# Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments « Backwoods Presbyterian


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments « Backwoods Presbyterian



Not to be argumentative, but if worship and praise that included instruments was exclusive to the foundation of the Temple or specifically abrogated in the NT, then the rationale might hold water.

In my opinion, working to rationalize away instruments in worship is an attempt to "reign in" the excesses of Man in the expression of worship. It is actually "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", since our prime authority on worship praxis, particularly musical worship, is the Psalms... and they certainly do not ban instruments.

We'd do better understanding how we should follow the Lord's commands then *regulate* as opposed to *ban*. Otherwise, we run the risk of condemning what the Lord *commands*.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well certainly if you do not buy the premise that all elements of the Temple Worship ceased with Christ's atoning Death and Resurrection and Ascension (and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 do not forget) and instruments were an "element" then the discussion is moot.

Here is a quote from John Calvin to think about:


> "Musical Instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law...Music was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God in ancient times...Now that Christ has appeared and the Church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the Gospel, should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation." _(from pg. 9 of the John Price book that I highlight on my blog post)_



Of course as Calvin says if you use instruments why do you not also use incense and the other things "commanded" by the Psalms?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Price's book is good - isn't it!

What I particularly liked about it was how the Early Church Fathers answered panta dokimazete's point above:

That the musical instruments of David represented the joy that is now experienced in the heart of the Christian man celebrating Christ. Worship is not mechanical in nature, but is now done "in Spirit and in Truth."

What does it say about us when we allow musical instruments to sound off the Praise that should be coming from our own hearts and mouths.

In Jesus,

-Rob


----------



## panta dokimazete

As you know - I greatly appreciate the exegetical genius of John Calvin, however, he is mistaken - in this particular instance.



> In commenting on Psalm 81:3, John Calvin observed:
> 
> The Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time. From this, it is apparent that the Papists have shown themselves to be very apes in transferring this to themselves.
> 
> In a similar vein, Calvin remarks upon Psalm 33:2.
> 
> I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him.



from here

Couple of items:

It doesn't seem as if he can decide whether it was strictly a ceremonial institute or an aid for singing (keeping the worshipers in tune or training them to sing in tune, as it were).

As far as the correlation to the other elements - the apostle enjoined us to use the Psalms as our guide and the Psalms don't refer to incense or lamps for use in worship. It seems to me the Lord preserved the worship He expects. John was just caught up in his disgust with all things that could be perceived as Romish.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> As you know - I greatly appreciate the exegetical genius of John Calvin, however, he is mistaken - in this particular instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In commenting on Psalm 81:3, John Calvin observed:
> 
> The Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time. From this, it is apparent that the Papists have shown themselves to be very apes in transferring this to themselves.
> 
> In a similar vein, Calvin remarks upon Psalm 33:2.
> 
> I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from here
> 
> Couple of items:
> 
> It doesn't seem as if he can decide whether it was strictly a ceremonial institute or an aid for singing (keeping the worshipers in tune or training them to sing in tune, as it were).
> 
> As far as the correlation to the other elements - the apostle enjoined us to use the Psalms as our guide and the Psalms don't refer to incense or lamps for use in worship. It seems to me the Lord preserved the worship He expects. John was just caught up in his disgust with all things that could be perceived as Romish.
Click to expand...


Thomas Aquinas, who is more Roman than anyone in history, also wrote against the use of instruments in worship. 

Why would the Psalms need to reiterate what was already in progress at the Temple? Take a look at these verses. 

As far as incense take a look at Psalm 66:15.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

By the way Thomas Aquinas gives a great definition for the RPW


> Now we should employ nothing in the divine worship, save what is delivered to us on the authority of Scripture.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Thomas Aquinas, who is more Roman than anyone in history, also wrote against the use of instruments in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, in the Old Law God was praised with musical instruments and human song, according to Psalm 32:2-3: "Give praise to the Lord on the harp, sing to Him with the psaltery, the instrument of ten strings. Sing to Him a new canticle." But the Church does not make use of musical instruments such as harps and psalteries, in the divine praises,* for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews.* Therefore in like manner neither should song be used in the divine praises.
Click to expand...


The premise seems very weak.



> Why would the Psalms need to reiterate what was already in progress at the Temple? Take a look at these verses.


Not sure what your point is?



> As far as incense take a look at Psalm 66:15.



15 I shall offer to You burnt offerings of fat beasts,
With the smoke of rams;
I shall make an offering of bulls with male goats. Selah.

?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Aquinas, who is more Roman than anyone in history, also wrote against the use of instruments in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, in the Old Law God was praised with musical instruments and human song, according to Psalm 32:2-3: "Give praise to the Lord on the harp, sing to Him with the psaltery, the instrument of ten strings. Sing to Him a new canticle." But the Church does not make use of musical instruments such as harps and psalteries, in the divine praises,* for fear of seeming to imitate the Jews.* Therefore in like manner neither should song be used in the divine praises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The premise seems very weak.
> 
> 
> Not sure what your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as incense take a look at Psalm 66:15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 15 I shall offer to You burnt offerings of fat beasts,
> With the smoke of rams;
> I shall make an offering of bulls with male goats. Selah.
> 
> ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Aquinas, as many others of the time, used the phrase "of the Jews" to describe the old economy.
> 
> 2) If the Psalms are proscriptive for NT worship (as you claim) why do you not follow what they teach completely?
Click to expand...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> 2) If the Psalms are proscriptive for NT worship (as you claim) why do you not follow what they teach completely?



I would follow everything they teach that is not abrogated by the NT. What are you intimating?

_BTW: I think the term is *pre*scriptive (I know because I used the wrong spelling once and got called on it )_


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Do you dance in worship? How about play trumpets and lyre's? 

I do not see any explicit commands for piano's or organs in the Psalms.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Me, particularly? I move rhythmically when I praise, pat my feet, sway, clap, so, yes, in the strictest terms, I do dance. Very decently and in order. And when I was worshipping in Uganda, where the brethren are a bit more expressive, I was, too.

Where do the Psalms command to use those instrument types exclusively? There are generic terms that make the specific instrument used circumstantial.

Also, since you used the KJV, earlier:

Psalm 150:4
Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 1) Aquinas, as many others of the time, used the phrase "of the Jews" to describe the old economy.



He didn't say "of the Jews" - he said *in fear of imitating the Jews*. That is, to draw a distinction between Christian and Jewish practice, just as the early church fathers banned instruments in worship in fear of imitating the Greeks. As far as I could see, he didn't give any scriptural support for his fear.


----------



## mybigGod

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Aquinas, who is more Roman than anyone in history, also wrote against the use of instruments in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The premise seems very weak.
> 
> 
> Not sure what your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> 15 I shall offer to You burnt offerings of fat beasts,
> With the smoke of rams;
> I shall make an offering of bulls with male goats. Selah.
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Aquinas, as many others of the time, used the phrase "of the Jews" to describe the old economy.
> 
> 2) If the Psalms are proscriptive for NT worship (as you claim) why do you not follow what they teach completely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but dont we offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God? Which is a matter of conviction to conversion to deliverance. Since we are to go to God and tell Him what we want to do, since that is our response to His demands in the covenant, but since they did not remind themselves daily as we preach to ourselves so that we are being obedient in this form of delivering us from ever thinking that this is all He wants. Because even in the old testament they did not depend upon the means as being able to make them acceptable to God. Since in other Psalms it was more than just the sacrifice that David understood. They had a gospel understanding by the Holy Spirit in some ways that was more real by their longing than we take for granted today looking back. This was a conviction that David was going to be single hearted by His longing to understanding of the future Redeemer. So that in this way he saw the means as just the means.
Click to expand...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> 1) Aquinas, as many others of the time, used the phrase "of the Jews" to describe the old economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say "of the Jews" - he said *in fear of imitating the Jews*. That is, to draw a distinction between Christian and Jewish practice, just as the early church fathers banned instruments in worship in fear of imitating the Greeks. As far as I could see, he didn't give any scriptural support for his fear.
Click to expand...


The early fathers did not ban instruments in fear of "imitating the Greeks".

Justin Martyr says:


> "The use of singing with instruments was not received in the Christian churches as it was among the Jews in their infant state, but only the use of plain song."


 Also:


> "Musical organs pertain to the Jewish ceremonies and agree no more to us than circumcision."


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The early fathers did not ban instruments in fear of "imitating the Greeks".



Are you sure?



> ..."musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship." (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)





> "The Biblical precept to "sing" the psalms, not merely recite, them, was obeyed literally, as is testified by many statements in the writings of the saints. Pope Leo I, who lived about 450, expressly related that "the Psalms of David arc piously sung everywhere in the Church." Only singing however, and no playing of instruments, was permitted in the early Christian Church. In this respect the Jewish tradition was not continued. In the earlier Jewish temple service many instruments mentioned in-the Bible had been used. But instrumental music had been thoroughly discredited in the meantime by the lascivious *Greek* and Roman virtuoso music of the later ages, and it appeared unfit for the divine service. The aulos was held in especial abhorrence, whereas some indulgence was granted to the lyre and cithara, permitted by some saints at least for private worship, though not in church services. It is interesting to note that the later Jewish temple service has conformed to the early Christian practice and, contrary to Biblical tradition, has banned all instruments. Orthodox Jewish synagogues now object even to the use of the organ. (Hugo Leichtentritt, Music, History and Ideas, Howard University Press: Cambridge, 1958, p 34)





> PRATT "The, First Christian Songs. - Singing in public and private worship was a matter of course for the early Christians. For Jewish converts this was a continuance of synagogue customs, but since the Church grew mostly among non-Jews, the technical forms employed were more *Greek* than Hebrew. The use of instruments was long resisted, because of their association with pagan sensuality." (Waldo Selden Pratt, The History of Music, 1935, p. 64)





> "Neither he [Paul] nor any other apostle, nor the Lord Jesus, nor any of the disciples for five hundred years, used instruments. This too, in the face of the fact that the Jews had used instruments in the days of their prosperity and that the *Greeks* and heathen nations all used them in their worship. They were dropped out with such emphasis that they were not taken up till the middle of the Dark Ages, and came in as part of the order of the Roman Catholic Church. It seems there cannot be doubt but that the use of instrumental music in connection with the worship of God, whether used as a part of the worship or as an attraction accompaniment, is unauthorized by God and violates the oft-repeated prohibition to add nothing to, take nothing from, the commandments of the Lord. It destroys the difference between the clean and the unclean, the holy and unholy, counts the blood of the Son of God unclean, and tramples under foot the authority of the Son of God. They have not been authorized by God or sanctified with the blood of his Son." (David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers by David Lipscomb p. 226-227, and Gospel Advocate, 1899, p. 376-377)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I do not see how the first or second quotes fits into an exegetical argument? You are trying to make instruments into an idol meat issue, a "weak brother" issue with these quotes. The first is Augustine making a statement concerning the active practice in 4th century Alexandria. No one is making the primary argument that we should not use instruments "just because they did back then". As the quotes from Justin Martyr show there was an exegetical framework buttressing the practice. The mere fact that it separated the Christians from the pagans is just icing on the proverbial cake. The second is the statement of a musicologist, not a theologian or a Christian for that matter. No mention is made as to why they did not use instruments other than the heathens did so and the Christians did not. We can tell from the third and fourth quotes why this was, especially as the third and fourth quotes work in the favor of those of us that see the RPW as denying the use of musical instruments in worship. 

It worked quite nicely that, as your last quote says quite correctly:



> "*Neither he [Paul] nor any other apostle, nor the Lord Jesus, nor any of the disciples for five hundred years, used instruments. *This too, in the face of the fact that the Jews had used instruments in the days of their prosperity and that the Greeks and heathen nations all used them in their worship. They were dropped out with such emphasis that they were not taken up till the middle of the Dark Ages, and came in as part of the order of the Roman Catholic Church. *It seems there cannot be doubt but that the use of instrumental music in connection with the worship of God, whether used as a part of the worship or as an attraction accompaniment, is unauthorized by God and violates the oft-repeated prohibition to add nothing to, take nothing from, the commandments of the Lord. It destroys the difference between the clean and the unclean, the holy and unholy, counts the blood of the Son of God unclean, and tramples under foot the authority of the Son of God. They have not been authorized by God or sanctified with the blood of his Son.*" (David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers by David Lipscomb p. 226-227, and Gospel Advocate, 1899, p. 376-377)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Also look at Lev. 18:3 and Deut 12:30.


----------



## panta dokimazete

So...it is plain to see that I rebutted your error with sources from "your side" of the argument - that does not mean I accept the rationale, simply that the facts disagree with your assertion.


----------



## bookslover

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well certainly if you do not buy the premise that all elements of the Temple Worship ceased with Christ's atoning Death and Resurrection and Ascension (and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 do not forget) and instruments were an "element" then the discussion is moot.
> 
> Here is a quote from John Calvin to think about:
> 
> 
> 
> "Musical Instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law...Music was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God in ancient times...Now that Christ has appeared and the Church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the Gospel, should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation." _(from pg. 9 of the John Price book that I highlight on my blog post)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course as Calvin says if you use instruments why do you not also use incense and the other things "commanded" by the Psalms?
Click to expand...


I notice that, in the quote itself, as presented, Calvin offers no scriptural support for his position. He just asserts that, since the church has reached "full age" (whatever that may mean; I would say that the church won't reach "full age" until the eschaton), musical instruments in worship are not necessary.

He offers no biblical proof for this assertion because he can't. Nowhere in the New Testament is the use of musical instruments in worship forbidden. I believe Calvin's opinion is an overreaction to the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## panta dokimazete

The facts remain:

1. We are commanded to use the Psalms as a guide to proper worship.
2. The Psalms command the use of instruments.
3. Instruments were a circumstantial part of worship pre-Temple.
4. Instruments are nowhere abrogated by the NT.


----------



## bookslover

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> By the way Thomas Aquinas gives a great definition for the RPW
> 
> 
> 
> Now we should employ nothing in the divine worship, save what is delivered to us on the authority of Scripture.
Click to expand...


Good. Since musical instruments were used in the Old Testament, and since they are not banned in the New Testament, then musical instruments are allowed in worship.


----------



## bookslover

As part of this topic, why do Calvin and some of the early church fathers posit this gulf between Old and New Testament worship praxis? Yes, on this side of the cross, we have a fuller revelation, and the prophecies concerning Christ's first advent have been fulfilled, but what does that difference have to do with the use of musical instruments in worship? There's no logical or theological connection between the two. Instruments, in and of themselves, have no redemptive-historical significance vis-a-vis worship praxis. Again, the New Testament does not prohibit their use in public worship.

