# Acapella singing



## Leslie (May 19, 2008)

Is mandatory acapella singing part of EP and the regulative principle or is that an entirely separate issue?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 19, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Is mandatory acapella singing part of EP and the regulative principle or is that an entirely separate issue?


They tend to hang together, but I guess anyone could come to conclusions and hold to only one and not the other. For instance, Southern Presbyterians like Thornwell, Girardeau, Dabney, Adger, etc. were non EP but opposed to musical instrumentation in worship. There were some exceptions the other way I suspect though rarer I think; I don't recall any names.


----------



## Davidius (May 19, 2008)

http://www.puritanboard.com/searchr...000000;GFNT:0000FF;GIMP:0000FF;FORID:11&hl=en


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 19, 2008)

I would recommend John L. Girardeau's _Instrumental Music in Public Worship_ for you Leslie.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 19, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Is mandatory acapella singing part of EP and the regulative principle or is that an entirely separate issue?



EP and a capella singing are separate issues which are both covered by the regulative principle of worship.



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I would recommend John L. Girardeau's _Instrumental Music in Public Worship_ for you Leslie.



Links and Downloads Manager - Worship - Instrumental Music in the Worship of the Church - The PuritanBoard


----------



## Leslie (May 20, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > Is mandatory acapella singing part of EP and the regulative principle or is that an entirely separate issue?
> ...



Do people actually sing psalm 150, deliberately acapella and immobile? Seems as if that is like boasting of humility or hanging foamrubber windchimes.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 20, 2008)

If one understands the context of Psalm 150 then it is not a problem. Much like one reads the Levitical law concerning sacrifice and the dismemberment of the bull.


----------



## Leslie (May 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> If one understands the context of Psalm 150 then it is not a problem. Much like one reads the Levitical law concerning sacrifice and the dismemberment of the bull.



Huh?


----------



## AV1611 (May 21, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > If one understands the context of Psalm 150 then it is not a problem. Much like one reads the Levitical law concerning sacrifice and the dismemberment of the bull.
> ...



God has told us to sing psalms. That includes Psalm 66 which states

I will go into thy house with burnt offerings: I will pay thee my vows, 
Which my lips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble. 
I will offer unto thee burnt sacrifices of fatlings, with the incense of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats. Selah.​
Are you going to start doing that or are you going to sing with understanding?


----------



## Leslie (May 22, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



God in His sovereignty has made sacrifices impossible since the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. If the temple were still standing, I would have no problem whatsoever with offering thank offerings and the like, but not offerings of atonement. In our current culture, the equivalent of the burnt offerings--making and keeping vows--is certainly appropriate in relationship to God. It seems rather arbitrary to just throw out any meaning that doesn't agree with one's theological bias rather than asking how the original meaning works out in the current age and culture.


----------



## etexas (May 22, 2008)

? Foamrubber windchimes ? I am not even EP and you lost me on that.


----------



## AV1611 (May 23, 2008)

Leslie said:


> God in His sovereignty has made sacrifices impossible since the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. If the temple were still standing, I would have no problem whatsoever with offering thank offerings and the like, but not offerings of atonement. In our current culture, the equivalent of the burnt offerings--making and keeping vows--is certainly appropriate in relationship to God. It seems rather arbitrary to just throw out any meaning that doesn't agree with one's theological bias rather than asking how the original meaning works out in the current age and culture.



The answer is not the destruction of the temple in AD70 but rather the destruction of the true temple in AD30(ish) as we learn in the Book of Hebrews. Christ's death fulfilled the typical worship of the Temple, hence the end of bloody sacrifice, the Levitical priesthood etc. Now because temple worship was put to an end by Christ's death and musical instruments were tied to the Levitical priesthood, it is absurd to say that the musical instruments are to be continued. They are to be used just as much as bloody sacrifice, i.e. not at all.

We then sing the psalms recognising that they speak of spiritual truths, that they contain a command to use a harp does not mean that we are to start using harps, no more than the command to sacrifice bulls means we will start burning bulls in church on Sunday.


----------



## Leslie (May 24, 2008)

etexas said:


> ? Foamrubber windchimes ? I am not even EP and you lost me on that.



Hanging foam rubber windchimes is superficially affirming one thing while simultaneously negating the same. In the case of windchimes, one affirms his love of the sound of the wind but making them out of foam rubber negates the same. Ditto with singing Psalm 150, deliberately (not out of necessity) acapella and immobile: one verbally affirms the appropriate use of instrumentation and dance in the worship of God while factually disaffirming the same. When one does this kind of thing in relationship to other people, it's called double-binding, like the guy who bought his mother an expensive mother's day card and wrote inside "You have always been like a mother to me".


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 25, 2008)

Leslie you are missing the point. Those in the EP-side believe that the use of instruments in worship have ceased following the end of Temple Worship. So no matter how many times you sing Psalm 150 and following the mere fact you sing about instruments is a Non-sequitur.


----------

