's nobody's fault, it's just that there are multiple views to every argument.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So, honestly I am more confused than when I first started the thread. I know it's nobody's fault, it's just that there are multiple views to every argument.



Ryan, just wondering if you ever purchased the John Price book recommended on a previous thread, "Old Light on New Worship." 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So, honestly I am more confused than when I first started the thread. I know it's nobody's fault, it's just that there are multiple views to every argument.



Ryan,

This had been a whirlwind of a thread. To try to digest it all at once will certainly give anyone indigestion (to extend the metaphor). I would suggest taking a break from it, praying about it and studying more over time. For me, clarity often comes months after studying something, and at weird times like when mowing the lawn or washing dishes. 

Also, it's your elders' job to watch out for the souls of those in their congregation. Not that you don't continue to study, but the Lord has provided a church for you with the worship practice that they have. So as you study, also rest in God's gracious provision for you.

Blessings!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So, honestly I am more confused than when I first started the thread. I know it's nobody's fault, it's just that there are multiple views to every argument.



Until you find a good reason to use the gift you have in the worship of the church, simply do not utilize this gift, because those that would advise you against playing instruments are pricking your conscience with good arguments according to the RPW. It is one thing _to say_ one follows the RPW in belief, and really in essence are espousing a NPW, but another to follow it as it was intended by the framers of the WCF. Many (including most dear pastors) will confuse the NPW with the RPW in my experience. I am a member of a PCA church that is growing in a direction that rivals most concert bands. All because the door was opened and like a hurricane once it is opened the winds will eventually blow it open all the way, and effectually almost ruin the worship experience. I thank Our Lord that He is merciful, and that the center of the service is The Word preached.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## timfost

NaphtaliPress said:


> Usually before the call to worship, yes. But given the use of music similarly after the call, I think knowing what circumstance it is meeting needs answering. I mean, why do it? And if prior to the call gives carte blanche, why is my irrepressible friend shushed for clapping? Or, why is a dance troupe or any other kind of performing art off limits for the prelude?



Chris,

Yes, I understand your concern. I know for certain that instrumental music has been elevated too high in some church circles. I know of a church that would have a group come in occasionally to perform arrangements of sacred music and the performance would replace the preaching for that week. Certainly we don't want to allow musical performances of any kind during the worship, and what preceeds the call to worship should help to prepare, not detract, from worship.

When I play the prelude, it consists only of the music we will be singing. The familiar Psalm tunes that we use certainly bring to mind the words of the Psalms. The hymn tunes do the same if they are well known. If they are not well known, the prelude serves to get the tune in the minds of the congregation so that they can sing more confidently a tune with which they are not familiar. I make an effort to play somewhat quietly and melodically during the prelude. I have never heard an "amen" and certainly no one has ever clapped.

We do not receive tithes during the service. They are put in a box prior to the service and are acknowledged during the service with a Scripture reading having to do with giving.

As for the Lord's Supper, the elements are distributed in silence-- no instrumental music.

The postlude consists mostly of music that we sung during worship.

Hope this helps...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Tim, do you know if your practice reflects simply the practice of your church or generally the historic practice of the RCUS? Traditional mid century modern Presbyterian worship I'm familiar with, the prelude often or usually is not something used later for singing, but some other tune which may or may not evoke words, and often singing or other instruments are added to make it more special or for special occasions which if it was not already, surely to my mind makes it a performance and not something within the limited use you outline. I would question the propriety of using a musical instrument to evoke words to the mind, certainly if it is not sung later, and which may or may not be remembered, over quiet meditation and prayer before the service. In fact, I find anything other than silence makes those two things more difficult. Our church only recently dropped music during the Lord's Supper, for which I'm thankful (it is ruled out even in the small section of the PCA directory which has been made constitutional; the rest is pious advice). I wish they would drop the collection; then no need for an offertory. I drop a check in the plate which is sitting in the entry on the way in so never drop anything in the plate in its passing.


timfost said:


> Chris,
> 
> Yes, I understand your concern. I know for certain that instrumental music has been elevated too high in some church circles. I know of a church that would have a group come in occasionally to perform arrangements of sacred music and the performance would replace the preaching for that week. Certainly we don't want to allow musical performances of any kind during the worship, and what preceeds the call to worship should help to prepare, not detract, from worship.
> 
> When I play the prelude, it consists only of the music we will be singing. The familiar Psalm tunes that we use certainly bring to mind the words of the Psalms. The hymn tunes do the same if they are well known. If they are not well known, the prelude serves to get the tune in the minds of the congregation so that they can sing more confidently a tune with which they are not familiar. I make an effort to play somewhat quietly and melodically during the prelude. I have never heard an "amen" and certainly no one has ever clapped.
> 
> We do not receive tithes during the service. They are put in a box prior to the service and are acknowledged during the service with a Scripture reading having to do with giving.
> 
> As for the Lord's Supper, the elements are distributed in silence-- no instrumental music.
> 
> The postlude consists mostly of music that we sung during worship.
> 
> Hope this helps...


----------



## timfost

NaphtaliPress said:


> Tim, do you know if your practice reflects simply the practice of your church or generally the historic practice of the RCUS?



Not sure... I haven't been to enough services in the other churches to know. The only other one in PA is similar to ours, though the prelude is not necessarily the music that will be sung (I'm not of the mind that it _has_ to be, either).


----------



## BG

Tim, do you have a vested interest in music? I know you sometimes play piano at church, do you do that all the time? Are you a music minister? Do you ever play or sing special songs at church or with a group? Are you a music teacher? Do you have a degree in music? Do you believe that God has gifted you in the area of music so you can use it for the church? Does your church have a choir?

Just curious all my children play instruments piano, guitar and ukulele, my oldest is a double major, music and biology.

BTW I play the guitar, not stuff you could play in church in less the sermon topic was depravity then i could play the George Thurogood song Bad to the bone.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## timfost

BG said:


> Tim, do you have a vested interest in music?



I work in music full time. My church work is volunteer.



> I know you sometimes play piano at church, do you do that all the time?



Every week.



> Are you a music minister? Do you ever play or sing special songs at church or with a group?



What is a music minister?

No special music.



> Are you a music teacher? Do you have a degree in music?



I teach private lessons and I teach a piano skills class and some applied lessons at a college. I have a Master of Music in Piano Performance.



> Do you believe that God has gifted you in the area of music so you can use it for the church? Does your church have a choir?



Not all gifts are appropriate for use in church, but I believe music is. No choir--all congregational singing.



> Just curious all my children play instruments piano, guitar and ukulele, my oldest is a double major, music and biology.
> 
> BTW I play the guitar, not stuff you could play in church in less the sermon topic was depravity then i could play the George Thurogood song Bad to the bone.



We should get together and jam sometime!


----------