I'm sure many of us have read Michael Bushell's fine book on this subject. It is well-written and interesting to read. But, read carefully, you'll notice that most of his argument is taken from church history, not Scripture. Fortunately, as Reformed Protestants, we take our cues from Scripture alone, not church history. It's a good book, but he fails to make his case - because he does not have the Scriptures on his side.


----------



## MW

Psalm 43:4, "Then will I go unto the *altar* of God, unto God my exceeding joy: yea, upon *the harp* will I praise thee, O God my God."

Hebrews 13:10, 15, "We have an *altar*, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle... By *him* [Jesus] therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."

Under the Gospel the believer is to sing praise to God in the full revelation of the mediatorial character and work of Jesus Christ, not by mechanical instruments.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> Psalm 43:4, "Then will I go unto the *altar* of God, unto God my exceeding joy: yea, upon *the harp* will I praise thee, O God my God."
> 
> Hebrews 13:10, 15, "We have an *altar*, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle... By *him* [Jesus] therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."
> 
> Under the Gospel the believer is to sing praise to God in the full revelation of the mediatorial character and work of Jesus Christ, not by mechanical instruments.



You are concatenating the discontinuation of animal sacrifices and associated ritual with the sacrifice of praise that we *do* continue in prayer, song, practice and proclamation. I'd say v15 tied to the Psalm quoted would actually guide one *toward* the allowable use of instruments as a supporting circumstance of praise, not the contrary, since praise must be vocalized.

Psalm 51:15
O Lord, open my lips,That my mouth may declare Your praise.

Psalm 71:22
I will also praise You with a harp,Even Your truth, O my God;To You I will sing praises with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.

Psalm 149:3
Let them praise His name with dancing;Let them sing praises to Him with timbrel and lyre.


----------



## MW

JD, Your thesis is based upon a misunderstanding as to what part the musical instruments played in OT worship. You are arguing for instrumental *accompaniment*, but the Psalms mandate instrumental *worship*, i.e., that the instruments be played in worship to God as an orchestration of the sacrifical service. These musical instruments typically illustrate "the joy" set before the Lord Jesus Christ as He endured the cross and despised the shame. Rather than stir up our affections by means of such mechanical instruments, the apostle teaches that we are to make melody in our hearts, which is exegeted by himself to mean that we should sing with grace in our hearts to the Lord. The Lord Jesus Christ has fulfilled all types and ceremonies associated with the sacrifical worship as prescribed by the Psalms. The book of Hebrews should easily convince you of this.


----------



## panta dokimazete

With all due respect, where does Scripture mandate the use of instruments unaccompanied by praise? In every instance of OT worship I know of, instruments are used as accompaniment *to* praise\worship, not as sufficient in and of itself.

Also - the apostle says "singing and making melody *with* your heart" (NASB) and "singing and making melody *in* your heart" (KJV) - so unless you propose that this commands both singing *and* making melody as internalized actions, then I believe it is more accurate to exegete "making melody" as an externalized and distinct reference to instrumental accompaniment.

Psalm 98
4Shout joyfully to the LORD, all the earth;
Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises.
5Sing praises to the LORD with the lyre,
With the lyre and the sound of melody.
6With trumpets and the sound of the horn
Shout joyfully before the King, the LORD.


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> With all due respect, where does Scripture mandate the use of instruments unaccompanied by praise? In every instance of OT worship I know of, instruments are used as accompaniment *to* praiseworship, not as sufficient in and of itself.



No doubt the singing was also an essential element of the sacrificial service, but this does not detract from the point that musical instrumentation was not implemented to accompany praise but to orchestrate the sacrifice.

2 Chron. 29:25-29, "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."

There is no possibility of separating the musical instrumentation as if it were merely appointed to accompany the singing of praise. The orchestration was a Levitical rite which was commanded as a specific part of the sacrifice.



panta dokimazete said:


> Also - the apostle says "singing and making melody *with* your heart" (NASB) and "singing and making melody *in* your heart" (KJV) - so unless you propose that this commands both singing *and* making melody as internalized actions, then I believe it is more accurate to exegete "making melody" as an externalized and distinct reference to instrumental accompaniment.



The words should be understood in connection with Col. 3:16, where the apostle serves as the best commentator on his own words by changing the clause to "singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." The "making melody" of Eph. 5:19 clearly equates to "with grace *in* your hearts."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> So...it is plain to see that I rebutted your error with sources from "your side" of the argument - that does not mean I accept the rationale, simply that the facts disagree with your assertion.



What? The "facts" you presented support the NT Church's disuse of Jewish Temple worship and all things associated with worship. 

I still fail to see where the New Testament says that the Psalms are proscriptive and normative for New Testament worship?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

bookslover said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well certainly if you do not buy the premise that all elements of the Temple
> *Worship ceased with Christ's atoning Death and Resurrection and Ascension (and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 do not forget) and instruments were an "element" then the discussion is moot.*
> 
> Here is a quote from John Calvin to think about:
> 
> 
> 
> "Musical Instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law...Music was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God in ancient times...Now that Christ has appeared and the Church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the Gospel, should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation." _(from pg. 9 of the John Price book that I highlight on my blog post)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course as Calvin says if you use instruments why do you not also use incense and the other things "commanded" by the Psalms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice that, in the quote itself, as presented, Calvin offers no scriptural support for his position. He just asserts that, since the church has reached "full age" (whatever that may mean; I would say that the church won't reach "full age" until the eschaton), musical instruments in worship are not necessary.
> 
> He offers no biblical proof for this assertion because he can't. Nowhere in the New Testament is the use of musical instruments in worship forbidden. I believe Calvin's opinion is an overreaction to the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...


Well that is just because I did not include the proofs, it does not mean automatically that Calvin pulled this argument out of thin air. It cannot be dismissed that even the Lutherans (who do not hold to the RPW) did not use instruments in worship until the 17th century. As well as the fact that the Eastern Orthodox (who do not hold to the RPW) to this day do not use instruments for precisely the same reasons. In fact they use(d) the NPW to deny the use of instruments in worship. 

Here is Calvin (with proofs):

From his Commentary on Psalm 33:2



> 2. Praise Jehovah upon the harp. It is evident that the Psalmist here expresses the vehement and ardent affection which the faithful ought to have in praising God, when he enjoins musical instruments to be employed for this purpose. He would have nothing omitted by believers which tends to animate the minds and feelings of men in singing God’s praises. The name of God, no doubt, can, properly speaking, be celebrated only by the articulate voice; but it is not without reason that David adds to this those aids by which believers were wont to stimulate themselves the more to this exercise; especially considering that he was speaking to God’s ancient people. *There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints only in a known tongue, (1 Corinthians 14:16.)* The voice of man, although not understood by the generality, assuredly excels all inanimate instruments of music; and yet we see what St Paul determines concerning speaking in an unknown tongue. What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound? Does any one object, that music is very useful for awakening the minds of men and moving their hearts? I own it; but we should always take care that no corruption creep in, which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. Moreover, since the Holy Spirit expressly warns us of this danger by the mouth of Paul, to proceed beyond what we are there warranted by him is not only, I must say, unadvised zeal, but wicked and perverse obstinacy.



John Calvin commentary on Psalm 71:22,



> 22. I will also, O my God! praise thee. He again breaks forth into thanksgiving; for he was aware that the design of God, in so liberally succoring his servants, is, that his goodness may be celebrated. *In speaking of employing the psaltery and the harp in this exercise, he alludes to the generally prevailing custom of that time. To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law, and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures; but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving. We are not, indeed, forbidden to use, in private, musical instruments, but they are banished out of the churches by the plain command of the Holy Spirit, when Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:13, lays it down as an invariable rule, that we must praise God, and pray to him only in a known tongue. *By the word truth, the Psalmist means that the hope which he reposed in God was rewarded, when God preserved him in the midst of dangers. The promises of God, and his truth in performing them, are inseparably joined together. Unless we depend upon the word of God, all the benefits which he confers upon us will be unsavory or tasteless to us; nor will we ever be stirred up either to prayer or thanksgiving, if we are not previously illuminated by the Divine word. So much the more revolting, then, is the folly of that diabolical man, Servetus, who teaches that the rule of praying is perverted, if faith is fixed upon the promises; as if we could have any access into the presence of God, until he first invited us by his own voice to come to him.



John Calvin on Psalm 81:1-3,


> 1 Sing joyfully to God our strength. This psalm, it is probable, was appointed to be sung on the festival days on which the Jews kept their solemn assemblies. In the exordium, there is set forth the order of worship which God had enjoined. They were not to stand deaf and dumb at the tabernacle; for the service of God does not consist in indolence, nor in cold and empty ceremonies; but they were, by such exercises as are here prescribed, to cherish among themselves the unity of faith; to make an open profession of their piety; to stir up themselves to continual progress therein; to endeavor to join, with one accord, in praising God; and, in short, to continue steadfast in the sacred covenant by which God had adopted them to himself.
> 
> Such having been the use of festival days under the law, we may conclude, that whenever true believers assemble together at the present day, the end which they ought to have in view is to employ themselves in the exercises of religion — to call to their remembrance the benefits which they have received from God — to make progress in the knowledge of his word — and to testify the oneness of their faith. Men only mock God by presenting to him vain and unprofitable ceremonies, unless the doctrine of faith go before, stirring them up to call upon God; and unless, also, the remembrance of his benefits furnish matter of praise. Yea, rather it is a profanation of his name, when people quench the light of divine truth, and satisfy themselves with performing mere outward service. Accordingly, the faithful are here not only enjoined to come together to the tabernacle, but are also taught the end for which they are to assemble there, which is, that the free and gracious covenant which God has made with them may be brought anew to their remembrance, for increasing their faith and piety, that thus the benefits which they have received from him may be celebrated, and their hearts thereby moved to thanksgiving. _With respect to the tabret, harp, and psaltery, we have formerly observed, and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark, that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were as yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time. _From this, it is apparent that the Papists have shown themselves to be very apes in transferring this to themselves. [/B]Under the new moon, by the figure synecdoche, is comprehended all the other high feasts. Sacrifices were daily offered; but the days on which the faithful met together at the tabernacle, according to the express appointment of the law, are called, by way of eminence, the days of sacrifice.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

bookslover said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Thomas Aquinas gives a great definition for the RPW
> 
> 
> 
> Now we should employ nothing in the divine worship, save what is delivered to us on the authority of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. Since musical instruments were used in the Old Testament, and since they are not banned in the New Testament, then musical instruments are allowed in worship.
Click to expand...


Where is your scriptural proof for this? Excepting John's visions of angles in heaven in Revelation and descriptions of Temple worship the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...it is plain to see that I rebutted your error with sources from "your side" of the argument - that does not mean I accept the rationale, simply that the facts disagree with your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? The "facts" you presented support the NT Church's disuse of Jewish Temple worship and all things associated with worship.
Click to expand...


BP - you asserted that fear of imitating the Greeks was not a concern of the early church fathers as it regards utilizing instruments. I presented proof that you were in error.



> I still fail to see where the New Testament says that the Psalms are proscriptive and normative for New Testament worship?



Again - they are not "pro"scriptive, that is, showing what is forbidden in terms of worship, they are "pre"scriptive in that they are a guide to what is acceptable - per the command of the apostle.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...it is plain to see that I rebutted your error with sources from "your side" of the argument - that does not mean I accept the rationale, simply that the facts disagree with your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? The "facts" you presented support the NT Church's disuse of Jewish Temple worship and all things associated with worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BP - you asserted that fear of imitating the Greeks was not a concern of the early church fathers as it regards utilizing instruments. I presented proof that you were in error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still fail to see where the New Testament says that the Psalms are proscriptive and normative for New Testament worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again - they are not "pro"scriptive, that is, showing what is forbidden in terms of worship, they are "pre"scriptive in that they are a guide to what is acceptable - per the command of the apostle.
Click to expand...


I did not say it was not a concern I said that is not why they did not allow instruments into Christian worship. 

As far as the Psalms being "pre"scriptive for worship again if they are why do you not follow all that they teach? We cannot just select the parts that are prescriptive. We must, if they are prescriptive, then follow their decrees to the fullest. 

Here are some of what the Psalms command for worship:

Psalm 29:2 "...Worship the LORD in holy array." 

Psalm 95:6 " Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before the LORD our Maker."

Psalm 96:9 "Worship the LORD in holy attire..."


Why or why not should we do these things in worship, as the Psalms command?


----------



## Casey

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> As far as the Psalms being "pre"scriptive for worship again if they are why do you not follow all that they teach? Only pointing to what is ultimately culturally conditioned to be toward the "liking" of the modern Church?


[friendly note]
Brother, I believe this is inappropriate. If you go back and re-read JD's posts, you'll see that he's not arguing for "what is ultimately culturally conditioned to be toward the 'liking' of the modern Church." The nature of his argument is from the Scriptures, not cultural sensitivities. Now you may think his use of Scripture is wrong, and if you do, then argue against that. 
[/friendly note]


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

CaseyBessette said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the Psalms being "pre"scriptive for worship again if they are why do you not follow all that they teach? Only pointing to what is ultimately culturally conditioned to be toward the "liking" of the modern Church?
> 
> 
> 
> [friendly note]
> Brother, I believe this is inappropriate. If you go back and re-read JD's posts, you'll see that he's not arguing for "what is ultimately culturally conditioned to be toward the 'liking' of the modern Church." The nature of his argument is from the Scriptures, not cultural sensitivities. Now you may think his use of Scripture is wrong, and if you do, then argue against that.
> [/friendly note]
Click to expand...


Thanks Casey. I'll re-write to make it more friendly.


----------



## RTaron

panta dokimazete said:


> With all due respect, where does Scripture mandate the use of instruments unaccompanied by praise? In every instance of OT worship I know of, instruments are used as accompaniment *to* praise\worship, not as sufficient in and of itself.QUOTE]
> 
> This verse came to mind after reading this.
> 
> 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 10:10
> 
> This seems to be an instance where the instrument was used without the singing of prasies.


----------



## dcomin

Submitted for your consideration...

Here is a survey of the references to musical instruments in worship throughout 1 and 2 Chronicles...

