# Statement on Worship: Biblical?



## Parakaleo (Sep 23, 2017)

This was on a page discussing worship on a church's website.


_Is “special music” or choral music acceptable_? Many argue that it is not simply because the Bible does not specifically prescribe it. But the truth is that both musicians and singers were integral to Israel’s corporate worship, and God was pleased with that worship. At the very least, this fact makes it impossible to insist that God is displeased with musicians and singers _as such_, unless one is ready to accept that God has changed with respect to what He regards as pleasing worship.

Maybe I'm hyper-sensitive about the wording here, but I'm seeing a number of things that are very wrong.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 24, 2017)

It sure leaves out a lot of steps to make a case that would look like a regulative rather than a normative case. The choir and professional worship class ceased with the priesthood and the congregation is the choir and professional worship class now. No?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 24, 2017)

^^^Agreed. The Choir should not be singing, separately from the congregation either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 24, 2017)

Here's the biggest problem:


Parakaleo said:


> Many argue that it is not [acceptable] simply because the Bible does not specifically prescribe it. But...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo (Sep 24, 2017)

Honestly, I think the biggest problem is with the view of God. The statement makes it sound like God took pleasure in listening to choirs sing and people playing instruments skillfully, which is an abhorrent view of God. No, God accepted spiritual worship that was in accordance with what he had appointed. Am I reading too much into it?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 24, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> The statement makes it sound like God took pleasure in listening to choirs sing and people playing instruments skillfully,



He probably did with David.


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 24, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> Honestly, I think the biggest problem is with the view of God. The statement makes it sound like God took pleasure in listening to choirs sing and people playing instruments skillfully, which is an abhorrent view of God. No, God accepted spiritual worship that was in accordance with what he had appointed. Am I reading too much into it?


Yes, you are reading too much into it.
1. It's a website explaining the practice of the church, not a book on worship. It's not the place for a full-orbed discussion of the issue.
2. God certainly was pleased when the worship of Israel was in accordance with his commands for them, which included (Levitical) choirs and skillful musicians.
3. "Many argue that it is not [acceptable] simply because the Bible does not specifically prescribe it." This is simply Jeremiah Burroughs: "I have told you before that in matters of worship we must have warrant from the Word, but it does not follow that we must have a direct, expressed warrant in everything. As it is many times in some kind of picture, the great art is in the cast of the looks. You cannot say it’s in the drawing of this line or the other line, but altogether. It is the cast of the looks that causes the beauty of the picture. So in the Scripture you cannot say that this one line or the other line proves it, but let them all be laid together and there will be a kind of aspect of God’s mind. We may see that this is the mind of God rather than the other and we are bound to go that way"

Now none of this addresses the substance of the issue of choirs and instruments, which is how we get from the (required) worship of Israel to the (required) worship of the church. God was also pleased with circumcision and animal sacrifice. Important questions still need to be answered, such as the relationship of the temple to the church, the priesthood of all believers, the nature of singing (is it a separate element or a means by which we do various prescribed things in worship?). Indeed, most of the challenging issues in theology have to do with issues of continuity and discontinuity between OT and NT. Sincere reformed Christians committed to the RPW may come to different conclusions as to the appropriateness of choirs and musical instruments. That doesn't mean everyone is right: obviously, not all exegesis is equally good. But it does suggest that we shouldn't necessarily treat differences in this issue as signs of incipient heresy.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 24, 2017)

^^^ This is where prudence comes into play-if there is any doubt, the route to take is always going to be to approach the doctrine in safety, lest u (possibly) die suddenly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Sep 24, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He probably did with David.



I am sure God is pleased with us when we wash behind our ears. Though God would not be pleased if we did this during corporate worship.


----------



## Parakaleo (Sep 24, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He probably did with David.



The reason God has appointed song for his worship is to engage our emotions, not his. This is my great departure with the original statement. It seems to reduce God to the level of a man with passions; i.e., "God liked it before, so I think he'd like it still," ("it" being the sounds or sights or smells).