*1. The use of musical instruments in the OT worship was a function of the Levites, who presided over the sacrificial system.*



> *1 Chronicles 15:16* And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy.



*2. The specifically appointed function of these Levites was to minister before the ark of the LORD.*



> *1 Chronicles 16:4-6* And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, and to record, and to thank and praise the LORD God of Israel: 5 Asaph the chief, and next to him Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obededom: and Jeiel with psalteries and with harps; but Asaph made a sound with cymbals; 6 Benaiah also and Jahaziel the priests with trumpets continually before the ark of the covenant of God.
> 
> *1 Chronicles 16:37* So he left there before the ark of the covenant of the LORD Asaph and his brethren, to minister before the ark continually, as every day's work required:



*3. Those appointed to play musical instruments were specifically-named members of the priestly family, who were charged to employ the "instruments of God" in connection with the burnt offerings "according to all that is written in the law of the LORD."*



> *1 Chronicles 16:39-42* And Zadok the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of the LORD in the high place that was at Gibeon, 40 To offer burnt offerings unto the LORD upon the altar of the burnt offering continually morning and evening, and to do according to all that is written in the law of the LORD, which he commanded Israel; {morning...: Heb. in the morning, and in the evening} 41 And with them Heman and Jeduthun, and the rest that were chosen, who were expressed by name, to give thanks to the LORD, because his mercy endureth for ever; 42 And with them Heman and Jeduthun with trumpets and cymbals for those that should make a sound, and with musical instruments of God. And the sons of Jeduthun were porters.



*4. Within the order of the priests and Levites there were 4,000 appointed to play musical instruments made by David himself for the purpose of praising God. *



> *1 Chronicles 23:2-5 *And he gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the priests and the Levites. 3 Now the Levites were numbered from the age of thirty years and upward: and their number by their polls, man by man, was thirty and eight thousand. 4 Of which, twenty and four thousand were to set forward the work of the house of the LORD; and six thousand were officers and judges: 5 Moreover four thousand were porters; and four thousand praised the LORD with the instruments which I made, said David, to praise therewith.


 
*5. In addition to ministering before the ark of the LORD and praising in connection with the burnt offering, some of the priests and Levites were set apart to prophesy with musical instruments.*



> *1 Chronicles 25:1-2* 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: and the number of the workmen according to their service was: 2 Of the sons of Asaph; Zaccur, and Joseph, and Nethaniah, and Asarelah, the sons of Asaph under the hands of Asaph, which prophesied according to the order of the king.



*6. The employment of the instruments was a function of the priests, arrayed in white linen.*



> *2 Chronicles 5:12-13* Also the Levites which were the singers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, being arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets 13 It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up their voice 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;
> 
> *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.



*7. The use of the musical instruments by the Levites was carefully done according to the prescription of God through His prophets - only Levites, and only the specific instruments appointed by God.*



> *2 Chronicles 29:25-26* 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. 26 And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.



*8. The Levitical function of employing the musical instruments commenced with the offering of the burnt offering.*



> *2 Chronicles 29:27* 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.



*9. The Levitical funtion of employing the musical instruments stopped at the completion of the burnt offering.*



> *2 Chronicles 29:28* And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished.



*10. When the burnt offering was finished, the instruments were put away, but the singing of praises continued in reverent worship to God.*



> *2 Chronicles 29:29-30 *And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped. 30 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.


----------



## panta dokimazete

RTaron said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, where does Scripture mandate the use of instruments unaccompanied by praise? In every instance of OT worship I know of, instruments are used as accompaniment *to* praiseworship, not as sufficient in and of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This verse came to mind after reading this.
> 
> 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 10:10
> 
> This seems to be an instance where the instrument was used without the singing of prasies.
Click to expand...


Popping in quickly from work...

Good point - except the use of the trumpet in this example is contextualized as an alarm, a noise maker, a signal, like a siren, not as melody making musical accompaniment.

Numbers 10

1The LORD spoke further to Moses, saying,

2"Make yourself two trumpets of silver, of hammered work you shall make them; and you shall use them for summoning the congregation and for having the camps set out.

3"When both are blown, all the congregation shall gather themselves to you at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

4"Yet if only one is blown, then the leaders, the heads of the divisions of Israel, shall assemble before you.

5"But when you blow an alarm, the camps that are pitched on the east side shall set out.

6"When you blow an alarm the second time, the camps that are pitched on the south side shall set out; an alarm is to be blown for them to set out.

7"When convening the assembly, however, you shall blow without sounding an alarm.

8"The priestly sons of Aaron, moreover, shall blow the trumpets; and this shall be for you a perpetual statute throughout your generations.

9"When you go to war in your land against the adversary who attacks you, then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets, that you may be remembered before the LORD your God, and be saved from your enemies.

10"Also in the day of your gladness and in your appointed feasts, and on the first days of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; and they shall be as a reminder of you before your God. I am the LORD your God."


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? The "facts" you presented support the NT Church's disuse of Jewish Temple worship and all things associated with worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BP - you asserted that fear of imitating the Greeks was not a concern of the early church fathers as it regards utilizing instruments. I presented proof that you were in error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still fail to see where the New Testament says that the Psalms are proscriptive and normative for New Testament worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again - they are not "pro"scriptive, that is, showing what is forbidden in terms of worship, they are "pre"scriptive in that they are a guide to what is acceptable - per the command of the apostle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say it was not a concern I said that is not why they did not allow instruments into Christian worship.
> 
> As far as the Psalms being "pre"scriptive for worship again if they are why do you not follow all that they teach? We cannot just select the parts that are prescriptive. We must, if they are prescriptive, then follow their decrees to the fullest.
> 
> Here are some of what the Psalms command for worship:
> 
> Psalm 29:2 "...Worship the LORD in holy array."
> 
> Psalm 96:9 "Worship the LORD in holy attire..."
Click to expand...


We do.



> Revelation 3:4-6
> 
> 4'But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy.
> 
> 5'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
> 
> 6'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Revelation 3:4-6 is speaking of the time to come:

See Matthew Henry:



> 1. A great reward promised to the conquering Christian (v. 5), and it is very much the same with what has been already mentioned: He that overcometh shall be clothed in white raiment.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Revelation 3:4-6 is speaking of the time to come:
> 
> See Matthew Henry:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. A great reward promised to the conquering Christian (v. 5), and it is very much the same with what has been already mentioned: He that overcometh shall be clothed in white raiment.
Click to expand...


Nope - falls under the "now, not yet" distinction.

How about this?

Galatians 3:27
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ


----------



## panta dokimazete

Matthew, Doug - I am not overlooking your posts  - will respond when I have more time, thanks for the interaction!


----------



## panta dokimazete

Thinking of a book title: *The Psalms Triumphant*: _the supremacy of the Psalms as ultimate guide to the worship of God in spirit and truth_.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Falls under the "now, not yet" distinction.
> 
> How about this?
> 
> Galatians 3:27
> For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ



So you are saying that the call in the Psalms to clothe oneself with "holy attire" is figurative and not normative?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Falls under the "now, not yet" distinction.
> 
> How about this?
> 
> Galatians 3:27
> For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that the call in the Psalms to clothe oneself with "holy attire" is figurative and not normative?
Click to expand...


Nope - the holy attire is normative, but we have a greater and holier "attire" in Christ.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Falls under the "now, not yet" distinction.
> 
> How about this?
> 
> Galatians 3:27
> For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that the call in the Psalms to clothe oneself with "holy attire" is figurative and not normative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope - the holy attire is normative, but we have a greater and holier "attire" in Christ.
Click to expand...


So what exactly is holy attire?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> So what exactly is holy attire?



Well, since you brought it up, I'll give you first shot at defining it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I am not the one trying to say the Psalms are prescriptive for NT worship (thereby proving somehow that instruments are commanded for NT worship.)


----------



## panta dokimazete

I'd say, based on a search of the scriptures, it is attire which is set apart to God. What that may have meant to the OT worshiper, I am not sure, but I can reasonably discern what it now means to the NT worshiper, since there is scripture to apply to it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> I'd say, based on a search of the scriptures, it is attire which is set apart to God. What that may have meant to the OT worshiper, I am not sure, but I can reasonably discern what it now means to the NT worshiper, since there is scripture to apply to it.




Though going to this discussion is  I must say that it seems that "Holy Attire" is nowhere commanded by the NT nor is it even remotely covered under the RPW.


----------



## panta dokimazete

It's commanded through the Psalms and perfectly fulfilled in the NT through Christ.

1. We are commanded to use the Psalms as our guide for worship.
2. The Psalms command X and unless X is abrogated or fulfilled by the NT, it is still valid for the NT believer.


----------



## timmopussycat

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I still fail to see where the New Testament says that the Psalms are proscriptive and normative for New Testament worship?



So you don't think Eph. 5:19 establishes the point that the psalms and only the psalms are normative for NT worship?


----------



## dcomin

timmopussycat said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still fail to see where the New Testament says that the Psalms are proscriptive and normative for New Testament worship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think Eph. 5:19 establishes the point that the psalms and only the psalms are normative for NT worship?
Click to expand...


I think the word "normative" needs some clarification. Are the Psalms "normative" in the sense that they are the only divinely appointed book of praise and worship songs to be used in the church? Yes. But the word "normative" is usually used in a different sense - namely, that everything mentioned is to be implemented as part of the normal practice of the church. In that sense, the Psalms are not "normative." Many Psalms speak of practices which were part of the OT cultus (i.e., sacrifices) and which are not to be put into practice in the NT church simply because they were mentioned in the Psalms. When we sing them with the greater light that we have in Christ, we understand that the symbols have been fulfilled and we sing them in light of that fulfillment. 

I think Backwoods Presbyterian means that the Psalms are not prescriptive and normative in this latter sense. We can't say that everything mentioned in the Psalms was intended to be practised and implemented in NT worship.


----------



## panta dokimazete

But we *can* say that everything concerning worship in the Psalms not abrogated or fulfilled in the NT *is* prescriptive and normative.

Not EP or IP, but PP - Prescriptive Psalmody - certainly fits the command of the apostle 

Colossians 3:16
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.


----------



## dcomin

panta dokimazete said:


> But we *can* say that everything concerning worship in the Psalms not abrogated or fulfilled in the NT *is* prescriptive and normative.
> 
> Not EP or IP, but PP - Prescriptive Psalmody - certainly fits the command of the apostle
> 
> Colossians 3:16
> Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.



From where I stand, there is no difference between EP and PP. The Psalms themselves instruct us to sing the psalms, as do other parts of Scripture. Since the singing of Psalms was not abrogated or fulfilled in the NT, the command of the Psalter to sing the Psalms is normative and prescriptive. 

But the use of musical instruments *is* abrogated and fulfilled. Thus the references to using instruments in the corporate worship of the people of God found in the Psalms are not normative and prescriptive, any more than the references to the sacrifice. 

There are references to the use of musical instruments in the Psalms that refer to their use in other settings besides the corporate public worship of the church, and these I would agree are normative and prescriptive, since they simply charge us to demonstrate our joy and thanksgiving to God with appropriate musical expression.

No one has yet responded to the references I posted from 1 and 2 Chronicles which demonstrate that the liturgical use of musical instruments in the OT was a particular function of the priests and Levites - connected with the sacrifice and the ark of the covenant - and therefore part of the ceremonial order that has been fulfilled by the Priestly work of Christ.

RE-POSTED FOR EMPHASIS...

Submitted for your consideration...

Here is a survey of the references to musical instruments in worship throughout 1 and 2 Chronicles...

*1. The use of musical instruments in the OT worship was a function of the Levites, who presided over the sacrificial system.*



> *1 Chronicles 15:16* And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy.



*2. The specifically appointed function of these Levites was to minister before the ark of the LORD.*



> *1 Chronicles 16:4-6* And he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of the LORD, and to record, and to thank and praise the LORD God of Israel: 5 Asaph the chief, and next to him Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obededom: and Jeiel with psalteries and with harps; but Asaph made a sound with cymbals; 6 Benaiah also and Jahaziel the priests with trumpets continually before the ark of the covenant of God.
> 
> *1 Chronicles 16:37* So he left there before the ark of the covenant of the LORD Asaph and his brethren, to minister before the ark continually, as every day's work required:



*3. Those appointed to play musical instruments were specifically-named members of the priestly family, who were charged to employ the "instruments of God" in connection with the burnt offerings "according to all that is written in the law of the LORD."*



> *1 Chronicles 16:39-42* And Zadok the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of the LORD in the high place that was at Gibeon, 40 To offer burnt offerings unto the LORD upon the altar of the burnt offering continually morning and evening, and to do according to all that is written in the law of the LORD, which he commanded Israel; {morning...: Heb. in the morning, and in the evening} 41 And with them Heman and Jeduthun, and the rest that were chosen, who were expressed by name, to give thanks to the LORD, because his mercy endureth for ever; 42 And with them Heman and Jeduthun with trumpets and cymbals for those that should make a sound, and with musical instruments of God. And the sons of Jeduthun were porters.



*4. Within the order of the priests and Levites there were 4,000 appointed to play musical instruments made by David himself for the purpose of praising God.*



> *1 Chronicles 23:2-5* And he gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the priests and the Levites. 3 Now the Levites were numbered from the age of thirty years and upward: and their number by their polls, man by man, was thirty and eight thousand. 4 Of which, twenty and four thousand were to set forward the work of the house of the LORD; and six thousand were officers and judges: 5 Moreover four thousand were porters; and four thousand praised the LORD with the instruments which I made, said David, to praise therewith.



*5. In addition to ministering before the ark of the LORD and praising in connection with the burnt offering, some of the priests and Levites were set apart to prophesy with musical instruments.*



> *1 Chronicles 25:1-2 *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: and the number of the workmen according to their service was: 2 Of the sons of Asaph; Zaccur, and Joseph, and Nethaniah, and Asarelah, the sons of Asaph under the hands of Asaph, which prophesied according to the order of the king.



*6. The employment of the instruments was a function of the priests, arrayed in white linen.*



> *2 Chronicles 5:12-13* Also the Levites which were the singers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, being arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets 13 It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up their voice 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;
> 
> *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.



*7. The use of the musical instruments by the Levites was carefully done according to the prescription of God through His prophets - only Levites, and only the specific instruments appointed by God.*



> *2 Chronicles 29:25-26* 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. 26 And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.



*8. The Levitical function of employing the musical instruments commenced with the offering of the burnt offering.*



> *2 Chronicles 29:27* 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.



*9. The Levitical funtion of employing the musical instruments stopped at the completion of the burnt offering.*



> *2 Chronicles 29:28* And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished.



*10. When the burnt offering was finished, the instruments were put away, but the singing of praises continued in reverent worship to God.*



> *2 Chronicles 29:29-30* And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped. 30 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.


----------



## py3ak

panta dokimazete said:


> It's commanded through the Psalms and perfectly fulfilled in the NT through Christ.
> 
> 1. We are commanded to use the Psalms as our guide for worship.
> 2. The Psalms command X and unless X is abrogated or fulfilled by the NT, it is still valid for the NT believer.



If I'm not mistaken, this is the exact argument used with regard to the abrogation of instruments.


----------



## dcomin

py3ak said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's commanded through the Psalms and perfectly fulfilled in the NT through Christ.
> 
> 1. We are commanded to use the Psalms as our guide for worship.
> 2. The Psalms command X and unless X is abrogated or fulfilled by the NT, it is still valid for the NT believer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, this is the exact argument used with regard to the abrogation of instruments.
Click to expand...


----------



## panta dokimazete

I am certain it is, if you buy the non-instruments reasoning and the key text of the rationale utilized, that is Hebrews. But the rationale of Hebrews is focused on the Law of Moses and all its sacrificial, dietary and cleanliness accoutrement, not the rejoicing and singing with instrumental accompaniment of the order of David (that Doug has so helpfully pointed out). That is never abrogated.



> 2 Chronicles 23:18
> Moreover, Jehoiada placed the offices of the house of the LORD under the authority of the Levitical priests, whom David had assigned over the house of the LORD, to offer the burnt offerings of the LORD, as it is written in *the law of Moses*-- with rejoicing and singing *according to the order of David*.





> Hebrews 9:
> 
> 8The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,
> 
> 9which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,
> 
> 10*since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.*
> 
> *11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
> 
> 12and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.*
> 
> 13For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
> 
> 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

dcomin said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still fail to see where the New Testament says that the Psalms are proscriptive and normative for New Testament worship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think Eph. 5:19 establishes the point that the psalms and only the psalms are normative for NT worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the word "normative" needs some clarification. Are the Psalms "normative" in the sense that they are the only divinely appointed book of praise and worship songs to be used in the church? Yes. But the word "normative" is usually used in a different sense - namely, that everything mentioned is to be implemented as part of the normal practice of the church. In that sense, the Psalms are not "normative." Many Psalms speak of practices which were part of the OT cultus (i.e., sacrifices) and which are not to be put into practice in the NT church simply because they were mentioned in the Psalms. When we sing them with the greater light that we have in Christ, we understand that the symbols have been fulfilled and we sing them in light of that fulfillment.
> 
> *I think Backwoods Presbyterian means that the Psalms are not prescriptive and normative in this latter sense. We can't say that everything mentioned in the Psalms was intended to be practiced and implemented in NT worship.*
Click to expand...


Yes exactly. Thanks!!!


----------



## dcomin

panta dokimazete said:


> I am certain it is, if you buy the non-instruments reasoning and the key text of the rationale utilized, that is Hebrews. But the rationale of Hebrews is focused on the Law of Moses and all its sacrificial, dietary and cleanliness accoutrement, not the rejoicing and singing with instrumental accompaniment of the order of David (that Doug has so helpfully pointed out). That is never abrogated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Chronicles 23:18
> Moreover, Jehoiada placed the offices of the house of the LORD under the authority of the Levitical priests, whom David had assigned over the house of the LORD, to offer the burnt offerings of the LORD, as it is written in *the law of Moses*-- with rejoicing and singing *according to the order of David*.
Click to expand...


The phrase, "according to the order of David" in this verse simply refers to the *command* of David to implement the priestly function of the Levitical musicians who employed their instruments in connection with the burnt offering according to the commandment of God. The "order of David" does not refer to an institution separate and distinct from the "Law of Moses."



panta dokimazete said:


> Hebrews 9:
> 
> 8The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,
> 
> 9which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,
> 
> 10*since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.*
> 
> *11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
> 
> 12and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.*
> 
> 13For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,
> 
> 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Click to expand...


The rationale of the author of Hebrews is that Christ, as the *High Priest* of the good things to come, fulfilled and put an end to the types and shadows of the OT priestly office. The passages I've cited from 1 and 2 Chronicles demonstrate plainly that the use of musical instruments in connection with the sacrifice was an integral part of that OT *priestly* and *Levitical* office and function. Thus they are now put away, having been fulfilled by Him.


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> The phrase, "according to the order of David" in this verse simply refers to the command of David to implement the priestly function of the Levitical musicians who employed their instruments in connection with the burnt offering according to the commandment of God. The "order of David" does not refer to an institution separate and distinct from the "Law of Moses."



Please demonstrate where in the sacrificial system prior to David that the Levitical priesthood was ordained to rejoice with singing accompanied by instruments. There is a distinction.



> The rationale of the author of Hebrews is that Christ, as the High Priest of the good things to come, fulfilled and put an end to the types and shadows of the OT priestly office. The passages I've cited from 1 and 2 Chronicles demonstrate plainly that the use of musical instruments in connection with the sacrifice was an integral part of that OT priestly and Levitical office and function. Thus they are now put away, having been fulfilled by Him.



The scripture I quoted clearly associates what types and shadows were abrogated. The Davidic custom of rejoicing and singing accompanied by music has not been abrogated; it has been expanded into the priesthood of believers. Thus the aposlte's mandate that we utilize David's Psalms as our guide for NT worship.


----------



## dcomin

panta dokimazete said:


> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase, "according to the order of David" in this verse simply refers to the command of David to implement the priestly function of the Levitical musicians who employed their instruments in connection with the burnt offering according to the commandment of God. The "order of David" does not refer to an institution separate and distinct from the "Law of Moses."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please demonstrate where in the sacrificial system prior to David that the Levitical priesthood was ordained to rejoice with singing accompanied by instruments. There is a distinction.
Click to expand...


I don't need to demonstrate any such thing. God _ordained_ the Levitical priesthood through Moses. God _augmented_ the function of the Levitical priesthood vis-a-vis the use of musical instruments in connection with the animal sacrifice through David. Christ _fulfilled_ all of the types and shadows of the Levitical priesthood through His once-for-all sacrifice, whether instituted under Moses or David. 



panta dokimazete said:


> The rationale of the author of Hebrews is that Christ, as the High Priest of the good things to come, fulfilled and put an end to the types and shadows of the OT priestly office. The passages I've cited from 1 and 2 Chronicles demonstrate plainly that the use of musical instruments in connection with the sacrifice was an integral part of that OT priestly and Levitical office and function. Thus they are now put away, having been fulfilled by Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scripture I quoted clearly associates what types and shadows were abrogated. The Davidic custom of rejoicing and singing accompanied by music has not been abrogated; it has been expanded into the priesthood of believers. Thus the aposlte's mandate that we utilize David's Psalms as our guide for NT worship.
Click to expand...


What has been committed to us as the priesthood of believers is what is stated in Hebrews 13:14-15 - "*For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come* (i.e., no more central Temple with all of its appointed ceremonial rites). *Therefore* (since these things have passed away) *by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice* (our priestly work) *of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips* (not musical instruments), _*giving thanks to His name*_."


----------



## bookslover

In post #30, Ben has a quote from John Calvin, in which Calvin says that 1 Corinthians 14:13 bans the use of musical instruments in worship. Unfortunately for Calvin, neither the verse nor its context say any such thing.

"Therefore, let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret." (1 Corinthians 14:13, NASB)

In its context (1 Corinthians 14:13-19), Paul is speaking of intelligent worship, where the mind and the heart must be connected - something that was threatened by speaking in tongues.

It is perfectly possible to praise God in song and worship while speaking in a known tongue AND using musical instruments. It's done every Lord's Day in thousands of churches.

It is simply not possible to prove from Scripture that musical instruments are banned in public worship.

John Calvin, eisegete...

See Matthew Henry's commentary for an excellent interpretation of this whole passage. Not once does he mention musical instruments.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well Calvin would disagree. Can you understand what an instrument says? Does not an instrument speak in a foreign tongue?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

bookslover said:


> In post #30, Ben has a quote from John Calvin, in which Calvin says that 1 Corinthians 14:13 bans the use of musical instruments in worship. Unfortunately for Calvin, neither the verse nor its context say any such thing.
> 
> "Therefore, let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret." (1 Corinthians 14:13, NASB)
> 
> In its context, Paul is speaking of intelligent worship, where the mind and the heart must be connected - something that was threatened by speaking in tongues.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to praise God in song and worship while speaking in a known tongue AND using musical instruments. It's done every Lord's Day in thousands of churches.
> 
> It is simply not possible to prove from Scripture that musical instruments are banned in public worship.
> 
> John Calvin, eisegete...



Just because you say it is so does not make it so. DComin has provided ample Biblical evidence as to why instruments have been abrogated by the end of Temple worship. It cannot be stated and restated enough that the usage of instruments in worship is a complete novelty in the Christian tradition, including Jesus and the Apostles themselves who did not use instruments in worship.


----------



## dcomin

bookslover said:


> It is simply not possible to prove from Scripture that musical instruments are banned in public worship.



With all due respect, I have sought to carefully ground my position in the Scriptures and have cited many passages in support of my view on musical instruments. It would be great if an argument could be won by simply declaring by fiat that the opposite position is not possible to prove. I, for one, however, would prefer that those who wish to refute would deal with the multitude of texts that I have cited.


----------



## MW

Acts 16:25, "And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and *sang praises unto God*."

Major: they sang praises to God without mechanical instruments.
Minor: they did not breach prescribed worship.
Ergo: Psalmic prescription of mechanical instruments is null and void.


----------



## bookslover

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> DComin has provided ample Biblical evidence as to why instruments have been abrogated by the end of Temple worship.



No, the Temple worship has ceased because the soteriological reason for it has disappeared - the sacrificial system has been fulfilled in the one true sacrifice of the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the important point. Because the theological reason for Temple worship has been abrogated, it does not follow that the use of musical instruments in worship has also been abrogated.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Acts 16:25, "And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and *sang praises unto God*."
> 
> Major: they sang praises to God without mechanical instruments.
> Minor: they did not breach prescribed worship.
> Ergo: Psalmic prescription of mechanical instruments is null and void.



Matthew, your major premise is an assumption on your part. It could be true (especially as they were in a prison at the time) but it doesn't _have_ to be true. Also, if Paul and Silas were singing without instruments, that doesn't automatically mean that they disapproved of them or never used them themselves in any worship context.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> Matthew, your major premise is an assumption on your part. It could be true (especially as they were in a prison at the time) but it doesn't _have_ to be true. Also, if Paul and Silas were singing without instruments, that doesn't automatically mean that they disapproved of them or never used them themselves in any worship context.



Richard, They are *commanded*. So either the command has been abrogated and therefore provides no warrant for the use of mechanical instruments in NT worship, or the command is still in force and we are bound to observe their full use. I don't know anyone who would suggest Paul and Silas had access to musical instrumentation.


----------



## bookslover

Doug, regarding your 10 points: all you've proven is that the use of musical instruments was incorporated, in great detail, with the Old Testament Temple worship. But that doesn't mean that instruments are banned for us just because the Levitical system is no more.

As I posted before, the Levitical system ended because its theological and soteriological purpose ended. It does not follow that the use of instruments also ended.

If it were true that the use of instruments is forbidden, then why didn't Paul, in the various places where he speaks of worship, take the opportunity to tell his readers, or remind his readers, that instruments may not be used. It is significant that he never does so. You'll say that they didn't need reminding; I say that he didn't mention them because, with the passing away of the Levitical system, musical instruments became categorized as part of the "matters indifferent."


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, your major premise is an assumption on your part. It could be true (especially as they were in a prison at the time) but it doesn't _have_ to be true. Also, if Paul and Silas were singing without instruments, that doesn't automatically mean that they disapproved of them or never used them themselves in any worship context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, They are *commanded*. So either the command has been abrogated and therefore provides no warrant for the use of mechanical instruments in NT worship, or the command is still in force and we are bound to observe their full use. I don't know anyone who would suggest Paul and Silas had access to musical instrumentation.
Click to expand...


Well, then, since there is no passage in the NT that abrogates the command, then musical instruments are still to be used in worship.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> Well, then, since there is no passage in the NT that abrogates the command, then musical instruments are still to be used in worship.



Have you purchased a harp for next Lord's day service?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then, since there is no passage in the NT that abrogates the command, then musical instruments are still to be used in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you purchased a harp for next Lord's day service?
Click to expand...

Yes; exactly. Folks need to decide if they are arguing for musical instruments in worship as a circumstance or as a command that has not been lifted in the NT; if the latter, we all _must _use them in worship. It is not optional.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

That is of course Chris if one actually follows the RPW.


----------



## panta dokimazete

NaphtaliPress said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then, since there is no passage in the NT that abrogates the command, then musical instruments are still to be used in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you purchased a harp for next Lord's day service?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes; exactly. Folks need to decide if they are arguing for musical instruments in worship as a circumstance or as a command that has not been lifted in the NT; if the latter, we all _must _use them in worship. It is not optional.
Click to expand...


Not optional in the sense that they are not banned. The frequency of use, since we have examples of unaccompanied singing, is a matter of liberty.


----------



## dcomin

bookslover said:


> Doug, regarding your 10 points: all you've proven is that the use of musical instruments was incorporated, in great detail, with the Old Testament Temple worship. But that doesn't mean that instruments are banned for us just because the Levitical system is no more.



What other parts of the Levitical system remain in the NT era?



bookslover said:


> As I posted before, the Levitical system ended because its theological and soteriological purpose ended. It does not follow that the use of instruments also ended.



What about incense? Did the theological and soteriological purpose of incense end? 



bookslover said:


> If it were true that the use of instruments is forbidden, then why didn't Paul, in the various places where he speaks of worship, take the opportunity to tell his readers, or remind his readers, that instruments may not be used.



You mean like here...

*Gal. 4:9* - "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?"


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then, since there is no passage in the NT that abrogates the command, then musical instruments are still to be used in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you purchased a harp for next Lord's day service?
Click to expand...


I already have a stringed instrument


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then, since there is no passage in the NT that abrogates the command, then musical instruments are still to be used in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you purchased a harp for next Lord's day service?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have a stringed instrument
Click to expand...