What God "liked" (accepted) was not the sweet or awful sounds, nor the smell of incense or sacrifices burning, but the heart-worship of his people.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 24, 2017)

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 24, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I am sure God is pleased with us when we wash behind our ears. Though God would not be pleased if we did this during corporate worship.



My point was that God was pleased with that in corporate worship.


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 24, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> The reason God has appointed song for his worship is to engage our emotions, not his. This is my great departure with the original statement. It seems to reduce God to the level of a man with passions. I.e., "God liked it before, so I think he'd like it still," ("it" being the sounds or sights or smells).
> 
> What God "liked" (accepted) was not the sweet or awful sounds, nor the smell of incense or sacrifices burning, but the heart-worship of his people.


Your OP asked if the statement was Biblical. I think we should all agree that the part of the statement that says "God was pleased with that worship" is unproblematic, since that OT worship was worship according to his own express commands. It is simply using the same kind of Biblical language that is frequently used of offerings. It may be anthropomorphic, but then God is often described in anthropomorphic terms in the Bible.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Sep 24, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> But it does suggest that we shouldn't necessarily treat differences in this issue as signs of incipient heresy.




I find it quite interesting when people use this line of argumentation. It suggests a flippant attitude towards worship. Statements like these are at odds with many of our reformed forebearers who had great cause for concern and who rightly condemned such practices. Men like Calvin, the Westminster Divines, or John Girardeau are just a few among many who saw many of these things as monuments of idolatry. They argued, not from the situations of their time, but from the scriptures.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 24, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I find it quite interesting when people use this line of argumentation. It suggests a flippant attitude towards worship. Statements like these are at odds with many of our reformed forebearers who had great cause for concern and who rightly condemned such practices. Men like Calvin, the Westminster Divines, or John Girardeau are just a few among many who saw many of these things as monuments of idolatry. They argued, not from the situations of their time, but from the scriptures.


You are in the OPC; the church with the website is in the OPC. Are you ready to bring charges against them? If you think that they are erecting a monument to idolatry, can you explain to me why you are not pursuing ecclesiastical discipline against them? That's very strong language to use against fellow elders in your own denomination.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## earl40 (Sep 24, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My point was that God was pleased with that in corporate worship.



I understood you, and I do not believe David played any instrument or was part of a choir in the corporate worship of God. I believe this is a confused position many take in the "all life is worship" and superimpose such into the official worship service we have on Sunday's.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 24, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I understood you, and I do not believe David played any instrument or was part of a choir in the corporate worship of God. I believe this is a confused position many take in the "all life is worship" and superimpose such into the official worship service we have on Sunday's.



David did huge Levitical renovations in Chronicles.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 24, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> David did huge Levitical renovations in Chronicles.



Would you care to share with me where David sang in a choir and played instruments in corporate worship?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Sep 24, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> You are in the OPC; the church with the website is in the OPC. Are you ready to bring charges against them? If you think that they are erecting a monument to idolatry, can you explain to me why you are not pursuing ecclesiastical discipline against them? That's very strong language to use against fellow elders in your own denomination.



How do you bring ecclesiastical discipline against a church for idolatry when the courts of that church have already expressly countenanced that idolatry? There are churches in your own denomination (and many in the PCA) that prominently display images of Christ which I think almost everyone here would agree are idolatrous. Where is the ecclesiastical discipline? It's not brought because everyone knows it would avail nothing. Perhaps it should be brought anyways, but prudence may dictate other methods of engagement.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 24, 2017)

earl40 said:


> Would you care to share with me where David sang in a choir and played instruments in corporate worship?



Probably all the commands in the Psalms to praise him with lyre. Even most EP guys say that was typical of Temple worship.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 24, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Probably all the commands in the Psalms to praise him with lyre. Even most EP guys say that was typical of Temple worship.