But the Psalms nowhere command a guitar.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> lyres from various times and places are regarded by some organologists (specialists in the history of musical instruments) as a branch of the zither family, a general category which includes many different stringed instruments, such as lutes, guitars, kantele, and psalteries, not just zithers.



from here

fyi

I am certain you don't read from a scroll...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

For the OPC Brethren here is John Murray's minority report to the 1944 OPC GA.


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> You mean like here...
> 
> *Gal. 4:9* - "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?"



You are begging the question that instrument usage in worship was equal to and included with circumcision in terms of the Law of Moses. It wasn't.


----------



## Bygracealone

panta dokimazete said:


> Matthew, Doug - I am not overlooking your posts  - will respond when I have more time, thanks for the interaction!



JD, when do you think you'll find the time to respond to Matthew's and Doug's posts? They've provided Scriptural arguments to show that musical instruments were tied to ceremonial worship. I look forward to reading your response. 

What about synagogue worship? It's generally understood that NT worship is modeled after synagogue worship. Well, musical instruments were never used in synagogue worship. You see, it was well understood that the musical instruments were only to be used in the temple services, by the Levites, during the sacrifice. So, it’s no surprise that they weren't used in synagogue worship since none of these things are present. 

In fact, even today, the Orthodox Jews don't use musical instruments in their services. Why? Because they still recognize the difference between synagogue and temple worship. Musical instruments are only to be used in the Temple, by the Levites, during the sacrifice. No temple, no sacrifice; no sacrifice, no instruments...


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

bookslover said:


> Doug, regarding your 10 points: all you've proven is that the use of musical instruments was incorporated, in great detail, with the Old Testament Temple worship. But that doesn't mean that instruments are banned for us just because the Levitical system is no more.
> 
> As I posted before, the Levitical system ended because its theological and soteriological purpose ended. It does not follow that the use of instruments also ended.
> 
> If it were true that the use of instruments is forbidden, then why didn't Paul, in the various places where he speaks of worship, take the opportunity to tell his readers, or remind his readers, that instruments may not be used. It is significant that he never does so. You'll say that they didn't need reminding; I say that he didn't mention them because, with the passing away of the Levitical system, musical instruments became categorized as part of the "matters indifferent."



With all respect, the question asked in the last paragraph "asserts the consequent" by assuming that instruments were employed in places other than the Temple at Jerusalem for worship. I assume from a lack of commandment thereto, and from the fact that instruments were employed *only* at Jerusalem, specifically by way of Divine commandment through the Davidic establishment, and that exclusively during the offering of sacrificial animals, that it woud have been unnecessary for the Apostle to forbid instruments in the New Covenant synagogues (churches) because the Old Covenant synagogues out of which these grew did not employ them in the first place, seeing no animals were (rightly) sacrificed there.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Acts 16:25, "And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and *sang praises unto God*."
> 
> Major: they sang praises to God without mechanical instruments.
> Minor: they did not breach prescribed worship.
> Ergo: Psalmic prescription of mechanical instruments is null and void.



Your syllogism is missing a necessary premise in order to be valid. 
That is: Paul and Silas had musical instruments with them in prision.
As it is your syllogism proves nothing.

In the Psalms, praise is commanded to be sung both without instruments (Ps. 147:1) and with instruments (Ps 149:1-4).


----------



## panta dokimazete

Bygracealone said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, Doug - I am not overlooking your posts  - will respond when I have more time, thanks for the interaction!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JD, when do you think you'll find the time to respond to Matthew's and Doug's posts? They've provided Scriptural arguments to show that musical instruments were tied to ceremonial worship. I look forward to reading your response.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I thought I had already responded here in that the proof texting utilizing Hebrews did not address singing and playing instruments. While David added the singing and playing of the instruments to the ceremony, they were not inherent to ceremonial worship.



> What about synagogue worship? It's generally understood that NT worship is modeled after synagogue worship. Well, musical instruments were never used in synagogue worship. You see, it was well understood that the musical instruments were only to be used in the temple services, by the Levites, during the sacrifice. So, it’s no surprise that they weren't used in synagogue worship since none of these things are present.
> 
> In fact, even today, the Orthodox Jews don't use musical instruments in their services. Why? Because they still recognize the difference between synagogue and temple worship. Musical instruments are only to be used in the Temple, by the Levites, during the sacrifice. No temple, no sacrifice; no sacrifice, no instruments...



I responded to this objection here with answers from Orthodox Jews.



> The reason that musical instruments are not played on Shabbat and Jewish Holidays is in case the instrument will break and cause the person to violate the law of fixing it on Shabbat or Yom Tov. This law applies even if a person says they will not fix a broken instrument the law not to play an instrument holds true and is without exception.


from here

and from this article - you can see that instruments were prohibited by extra biblical mandate that Christians are not held to.


----------



## fredtgreco

timmopussycat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 16:25, "And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and *sang praises unto God*."
> 
> Major: they sang praises to God without mechanical instruments.
> Minor: they did not breach prescribed worship.
> Ergo: Psalmic prescription of mechanical instruments is null and void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your syllogism is missing a necessary premise in order to be valid.
> That is: Paul and Silas had musical instruments with them in prision.
> As it is your syllogism proves nothing.
> 
> In the Psalms, praise is commanded to be sung both without instruments (Ps. 147:1) and with instruments (Ps 149:1-4).
Click to expand...



We might also add:

"But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them..." (Acts 2:14)


Major: Peter preached to God without mechanical amplification
Minor: he did not breach prescribed worship.
Ergo: use of mechanical amplification is null and void.

It would be just as fallacious.


----------



## dcomin

panta dokimazete said:


> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like here...
> 
> *Gal. 4:9* - "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are begging the question that instrument usage in worship was equal to and included with circumcision in terms of the Law of Moses. It wasn't.
Click to expand...


JD... I'm not "begging the question"... I have cited Scripture after Scripture to demonstrate that the musical instruments used in OT worship were appointed by God for particular use in the temple ritual in connection with the sacrifice. Please don't say I haven't marshalled the Scriptures to support my position. Just say that you don't agree with me. But "begging the question"???? Give me more credit than that brother...


----------



## Davidius

fredtgreco said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 16:25, "And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and *sang praises unto God*."
> 
> Major: they sang praises to God without mechanical instruments.
> Minor: they did not breach prescribed worship.
> Ergo: Psalmic prescription of mechanical instruments is null and void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your syllogism is missing a necessary premise in order to be valid.
> That is: Paul and Silas had musical instruments with them in prision.
> As it is your syllogism proves nothing.
> 
> In the Psalms, praise is commanded to be sung both without instruments (Ps. 147:1) and with instruments (Ps 149:1-4).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We might also add:
> 
> "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them..." (Acts 2:14)
> 
> 
> Major: Peter preached to God without mechanical amplification
> Minor: he did not breach prescribed worship.
> Ergo: use of mechanical amplification is null and void.
> 
> It would be just as fallacious.
Click to expand...


If Peter preached unamplified to 3000+ people outdoors, surely anyone indoors can handle your average Reformed church. Lift up that voice!


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like here...
> 
> *Gal. 4:9* - "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are begging the question that instrument usage in worship was equal to and included with circumcision in terms of the Law of Moses. It wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JD... I'm not "begging the question"... I have cited Scripture after Scripture to demonstrate that the musical instruments used in OT worship were appointed by God for particular use in the temple ritual in connection with the sacrifice. Please don't say I haven't marshalled the Scriptures to support my position. Just say that you don't agree with me. But "begging the question"???? Give me more credit than that brother...
Click to expand...


ow! - begging your forgiveness - you know I give you MAXIMUM respect my brother, just not your rationale in this instance. 

They were certainly *tied* to the ceremony by David, but not initially *required* by the Law of Moses. And the writer of Hebrews, as well as Paul, never tied them to their rationale or forbade the use of singing and instruments.


----------



## dcomin

panta dokimazete said:


> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are begging the question that instrument usage in worship was equal to and included with circumcision in terms of the Law of Moses. It wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JD... I'm not "begging the question"... I have cited Scripture after Scripture to demonstrate that the musical instruments used in OT worship were appointed by God for particular use in the temple ritual in connection with the sacrifice. Please don't say I haven't marshalled the Scriptures to support my position. Just say that you don't agree with me. But "begging the question"???? Give me more credit than that brother...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ow! - begging your forgiveness - you know I give you MAXIMUM respect my brother, just not your rationale in this instance.
Click to expand...






panta dokimazete said:


> They were certainly *tied* to the ceremony by David, but not initially *required* by the Law of Moses. And the writer of Hebrews, as well as Paul, never tied them to their rationale or forbade the use of singing and instruments.



I'm really not seeing the distinction you're making here. Why does it matter if the instruments were introduced into the ceremonial worship of Israel under Moses or under David? It doesn't change the fact that they were tied to the sacrifices and used by the priests and Levites as part of the ceremonial ritual. The fact that God delayed the inclusion of instruments in the typological ritual until the time of David does not mean they were not part of the ceremonial system.


----------



## panta dokimazete

panta dokimazete said:


> They were certainly *tied* to the ceremony by David, but not initially *required* by the Law of Moses. And the writer of Hebrews, as well as Paul, never tied them to their rationale or forbade the use of singing and instruments.





dcomin said:


> I'm really not seeing the distinction you're making here. Why does it matter if the instruments were introduced into the ceremonial worship of Israel under Moses or under David? It doesn't change the fact that they were tied to the sacrifices and used by the priests and Levites as part of the ceremonial ritual. The fact that God delayed the inclusion of instruments in the typological ritual until the time of David does not mean they were not part of the ceremonial system.



All I am saying is that the types and shadows argument used in Hebrews is against the ceremonial components instituted under the Law of Moses.

As it is, I am simply not willing to go beyond what the scriptures are clearly abrogating.



> Hebrews 9
> 
> 8The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,
> 
> 9which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,
> 
> 10since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.


----------



## dcomin

panta dokimazete said:


> All I am saying is that the types and shadows argument used in Hebrews is against the ceremonial components instituted under the Law of Moses.
> 
> As it is, I am simply not willing to go beyond what the scriptures are clearly abrogating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 9
> 
> 8The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing,
> 
> 9which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience,
> 
> 10since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.
Click to expand...


I certainly can't fault your desire not to go beyond Scripture... but I think you are splitting hairs [we need a smiley for that]. 

The author of Hebrews is contrasting the outward and external elements of the OT worship ceremonies with the inward and spiritual elements of the New Covenant worship brought by Christ's finished priestly work. The main point is that the Great High Priest has replaced the earthly priests. All of the outward, external, sense-oriented, tutorial elements are now abrogated - whether instituted under Moses or David.

You quoted yourself from 2 Chronicles 23:18

_Moreover, Jehoiada placed the offices of the house of the LORD under the authority of the Levitical priests, whom David had assigned over the house of the LORD, to offer the burnt offerings of the LORD, as it is written in the law of Moses-- with rejoicing and singing according to the order of David. _

David did not act in abstraction from the law of Moses. What he did to enhance the ceremonial worship was a divinely inspired and prescribed addition to the Law of Moses. The point is not whether it is *Mosaic *or *Davidic*... the point is whether it was *Priestly*.


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> David did not act in abstraction from the law of Moses. What he did to enhance the ceremonial worship was a divinely inspired and prescribed addition to the Law of Moses. The point is not whether it is *Mosaic *or *Davidic*... the point is whether it was *Priestly*.



It was certainly part of the Davidic requirement for the Levite priests. It was not, however a component of the ceremonial duties Christ perfectly fulfilled. 

That is - if we are still commanded to sing, it follows that we did not lose the circumstance tied to it, as Paul demonstrated:

Ephesians 5:19
speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;


----------



## dcomin

panta dokimazete said:


> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> David did not act in abstraction from the law of Moses. What he did to enhance the ceremonial worship was a divinely inspired and prescribed addition to the Law of Moses. The point is not whether it is *Mosaic *or *Davidic*... the point is whether it was *Priestly*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was certainly part of the Davidic requirement for the Levite priests. It was not, however a component of the ceremonial duties Christ perfectly fulfilled.
> 
> That is - if we are still commanded to sing, it follows that we did not lose the circumstance tied to it, as Paul demonstrated:
> 
> Ephesians 5:19
> speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;
Click to expand...


Note that Paul said "with your heart" - not "with your harp"  (Sorry... that one was too easy)


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> Note that Paul said "with your heart" - not "with your harp"  (Sorry... that one was too easy)



bwahhhahahaha!


----------



## Bygracealone

> I'm sorry, I thought I had already responded here in that the proof texting utilizing Hebrews did not address singing and playing instruments. While David added the singing and playing of the instruments to the ceremony, they were not inherent to ceremonial worship.



JD, their arguments can hardly be said to rest on that single passage from the Book of Hebrews. It's a BT argument, taking all of the pertinent passages together and looking at them in light of the work of Christ. I suppose I expected more by way of response. 



> What about synagogue worship? It's generally understood that NT worship is modeled after synagogue worship. Well, musical instruments were never used in synagogue worship. You see, it was well understood that the musical instruments were only to be used in the temple services, by the Levites, during the sacrifice. So, it’s no surprise that they weren't used in synagogue worship since none of these things are present.
> 
> In fact, even today, the Orthodox Jews don't use musical instruments in their services. Why? Because they still recognize the difference between synagogue and temple worship. Musical instruments are only to be used in the Temple, by the Levites, during the sacrifice. No temple, no sacrifice; no sacrifice, no instruments...



JD said: 


> I responded to this objection here with answers from Orthodox Jews.



JD, are you sure those are quotes from Orthodox Jews? I looked at the articles and the websites and didn't see any reference to the Orthodox sect. If no reference is found, I would tend to think these articles are written by the Reformed or Conservative Jews who are much less conservative than the Orthodox and Chassidic Jews.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Bygracealone said:


> JD, are you sure those are quotes from Orthodox Jews? I looked at the articles and the websites and didn't see any reference to the Orthodox sect. If no reference is found, I would tend to think these articles are written by the Reformed or Conservative Jews who are much less conservative than the Orthodox and Chassidic Jews.





> Regarding playing musical instruments on Shabbat, the Sages decreed that no instruments can be played on Shabbat and Yom Tov out of concern that in search of spiritual enlightenment, or while in the throes of religious rhapsody, a person might come to build or repair an instrument on Shabbat which is a Torah transgression.
> 
> A decree passed by an earlier Bet Din, court of Jewish Law, is binding on the generations that come after it. This is because in order for a Bet Din to be able to annul a ruling of an earlier Bet Din, it must be greater in both wisdom and number. This is almost unheard of since each generation further removed from the Revelation at Sinai is further away from the source of truth and understanding. This means that even if a person were the proud owner of one hundred Stradivarius violins, he would not be allowed to play even one of them on Shabbat!



from here



> by Rabbi Yirmiyahu Ullman is a graduate of Williams College (BA History & Pre Med) before receiving Rabbinical Ordination in Jerusalem. His halachic work is studied by aspiring rabbis. He writes the "Ask the Rabbi" on-line column for Ohr Somayach's website, and lectures on a variety of topics in Jewish thought.





> Baal teshuva yeshivot catering to the needs of the newly-Orthodox. The best-known are Ohr Somayach and Aish HaTorah.


 from here


Sounds pretty orthodox to me...


----------



## panta dokimazete

JD said:


> I'm sorry, I thought I had already responded here in that the proof texting utilizing Hebrews did not address singing and playing instruments. While David added the singing and playing of the instruments to the ceremony, they were not inherent to ceremonial worship.





bygracealone said:


> JD, their arguments can hardly be said to rest on that single passage from the Book of Hebrews. It's a BT argument, taking all of the pertinent passages together and looking at them in light of the work of Christ. I suppose I expected more by way of response.



Well, as I honestly recall, I don't believe I said it was the *extent* of their argument - more like the *core*.

I think Doug and I went back and forth on it after that post. What areas did I miss?


----------



## Bygracealone

> Regarding playing musical instruments on Shabbat, the Sages decreed that no instruments can be played on Shabbat and Yom Tov out of concern that in search of spiritual enlightenment, or while in the throes of religious rhapsody, a person might come to build or repair an instrument on Shabbat which is a Torah transgression.



Interesting, but I wonder if they're referring to the act of playing instruments on Shabbat in general or if they're talking about their use in the actual worship service??? 

I continued to poke around Wikipedia and found this under the heading "synagogue"; it comes right after the section on Orthodox Judaism in the section on Reformed Judaism:

The first Reform synagogue, which opened in Hamburg in 1811, introduced changes that made the synagogue look more like a church. These included: the installation of an organ to accompany the prayers (even on Shabbat, when musical instruments are proscribed by halakha[citation needed]), a choir to accompany the Hazzan, and vestments for the synagogue rabbi to wear [2].

Seems to show that one of the differences between an Orthodox synagogue and a Reformed synagogue may be it's use of instruments in the worship service... 

Anyway, I also found a number of other resources that I will list. I realize that when we provide this amount of content, it can certainly be overwhelming, but I figure it will serve as a helpful resource for those who appreciate this sort of stuff  

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

1. The modern organ in Reform Synagogues as an accessory of worship was first introduced by Israel Jacobson at Berlin in the new house of prayer which he opened for the Shabu'ot festival, June 14, 1815. It aroused great indignation and opposition on the part of the rest of the community, a successful appeal being made to Emperor Frederic William III. to close the place, on the plea that the Reform schism was detrimental to the established rights of the Jewish Church, and was especially disturbing to the Jewish congregation of Berlin. The house was closed December 6, 1815. The members of the Reform party succeeded in building and dedicating their first temple on October 18, 1818, at Hamburg, where they set up a fine organ, but employed a non-Jewish organist. * * * The objectors based their prohibition of the organ in the synagogue on the following grounds: (1) Playing on musical instruments is prohibited on Sabbaths and holy days, and even to engage a non-Jew to play for Jews on Sabbath is considered a "shebut" or disturbance of the Sabbath rest; (2) music, except at marriage ceremonies, is generally prohibited, in token of mourning for the destruction of Jerusalem; (3) Jewish divine services must not be made to imitate the customs of the Christian Church.--Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IX., p. 432.
[139]

2. Among the Reform congregations in the United States the organ was first introduced in 1840 in Temple Beth Elohim at Charleston, S. C., under Rabbi Gustav Posnanski, by a vote of 46 against 40 of the older members, who objected to the innovation and who in 1844 carried the matter into the courts. The decision was against the minority, who appealed the case; and the higher court affirmed the decision in 1846. In the opinion, written by Judge Butler, the court held that, being unable to decide the merits of this religious controversy, it must rely upon the judgment of the majority of the congregation (text of decision in Ezra's Collection, "The Jews of South Carolina," article VIII., "The Organ in the Synagogue"). The minority finally withdrew and organized a separate congregation.--Ibid. pp. 432, 433.

3. Instrumental music is quite a modern feature in synagogal worship. Owing to the rabbinical "fence" which prohibited the use of an instrument on Sabbath and festivals because of the probability that it would require tuning or other preparation, it is still avoided by conservative congregations on those days. Much controversy has raged about this point in Jewish as in other communities. The earlier hesitation of the church to adopt the organ because it was "a Jewish instrument" has been reproduced in the assumption of many Jews that it was specifically a Christian one. It is still banned by rigid adherents to old ways; but in ordinary conservative congregations it is unhesitatingly employed at weddings and other services on week days.--Ibid. p. 134.

The following quotes come from the following source:

M. C. Kurfees, Instrumental Music in the Worship: Index

II. Encyclopedists.

Under this head, we present the testimony of scholars whose business it is to make an impartial record of facts concerning the great variety and multiplicity of subjects embraced within their scope. Considering their ability and eminence, what they say is certainly [152] significant; and we will now hear from them in the following order:

1. The American Cyclopedia:

Pope Vitalian is related to have first introduced organs into some of the churches of western Europe, about 670; but the earliest trustworthy account is that of the one sent as a present by the Greek emperor Constantine Copronymus to Pepin, king of the Franks, in 755.--Vol. 12, p. 688.

2. Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia:

In the Greek Church the organ never came into use. But after the eighth century it became more and more common in the Latin Church; not, however, without opposition from the side of the monks. Its misuse, however raised so great an opposition to it, that, but for the Emperor Ferdinand, it would probably have been abolished by the Council of Trent. The Reformed Church discarded it; and though the Church of Basel very early reintroduced it, it was in other places admitted only sparingly, and after long hesitation.--Vol. 2, p. 1702.

3. The New International Encyclopedia:

The organ is said to have been first employed in the church during the time of Pope Vitalian I. (c. 666 A.D.). Pepin placed the Constantine organ in the church of St. Corneille at Compiègne, and Charlemagne had one made at Aix-la-Chapelle, a model of the one at Compiègne--Vol. XIII., p. 446.
[153]

4. McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia:

The Greek word ψαλλω is applied among the Greeks of modern times exclusively to sacred music, which in the Eastern Church has never been any other than vocal, instrumental music being unknown in that Church, as it was in the primitive Church. Sir John Hawkins, following the Romish writers in his erudite work on the History of Music, makes pope Vitalian, in A.D. 660, the first who introduced organs into churches. But students of ecclesiastical archaeology are generally agreed that instrumental music was not used in churches till a much later date; for Thomas Aquinas, A.D. 1250, has these remarkable words: "Our Church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." From this passage we are surely warranted in concluding that there was no ecclesiastical use of organs in the time of Aquinas. It is alleged that Marinus Sanutus, who lived about A.D. 1290, was the first that brought the use of wind organs into churches, and hence he received the name of Torcellus. In the East, the organ was in use in the emperor's courts, probably from the time of Julian, but never has either the organ or any other instrument been employed in public worship in Eastern churches; nor is mention of instrumental music found in all their liturgies, ancient or modern.--Vol. VIII., p. 739.

5. Chambers' Encyclopedia:

The organ is said to have been first introduced into church music by Pope Vitalian I. in 666. In 757, a great organ was sent as a present to Pepin by the [154] Byzantine emperor, Constantine Copronymus, and placed in the church of St. Corneille at Compiègne.--Vol. VII., p. 112.

6. A Concise Cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

Instrumental accompaniments date back from the days of St. Ambrose, and some also accredit him with the introduction of antiphonal singing, while others give it to St. Hilary, of Poitiers, who borrowed it from the practice of the Eastern Church.--Page 649.

Then, under the article "organ," on page 683, the same work further says:

The organ has never been used among the Greeks. From the time of Charlemagne organs seem to have come more and more into use in the West, though protests were made against them, and the monks were very averse to their use. At the Reformation they were discarded, being considered "the vilest remnants of Popery;" but they were reintroduced at the Council of Basel.

7. Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia:

The organ is said to have been introduced into the church by Pope Vitalian in the seventh century, but its employment in church services probably dates from a much earlier period. Organs were certainly used in churches very commonly in the time of the Carlovingians. We read of organs being sent to King Pepin and Charlemagne as presents by the Byzantine emperors.--Vol. VI., p. 335.
[155]

8. Encyclopedia Britannica:

Though the church from time to time appropriated the secular art forms from their rise to their maturity, its chief authorities were always jealous of these advances, and issued edicts against them. So in 1322 Pope John XXII. denounced the encroachments of counterpoint, alleging that the voluptuous harmony of 3ds and 6ths was fit but for profane uses.--Vol. 17, p. 84, Art. Music.

9. Fessenden's Encyclopedia:

1. Vocal music. This species, which is the most natural, may be considered to have existed before any other. It was continued by the Jews and it is the only kind that is permitted in the Greek and Scotch churches or with few exceptions, in dissenting congregations in England. The Christian rule requires its use both for personal and social edification, Eph. v., Col. iii. The vocal music of the imperial choristers in St. Petersburg incomparably surpasses in sweetness and effect the sounds produced by the combined power of the most exquisite musical mistruments. 2. Instrumental music is also of very ancient date, its invention being ascribed to Tubal, the sixth descendant from Cain. That instrumental music was not practiced by the primitive Christians, but was an aid to devotion of later times, is evident from church history.--P. 852, Art. Music.

10. London Encyclopedia:

Pope Vitalianus in 658 introduced the organ into the Roman Churches to accompany the singers. Leo II. in 682 reformed the singing of the psalms and [156] hymns, accommodating the intonation of them to the manner in which they are sung or performed at the present day.--Vol. 15, p. 280, Art. Music.

11. Biblical Encyclopedia, on Eph. 5: 19 and Col. 3: 16:

Psalms, either the psalms of the Old Testament, or a sacred song similar to them in character. Hymns, Christian songs of praise. And songs, perhaps songs of a more personal character, like Simeon's Nunc dimittis, or Paul's swan song (2 Tim. 4: 6-8). Singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord, the heart moving devoutly with the voice. * * * The design of public worship may be learned from the word worship itself. 1. There is in the constitution of our nature a necessity for the expression of emotion. 2. Audible worship is enjoined. 3. We have divine example--Jesus prayed audibly--and sang with His disciples at the last Supper. 4. There is apostolic example. 5. We have the example of the early church, and of the universal church to this day. 6. Without audible prayer and praise there can be no social worship. * * * Teaching and admonishing one another. The spiritual importance of Christian hymnody comes out impressively here. It is no mere luxury of devotion, certainly no mere musical pleasure; it is an ordained vehicle of instruction and warning. * * * On one of the days when President Garfield lay dying at the seaside, he was a little better, and was permitted to sit by the window, while Mrs. Garfield was in the adjoining room. Love, hope, and gratitude filled her heart as she sang the hymn commencing, "Guide me, O Thou great Jehovah!" As the soft and plaintive [157] notes floated into the sick chamber, the President turned his eyes up to Dr. Bliss, and asked, "Is that Crete?" "Yes," replied the Doctor; "it is Mrs. Garfield." "Quick, open the door a little," anxiously responded the sick man. Dr. Bliss opened the, door, and after listening a few moments Mr. Garfield exclaimed, as the large tears coursed down his sunken cheeks, "Glorious, Bliss, isn't it?"--Vol. V. pp. 283, 332.

12. The Catholic Encyclopedia:

To praise God in public worship through songs or hymns in the widest meaning of the word (see hymns) is a custom which the primitive Christians brought with them from the synagogue. For that reason the ecclesiastical songs of the Christians and the Jews in the first centuries after Christ are essentially similar. They consisted mainly of the psalms and the canticles of the Old and New Testaments.--Vol. VII., p. 597.

It is a remarkable fact, particularly noted, as we have seen, by a number of the foregoing encyclopedias, that the Greek Church, which has continued to speak the Greek language to the present day, has always rejected pouring and sprinkling for baptism, and the use of instrumental music in the worship; and they do this, being perfectly familiar with the words baptizo (βαπτιζω) and psallo (ψαλλω) as used both in the New Testament and in Modern Greek in which these words are still current. This fact is certainly a significant comment on the meaning of these words. Modern Greek is the language still [158] spoken by native Greeks, many of whom have come, in recent years, to the United States, especially to the larger cities. A number of them have located in Louisville, Ky., and they still use these words as meaning, respectively, to dip and to sing.[14]

III. Historians.

We next introduce that large and interesting class of witnesses--ecclesiastical or church Historians, whose province it is to furnish a faithful record of facts connected with religious affairs as they have transpired since the establishment of the church.

1. Eusebius. This author, who lived during the latter part of the third and first part of the fourth century, is styled, by way of preëminence, the father of ecclesiastical historians. He makes a number of references to the simplicity which characterized the lives and worship of the early Christians. Referring to the famous letter of Pliny the Second to the emperor Trajan informing him about the Christians, he says:

At the same time he informed him that as far as he had ascertained, they did nothing wicked or contrary [159] to the laws; except that they rose with the morning sun, and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God.--Eccles. Hist., Book III., Chap. 33.

2. Neander:

Church psalmody, also, passed over from the synagogue into the Christian Church. The Apostle Paul exhorts the primitive churches to sing spiritual songs. For this purpose were used the psalms of the Old Testament, and partly hymns composed expressly for this object, especially hymns of praise and of thanks to God and to Christ, such having been known to Pliny, as in customary use among the Christians of his time.--General Church History, Vol. I., p. 414.

3. Mosheim:

The Christian worship consisted in hymns, prayers, the reading of the Scriptures, a discourse addressed to the people, and concluded with the celebration of the Lord's Supper.-Eccl. Hist., Vol. I., p. 303.