So David himself played instruments and sang in a choir in corporate worship in your opinion? So was he a "worship" leader like we see today?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 24, 2017)

earl40 said:


> So David himself played instruments and sang in a choir in corporate worship in your opinion? So was he a "worship" leader like we see today?



I'm not arguing that. Given that David wrote a lot of the Psalms, and given that those Psalms say to praise God with instruments, and given that EP types say the instruments are typical of the sacrificial system (I'm not really sure how that follows, but I'll pass on it), then instruments were part of worship.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 24, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm not arguing that. Given that David wrote a lot of the Psalms, and given that those Psalms say to praise God with instruments, and given that EP types say the instruments are typical of the sacrificial system (I'm not really sure how that follows, but I'll pass on it), then instruments were part of worship.



Well if the point you "pass on" is valid, you ought to look into how it "follows".


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 24, 2017)

earl40 said:


> Well if the point you "pass on" is valid, you ought to look into how it "follows".



I am arguing _ex hypothesi_. I don't hold to EP, but even EP agree that David commanded at least the Temple (or rather, tabernacle) people to use instruments.


----------



## BG (Sep 24, 2017)

The instruments and choirs were a part of temple worship used during the sacrifice, all of which have now expired.

1Chr 23:1-6
1Chr 28:11-19
2Chr 29:25,26
1Chr 16:4-6
2Chr 5:12
2Chr 29:27-30

God told David exactly what to do, when to do it, who should do it and when to stop. God did not allow David to use his imagination for any of this. After the sacrifice was over the instruments stopped and the people sang a Psalm acapella.
Instruments and Choirs were accessories to the sacrifice, which Christ has done away with.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 24, 2017)

earl40 said:


> So David himself played instruments and sang in a choir in corporate worship in your opinion? So was he a "worship" leader like we see today?


No dog in the fight, figuratively speaking, and not holding anyone's coat, but since David was first introduced to King Saul as a young man who was a 'cunning player of the harp' ,so as to refresh Saul and cause the evil spirit sent by God to depart from him, is it a stretch to suppose that David may have played an instrument in worship ? 1Samuel 16:14-23.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 24, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> No dog in the fight, figuratively speaking, and not holding anyone's coat, but since David was first introduced to King Saul as a young man who was a 'cunning player of the harp' ,so as to refresh Saul and cause the evil spirit sent by God to depart from him, is it a stretch to suppose that David may have played an instrument in worship ? 1Samuel 16:14-23.



I think it's helpful to see that in those days, the musical instruments had a spiritual use. David's harp had a spiritual use with Saul. Then in the accounts of bringing the ark to Jerusalem from Abinadab's house, David and apparently many others played upon instruments, thinking this action must be greatly pleasing to God I'm sure. But as we know disaster struck when Uzza reached out his hand to steady the ark. 1 Corinthians 15 reveals that it wasn't just Uzza's action that was the problem; on the 2nd attempt to bring the ark, David instituted reforms that were missing in the first attempt, including appointing the Levites to sing and play the instruments (15:4). There follows a very detailed account of these appointments. When they successfully brought the ark back, this time in accordance with God's command, David wore the same fine linen as the Levites and also an ephod of linen. So even though not a son of Levi, he ministered to the Lord as a prophet, priest, and king. David's participation as a minister in the public worship was, like every other aspect of the worship of Israel, regulated by divine command- in this and following into the later appointments that evolved into the Temple system, all was done "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" (2 Chronicles 29:25). 

References are 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13; 1 Chronicles 15, 16, 22, 23, 25. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 24, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> the musical instruments had a spiritual use. David's harp had a spiritual use with Saul.



Would you care to clarify what that spiritual use was?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 24, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Would you care to clarify what that spiritual use was?



I'll take a stab. Psychological healing, calming the rage in Saul. The text implies as much.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 24, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Would you care to clarify what that spiritual use was?