Referring to the changes that took place even before the close of the fourth century, the same authority says:

The public prayers had now lost much of that solemn and majestic simplicity, that characterized them in the primitive times, and which were, at present, degenerating into a vain and swelling bombast.--Vol. I., p. 304.

4. Henry Hart Milman:

Like the rest of the service, the music of the church no doubt grew up from a rude and simple, to a more [160] splendid and artificial form. The practice of singing hymns is coeval with Christianity; the hearers of the apostles sang the praises of God; and the first sound which reached the Pagan ear from the secluded sanctuaries of Christianity was the hymn to Christ as God. * * * The first change in the manner of singing was the substitution of singers, who became a separate order in the church, for the mingled voices of all ranks, ages, and sexes, which was compared by the great reformer of church music to the glad sound of many waters.--Hist. of Christianity, Vol. iii., pp. 406, 409.

5. J. E. Riddle:

In the first ages of the Christian Church the psalms were always chanted or sung. In the Apostolical Constitutions (Book ii 57), we find it laid down as a rule that one of the officiating ministers should chant or sing (ψαλλετω) the psalms ('υμνους) of David, and that the people should join by repeating the ends of the verses. And this regulation is repeated and explained by other writers.--Christian Antiquities, p. 384.

In the same work, writing on "organs," the same author says:

These instruments of music were introduced into the Christian church about the ninth century. They were unknown alike to the early church, and to all the ancients. * * * The large wind organ was known, however, long before it was introduced into the churches of the west. It appears, from the testimony of Augustine and others, that it was known in Africa and Spain, as early as the fifth and sixth [161] centuries. The first organ used in a church was one which was received by Charlemagne as a present from the emperor Constantine Michael. * * * In the east, organs were never approved as instruments of sacred music, nor did the use of them continue without opposition in the west.--Ibid. pp. 734-736.

6. Johann Joseph Ignatius Döllinger, who, during his life, held the chairs of Theology and Church History, respectively, in the Royal University of Munich and the University of Bonn, and who is said to have been the greatest Catholic writer of the nineteenth century, says:

The mass of the catechumens began with the singing of psalms: in the Latin Church, and in the liturgy of the Constitutions, it commenced with the lecture from the sacred Scriptures, between the parts of which, verses of the psalms were sung, which were thence called responsaries. Pope Celestine I. first introduced into the west, probably after the example of St. Ambrose, the custom of reciting a psalm at the beginning of the mass. In the first ages the psalms were sung by the whole assembly standing; after the fourth century the practice introduced by St. Ambrose from the east was adopted in the west, by which the psalms were sung in alternate chant by the congregation, divided into two choirs. The melodies in which they were sung were simple, almost recitative; but at the end of the fourth century, a more artificial song was introduced into some churches as in that of Milan.--History of the Church, Vol. II., pp. 307, 308.
[162]

7. Heinrich Ernst Ferdinand Guericke, once Professor in the University of Halle and author of "A Manual of Church History and "Antiquities of the Church," says:

The example of Christ and His Apostles (Matt. 26: 30, and Acts 16: 25), and also their precepts (Jas. 5: 13; Eph. 5: 19; Col. 3: 16), justify us in considering the custom of singing hymns to be very ancient indeed in the Christian Church. The practice of singing such spiritual songs is said to have been fostered and promoted by so early an authority as Ignatius of Antioch; and it was practiced not only for private edification, but also for the purposes of public worship (Plinii. Epist. ad Traj. X. 96), who mentions not only the practice, but also the subject-matter of the hymns.--Antiq. of the Church, pp. 202, 203.

8. Lyman Coleman, an eminent Presbyterian author and noted for vast learning and accurate scholarship, says:

The organ constituted no part of the furniture of the ancient churches. The first instance on record of its use in the church, occurred in the time of Charlemagne, who received one as a present from Constantine Michael, which was set up in the church at Aix-la-Chapelle. The musicians of this city, and of Mentz, learned to play on the organ in Italy, from. which it appears that they were already known in that country.--Antiquities of the Christian Church, p. 192.

9. Alzog, the eminent Catholic Scholar and Church Historian of the University of Freiburg, though favoring [163] the use of instrumental music in worship, nevertheless bears testimony which shows its corruption of the original practice. He says:

St. Ambrose and St. Gregory rendered great service to church music by the introduction of what are known as the Ambrosian and Gregorian chants. The latter, composed of notes of equal duration (cantus firmus, Romanus), is, in many respects, very similar to our present choral chant. The Ambrosian chant, with notes of unequal duration, has more the character of a recitative. The Gregorian chant, so dignified and solemn, was taught and brought to perfection in a school founded by the excellent Pope from whom it derives its name, whence it gradually spread through the whole church. Ecclesiastical chant, departing in some instances from the simple majesty of its original character, became more artistic, and, on this account, less heavenly and more profane; and the Fathers of the Church were not slow to censure this corruption of the old and honored church song. Finally, the organ, which seemed an earthly echo of the angelic choirs in heaven, added its full, rich, and inspiring notes to the beautiful simplicity of the Gregorian chant.--Universal Church History, Vol. I., pp. 696, 697.

10. George Park Fisher, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Yale University, in his "History of the Christian Church," says:

Church music, which at the outset consisted mainly of the singing of the psalms, flourished especially in Syria and at Alexandria. The music was very simple in its character. There was some sort of alternate [164] singing in the worship of Christians, as it is described by Pliny. The introduction of antiphonal singing at Antioch is ascribed by tradition to Ignatius. * * * The primitive Church music was choral and congregational. Hilary, and in the early part of the period, Gregory the Great, were influential in improving church music. The Arians and other heretics embodied their doctrines in verses to be sung. It was to counteract this influence that Chrysostom caused antiphonies and doxologies to be sung in processions. In the West, Ambrose, in his contest with the Arians, taught his congregation to sing antiphonal hymns. The most famous composers were Ephraëm Syrus, Hilary of Poictiers, and Ambrose. There was some opposition to the use of such hymns, on the ground that they were not taken from the Scriptures; and this could only be overcome by age and usage.--pp. 65, 121.

11. Thomas Stackhouse, eminent historian of the Church of England and author of a "New History of the Holy Bible," gives in this work the following testimony:

In all the books of the Old Testament, there is not the least hint given us of any musical instruments employed in funerals. We read indeed of a good deal of mourning for the dead, of mourners hired on purpose, and of the dismal ditties which these people sung, to excite sorrow in others: but the use of music was reckoned an incongruous thing, and nowise comporting with the solemnity of this sad season. Among heathen authors there is frequent mention made of it, as a thing long in use both with the Greeks and Romans; and therefore we may presume, [165] that from these nations it was that the Jews borrowed, and adopted it into their funeral ceremonies.--Vol. 5, pp. 426, 427.

12. Dr. Karl August Hase, Professor of Theology at the University of Jena and a voluminous author, though in favor of the instrument in worship, testifies to the constant opposition to all instrumental music of every kind as follows:

The outward forms of religion became gradually more and more imposing. From the ancient temples the incense and many ancient customs of heathenism were transferred to the churches. By the use of tapers and perpetual lamps, the solemnity of nocturnal festivals was combined with the light of day. * * * Soon after, in face of continual opposition to all instrumental music, the organ (οργανον), worthy of being the invention of a saint who had listened to the minstrelsy of angels, was brought to Italy from Greece.--History of the Christian Church, p. 153.

13. Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler, eminent as a Professor at the Universities of Bonn and Göttingen and celebrated as a church historian, describing the simplicity of the service in the primitive church, says:

They assembled for worship in private houses; in cities the churches were often divided into several societies each having its particular place of meeting. In the assemblies the exercises consisted in reading the Scriptures of the Old Testament, explanation of what had been read, exhortation, singing, and prayer [166] (Col. 3: 16; 1 Tim. 4: 13). The letters of Paul, too, were read and sent from one church to another (Col. 4: 16; 1 Thess. 5: 27). The communion was with them an actual evening meal (αγαπη) vid. 1 Cor. 11: 20.--Ecelesiastical History, Vol. I. pp. 58, 59.

14. Charles John Vaughan, of the Church of England, member of the New Testament Revision Committee and the author of a work entitled "The Church of the First Days," describing the simple and impressive service of song among the primitive Christians in times of persecution, says:

The well-known words, And at midnight Paul and Silas in their dungeon prayed and sang praises unto God, have a sweet music in them for anxious and troubled souls. The thought of those songs in the night; verses, perhaps, from our own sacred Book of Psalms, so full of appropriate words for the prisoner and the captive; of those prayers in the jail at Philippi, which have been the example and model of so many Christian confessors and martyrs in all times in their long hours of patient suffering for the truth's sake; may well both encourage and shame us; encourage us by its testimony to the living grace of Christ, and yet shame us by the comparison of our luxurious softness with their noble endurance and their bold confession. The prisoners heard them. The original language says, were listening to them. Strange unwonted sounds must those have been, those prayers and hymns, in a heathen prison: well might they listen!--Vol. II., pp. 308, 309.

15. John Fletcher Hurst, in his "History of the Christian Church," says:
[167]

The singing was simple, and modeled after the Jewish psalmody. The lower clergy were almost universally the precentors, for the singing of the congregation was regarded as such an integral part of the divine service that only clerical officers should direct it. The music was at no time, and in no place, regarded as the prerogative of the singers. That only was held to be sacred music which the congregation could participate in, either responsively or continuously. The two churches most noted for sacred music in the early period were Antioch in Syria, and the Italian Church of Milan, where Ambrose created the later psalmody of the Western Church. The music of the church was at first simple, but to the old melodies were now added new words, which in many instances found their way into the public services, and had a tendency to displace the older psalmody. * * * The churches soon adopted an elaborate ceremonial. The hymns of Ephraim the Syrian, of Hilary of Pictavium, and of Sedulius, showed traces of the artificiality which now disturbed every factor in the service of the church. The bombastic rhetoric which had ruled in the Roman world since the death of Cicero was now introduced into the Christian pulpit, and the congregation burst forth in applause extravagant enough for a welcome to a chief returning from the conquest of a new province. The assertion of the secular spirit was prompt and thorough.--Vol. I., p. 357.

16. John Kurtz, a German Lutheran scholar and a great church historian, says:

At first church music was simple, artless, recitative. But the rivalry of heretics forced the orthodox [168] church to pay greater attention to the requirements of art. Chrysostom had to declaim against the secularization of church music. More lasting was the opposition of the church to the introduction of instrumental accompaniment.--Church History, Vol. I., p. 376.

The same author, commenting on the great revolution in church music that had taken place by the opening of the nineteenth century, says:

Church music, too, now reached its lowest ebb. The old chorales were altered into modern forms. A multitude of new, unpopular melodies, difficult of comprehension, with a bold school tone were introduced; the last trace of the old rhythm disappeared, and a weary monotony began to prevail, in which all force and freshness were lost. As a substitute, secular preludes, interludes, and concluding pieces were brought in. The people often entered the churches during the playing of operatic overtures, and were dismissed amid the noise of a march or waltz.--Vol. III., p. 153.

17. Edmond de Pressense, pronounced by competent judges an able scholar and a brilliant historian, says:

The church does not remain satisfied, as at first, with singing the psalms. Christian feeling finds expression in its own spiritual song. This utterance, like prayer and the work of edification, proceeds in the first instance from individual inspiration. "If any man hath a psalm," says the apostle, "let him speak," Eph. 5: 19; Col. 3: 16; 1 Cor. 14: 26. Here [169] the reference is evidently to a new song given by inspiration of the Spirit of God to one in the assembly.--The Early Years of Christianity, p. 372.

18. Philip Schaff, the distinguished President of the American Company of New Testament Revisers, and one of the greatest scholars of the nineteenth century, in his "History of the Christian Church," says:

The use of organs in churches is ascribed to Pope Vitalian (657-672). Constantine Copronymos sent an organ with other presents to King Pepin of France in 767. Charlemagne received one as a present from the Caliph Haroun al Rashid, and had it put up in the cathedral of Aix-la-Chapelle. * * * The attitude of the churches toward the organ varies. It shared to some extent the fate of images except that it never was an object of worship. * * * The Greek Church disapproves the use of organs. The Latin Church introduced it pretty generally, but not without the protest of eminent men, so that even in the Council of Trent a motion was made, though not carried, to prohibit the organ at least in the mass.--Vol. IV., p. 439.

19. Joseph Bingham, the well-known author of "Antiquities of the Christian Church," and said to be one of the greatest scholars the Church of England has ever produced, says:

Music in churches is as ancient as the apostles, but instrumental music not so.
[170]

Then, after noting the use of organs in the churches of the thirteenth century, he says:

The use of the instrument, indeed, is much ancienter, but not in church service. * * * In the Western parts, the instrument was not so much as known till the eighth century; for the first organ that was ever seen in France was one sent as a present to King Pepin by Constantinus Copronymus, the Greek emperor (an. 766). * * * But, now, it was only used in princes' courts, and not yet brought into churches; nor was it ever received into the Greek churches, there being no mention of an organ in all their Liturgies, ancient or modern.--Works, Vol. 2, pp. 482-484, London Ed.

20. James Craigie Robertson, Professor of Church History in King's College, London, testifies concerning early church music as a means of instruction, as follows:

Psalmody formed a large portion of the early Christian worship. It consisted partly of the Old Testament psalms, and partly of hymns composed on Christian themes; and both in the church and among heretical sects it was found a very effective means of impressing doctrines on the minds of the less educated members.--History of the Christian Church, Vol. I., p. 166.

21. William Jones, the Church Historian, noting the fact that the primitive Christians received from the apostles all the acts of worship, says:

They received from the apostles the various ordinances of public worship, the apostles' doctrine, the [171] fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the ordinances of prayer and praise; and in these they continued steadfastly.--History of the Christian Church to the Eighteenth Century, p. 49.

22. George H. Dryer:

The order of worship seems to have been prayer, reading the Scriptures, prayer, teaching, prophecy, speaking with tongues, singing. Teaching was probably an exposition of the passage read with practical applications, the result of reflection and the attainment of knowledge or gnosis. * * * In time, teaching and prophecy came together and formed the sermon and exhortation. Speaking with tongues passed into the songs and hymns of the Church.--History of the Christian Church, Vol. I., p. 243.

23. Philip Smith:

A large part of the service consisted in singing the psalms of the Old Testament, the few but cherished canticles of the New, and the hymns, which were coniposed not only as the utterance of praise, but as the means of impressing doctrine in a more vivid form on the minds of the worshipers.--History of the Christian Church During the First Ten Centuries, Vol. I., p. 1.95.