My understanding is that the musical instruments were associated with and used in prophesying and praise. At least some Puritans wrote that David's ministry to Saul when he was troubled by the evil spirit was that of prophesying and praising upon the harp, because musical instruments were always connected to the ministry of prophecy. 

1 Chronicles 25:1

Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals

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...

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.

Psalm 71:22

I will also praise thee with the psaltery, even thy truth, O my God: unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.

And there are other Scriptures showing how this is the case. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## earl40 (Sep 25, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> My understanding is that the musical instruments were associated with and used in prophesying and praise. At least some Puritans wrote that David's ministry to Saul when he was troubled by the evil spirit was that of prophesying and praising upon the harp, because musical instruments were always connected to the ministry of prophecy.
> 
> 1 Chronicles 25:1
> 
> ...



I find it interesting how the use of instruments were used in worship in the temple for special events which now have passed, and may have only appeared at those events at that time.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG (Sep 25, 2017)

The OP shows a lack of understanding of the RPW.
It also opens the door for anything that can be imagined by man including clowns with kazoos or three gay men doing ballet calling themselves the Holy Spirit. 
If this is a confessional church, it is showing not only a lack of respect but a willingness to go against the clear teaching of the Confession.

**being a confessional church means you adhere to the COF with no exceptions **

We have seen this all before, A church makes an exception to the COF but with good intentions and a strong resolution to go this far and no farther and that lasts for 10 years or so and then the next generation makes another exception.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Sep 25, 2017)

Something else that disturbs me about the original statement is the lack of awareness that New Covenant worship is without any ceremony or shadow, unlike Old Covenant worship. I know it's a short statement, but the ground used for the short argument is that there is precedent in Old Covenant worship.

As believers who are free to worship God in _spirit and truth_, you'd think that we would want to be _most meticulous_ in not reintroducing ceremonial worship. You'd think that searching the New Testament and the practices of the apostles would be forefront on our minds, so as not to be guilty of worshipping God by shadows.

Instead, as @TylerRay has already pointed out, this statement begins by openly acknowledging there is no New Testament prescription for choirs and special music, but then proceeds to reason from Old Covenant worship practices. How does this person know that _these things _are not ceremonial by nature?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 25, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> and given that EP types say the instruments are typical of the sacrificial system (I'm not really sure how that follows, but I'll pass on it)



Just a tiny bone to pick, brother. I've never heard someone argue that the instruments had a specific relationship to the sacrifices (though, as I recall, one of the times that they played them was during the sacrifices). Rather, the issue is that the instruments were played only as a function of the Levitical office, and only in the temple service.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 25, 2017)

earl40 said:


> I find it interesting how the use of instruments were used in worship in the temple for special events which now have passed, and may have only appeared at those events at that time.



Your statement is confusing. The first clause says the instruments were used in worship, but the second clause backtracks and says they might not have been used. Which begs the question, "Why did David even mention them?"


----------



## earl40 (Sep 25, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Your statement is confusing. The first clause says the instruments were used in worship, but the second clause backtracks and says they might not have been used. Which begs the question, "Why did David even mention them?"



You are assuming that David is saying to use such in the official or dare I say synagogue worship. I am with Tyler above in what he said about the temple service.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 25, 2017)

earl40 said:


> You are assuming that David is saying to use such in the official or dare I say synagogue worship. I am with Tyler above in what he said about the temple service.



I never said David said to use it in Synagogue worship (though my own thoughts about the origin of the Synagogue is different, but that's another thread). I thought you were denying that they were to be used in Temple worship. No one, even EPers, makes that claim.

Now, I did deny that David said to use it in the Temple specifically, since the Temple wasn't built in David's time. That's why I qualified it to mean Tabernacle.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 25, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought you were denying that they were to be used in Temple worship. No one, even EPers, makes that claim.



I am glad we now understand each other.


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 25, 2017)

I think what's missing in that statement, is a statement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