24. George Waddington. Commenting on the letter of Pliny the Younger to the emperor Trajan, this historian of the Church of England, says:

This being justly considerd as the most important document remaining to us in early Christian history, [172] we shall here transcribe some portion of it, the more willingly as we shall have occasion hereafter to refer to it. After mentioning the difficulty of his own situation, and his perplexity in what manner to proceed against men charged with no other crime than the name of Christian, the writer proceeds as follows: "Others were named by an informer, who at first confessed themselves Christians, and afterwards denied it. * * * They affirmed that the whole of their fault or error lay in this--that they were wont to meet together on a stated day before it was light, and sing among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ, as to God, and bind themselves by an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but not to be guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a pledge committed to them when called upon to return it," etc.

After quoting still further from Pliny's letter, Waddington adds his own testimony to its great value as a historic document, as follows:

So few and uncertain are the records left to guide our inquiries through the obscure period which immediately followed the conclusion of the labors of the Apostles, that the above testimony to the numbers and virtues of our forefathers in faith becomes indeed valuable. No history of our Church can be perfect without it; and its clear and unsuspected voice will be listened to by every candid inquirer in every age of truth and history.--Waddington's History of the Church, p. 10.

25. William Hetherington:

In the beginning of the year 1562, a meeting of the Convocation was held, in which the subject of further [173] reformation was vigorously discussed on both sides. * * * When it was proposed that there should be some alterations in the Prayer book, a very warm debate ensued. Six alterations were proposed, * * * [one of which was] that the use of organs be laid aside. * * * When the vote came to be taken on these propositions, forty-three voted for them, and thirty-five against; but when the proxies were counted, the balance was turned; the final state of the vote being fifty-eight for, and fifty-nine against. Thus it was determined, by the majority of a single vote, and that the proxy of an absent person who did not hear the reasoning, that the Prayer book should remain unimproved, that there should be no further reformation, that there should be no relief granted to those whose consciences felt aggrieved by the admixture of human inventions in the worship of God.--History Westminster Assembly of Divines, p. 30.

26. Socrates, surnamed "Scholasticusi" was the Greek Church historian who has the distinction of continuing the subject of ecclesiastical history from the point where Eusebius closed his history--that is, from early in the fourth century to near the middle of the fifth century. So great is the influence that mere singing has in impressing doctrine and forming sentiment and character that, as we learn from Socrates and some others, the different religious sects, which arose during the course of eenturies, invariably resorted to it as a means of spreading their principles. He says--
[174]

The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As often therefore as the festal days occurred, that is to say, the Sabbath and Lord's day[15] of each week, on which assemblies are usually held in the churches, they congregated within the city gates about the public piazzas, and sang responsive verses adapted to the Arian heresy. This they did during the greater part of the night; and again in the morning, chanting the same responsive compositions, they paraded through the midst of the city, and so passed out of the gates to go to their places of assembly.--Ecclesiastical History, Book VI., Chap. VIII., p. 314.

27. Sozomen, another Greek writer of ecclesiastical history and a cotemporary of Socrates, wrote a history of the Church covering the period between the years 323 and 439. Writing on the power of song and the use made of it, he says:

About this time, Apollinarius openly devised a heresy, to which his name has since been given. He induced many persons to secede from the church, and formed separate assemblies. Vitalius, a Presbyter of Antioch, concurred with him in the promulgation of his peculiar opinions. In other respects, Vitalius was blameless in life and conduct, and was zealous in watching over those committed to his pastoral superintendence; hence he was greatly revered by the people. He seceded from communion with Meletius and joined Apollinarius, and presided over those at Antioch who had embraced the same opinions; by the sanctity of his life he attracted a great number [175] of followers, who are still called Vitalians by the citizens of Antioch. * * * They sang the psalms composed by Apollinarius; for, besides his great attainments in other branches of literature, he was a poet, and by the beauty of his verses he induced many to adopt his sentiments. He composed verses to be sung by men at convivial meetings and at their daily labor, and. by women while engaged at the loom. But, whether his songs were adapted for holidays, festivals, or other occasions, they were all alike to the praise and glory of God.--Ecclesiastical History, Book VI., Chap. XXV., p. 280.

28. James Pierce. Although this learned Presbyterian scholar of the eighteenth century, and some others to be presented in this connection, were not Church Historians in the strict sense, yet some of their works are practically of this nature, and it is not improper to hear from them under this head. Writing in the interest of the "Dissenters," this eminent Non-Conformist says:

I come now to say somewhat of the antiquity of musical instruments. But that these were not used in the Christian Church in the primitive times is attested by all the ancient writers with one consent. Hence, they figuratively explain all the places of the Old Testament which speak of musical instruments, as I might easily show by a thousand testimonies out of Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others. * * * From what has been said, it appears no musical instruments were used in the pure times of the church.--A Vindication of the Dissenters, cited by Girardeau, pp. 157, 158.
[176]

29. Thomas Aquinas, sometimes called the Angelic Doctor, one of the most learned Roman Catholic scholars of the thirteenth century, and a voluminous writer, says:

Our Church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize.[16]--Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. II., p. 483, London Edition.

30. Cajetan, a Roman Catholic Cardinal and theologian of the sixteenth century, says:

It is to be observed the church did not use organs in Thomas' time; whence, even to this day, the Church of Rome does not use them in the Pope's presence. And truly it will appear that musical instruments are not to be suffered in the ecclesiastical offices we meet together to perform for the sake of receiving internal instruction from God; and so much the rather are they to be excluded, because God's internal discipline exceeds all human disciplines, which rejected this kind of instruments.--Cited by Girardeau, pp. 161, 162.

31. Johann Jahn. This eminent Oriental scholar and Biblical archaeologist of the eighteenth century, after mentioning singing, reading the Scriptures, exhortation, prayer, and a contribution for the poor, as the items of worship in the ancient Jewish synagogue, then states that the items of Christian worship, [177] as established by Christ and the apostles, were the same, with the exception that the Lord's Supper was added. His words are:

§399. Mode of Worship Practiced by the Apostles. It was by ministering in synagogues, that the apostles gathered the first Christians. They retained also essentially the same mode of worship with that of the Synagogues, excepting that the Lord's Supper was made an additional institution, agreeably to the example of Christ, Acts 2: 42; 20: 7-11, 1 Cor. 11: 17-34.--Jahn's Biblical Archaeology, pp. 503, 504.

32. Professor John Girardeau. In his work on "Music in the Church," written while he was "Professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, South Carolina," this Presbyterian scholar says:

It has thus been proved, by an appeal to historical facts, that the church, although lapsing more and more into defection from the truth and into a corruption of apostolic practice, had no instrumental music for twelve hundred years;[17] and that the Calvinistic Reformed Church ejected it from its services as an element of Popery, even the Church of England having come very nigh to its extrusion from her worship. The historical argument, therefore, combines with the Scriptural and the confessional to raise a solemn and powerful protest against its employment [178] by the Presbyterian Church. It is heresy in the sphere of worship.--Instrumental Music in Public Worship, p. 179.


----------



## Bygracealone

Continued from above:

IV. Commentators.

For reasons already mentioned in this work, commentators, as well as some other scholars, sometimes fail to discriminate between the ancient meaning of psallo, "to strike the chords of an instrument," and its subsequent exclusive meaning "to sing," which it everywhere has in the New Testament. Hence, many of them constantly confuse the two meanings, and are consequently misleading on this point just as they are on baptism. They overlook the radical changes which the word underwent during its history. But there are others in this class equally eminent for scholarship who have not overlooked it, and their testimony is of great weight. We shall now hear what some of them of both classes have to say:

1. Conybeare and Howson. Commenting on Eph. 5: 19, these eminent scholars of the Church of England say:

Throughout the whole passage there is a contrast implied between the heathen and the Christian practice, e. g. when you meet, let your enjoyment consist not in fullness of wine, but fullness of the Spirit; let your songs be, not the drinking songs of heathen feasts, but psalms and hymns; and their accompaniment, not the music of the lyre, but the melody of the heart; while you sing them to the praises not of [179] Bacchus or Venus, but of the Lord Jesus Christ.--Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Vol. II., p. 408.

2. Joseph B. Mayor, Emeritus Professor of King's College, London, commenting on James 5: 13, says:

Ψαλλετω. Properly used of playing on a stringed instrument, as Luc. Parasit. 17 ουτε γαρ αυλειν ενι χωρις αυλεων ουτε ψαλλειν ανευ λυρας. We find it also used of singing with the voice and with the heart, Eph. 5: 19, 1 Cor. 14: 15.--Commentary on the Epistle of James, p. 162.

3. Bishop William Beveridge, "Lord Bishop of St. Asaph," a very learned churchman who died in the early part of the eighteenth century, and who was styled "the great reviver and restorer of primitive piety," is an important witness in the case. He favored the use of instrumental music in the worship; but after a labored and unsuccessful effort to defend it, he lays down a "rule" to be observed in its use, and is compelled to say:

All the while that you are singing and praising God, keep your minds as intent as you can upon it, without taking any notice at all of the organs, for they will have their effect upon you better if you do not mind them than if you do; for your minding of them will divert your thoughts from the work you are about.--Thesaurus Theologicus, Vol. II., p. 523.

4. Charles Buck, English Independent minister, referred to by the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia as [180] "the never-to-be-forgotten author of the Theological Dictionary,"--a work which still holds a place in the libraries of scholars, says:

Much has been said as to the use of instrumental music in the house of God. On the one side it is observed that we ought not to object to it, because it assists devotion; that it was used in the worship of God under the Old Testament; and that the worship of heaven is represented by a delightful union of vocal and instrumental music. But on the other side, it is remarked, that nothing should be done in or about God's worship without example or precept from the New Testament; that, instead of aiding devotion, it often tends to draw off the mind from the right object; that it does not accord with the simplicity of Christian worship; that the practice of those who lived under the ceremonial dispensation can be no rule for us; that not one text in the New Testament requires or authorizes it by precept or example, by express words or fair inference; and that the representation of the musical harmony in heaven is merely figurative language, denoting the happiness of the saints.--Theological Dictionary, Art. Singing.

5. Adam Clarke, the illustrious Methodist commentator, says:

But were it even evident, which it is not, either from this or any other place in the sacred writings, that instruments of music were prescribed by Divine authority under the law, could this be adduced with any semblance of reason, that they ought to be used in Christian worship? No; the whole spirit, soul, [181] and genius of the Christian religion are against this: and those who know the Church of God best, and what constitutes its genuine spiritual state, know that these things have been introduced as a substitute for the life and power of religion; and that where they prevail most, there is least of the power of Christianity. Away with such portentous baubles from the worship of that infinite Spirit who requires his followers to worship him in spirit and in truth, for to no such worship are those instruments friendly.--Commentary, Vol. II., pp. 690, 691, note on 2 Chron. 29: 25.

Then, on Amos 6: 5, the same author says:

And invent to themselves instruments of music, like David]. See the note on 1 Chron. 23: 5; and especially the note on 2 Chron. 24: 25. I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read; and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by the prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion, and that they are sinful. If there was a wo to them who invented instruments of music, as did David under the law, is there no wo, no curse to them who invent them, and introduce them into the worship of God in the Christian Church? I am an old man, and an old minister; and I here declare that I never knew them productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire: but instruments [182] of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor. This is the abuse of music; and here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity. The late venerable and most eminent divine, the Rev. John Wesley, who was a lover of music, and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music being introduced into the chapels of the Methodists, said in his terse and powerful manner, "I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither HEARD nor SEEN." I say the same, though I think the expense of purchase had better be spared.--Commentary, Vol. IV. p. 686.

6. Marvin R. Vincent, Baldwin Professor of Sacred Literature in Union Theological Seminary, New York--a Presbyterian of acknowledged scholarship, and the author of "Word Studies in the New Testament," commenting on I Cor. 14: 15, says:

I will sing (ψαλω). See on Jas. 5: 13. The verb αδω is also used for sing, Eph. 5: 19; Col. 3: 16; Apoc. 5: 9; 14: 3; 15: 3. In the last two passages it is combined with playing on harps. In Eph. 5: 19 we have both verbs. The noun ψαλμος psalm (Eph. 5: 19; Col. 3: 16; 1 Cor. 14: 26), which is etymologically akin to this verb, is used in the New Testament of a religious song in general, having the character of an Old Testament psalm; though in Matt. 26: 30; Mark 14: 26, 'υμνεω hymneo, whence our hymn, is used of singing an Old Testament psalm. Here it is applied to such songs improvised under the spiritual ecstasy (ver. 26). Some think that the verb has here its original signification of singing with an instrument. This is its dominant sense in the Septuagint, and [183] both Basil and Gregory of Nyssa define a psalm as implying instrumental accompaniment; and Clement of Alexandria, while forbidding the use of the flute in the agapae, permitted the harp.[18] But neither Basil, nor Ambrose, nor Chrysostom, in their panegyrics upon music, mention instrumental music, and Basil expressly condemns it. Bingham dismisses the matter summarily, and cites Justin Martyr as saying expressly that instrumental music was not used in the Christian Church. The verb is used here in the general sense of singing praise.--Word Studies, Vol. III., pp. 269, 270.

7. Robert Milligan, who, for varied learning and scholarship particularly in theological and biblical lore, was practically unsurpassed at the time of his death in 1875, says:

The word psalm is from the Greek noun ψαλμος, and this again from the verb ψαλλω, to touch, to feel, to play on a stringed instrument with the fingers, and, finally, to make music or melody in the heart, as in Eph. 5: 19. The meaning of the noun corresponds with that of the verb, and denotes a touching, a playing on a stringed instrument, any song or ode. And hence it is evident that the word psalm may or may not refer to instrumental music. Its proper meaning, in any and every case, must be determined by the context. And, according to this fundamental law of interpretation, it is pretty evident that in Ephesians and Colossians the term ψαλμος has no reference to instrumental music; for, in both cases, it is the [184] strings or chords of the heart, and not of an instrument, that are to be touched.

Then, in reply to the question whether instrumental music should be used in Christian worship, he gives a negative answer with five reasons for it, as follows:

(1). Such a practice is wholly unwarranted by anything that is either said or taught in the New Testament. The inspired Psalmist said to his Jewish brethren,
"Praise him (Jehovah) with the sound of the trumpet; Praise him with the psaltery and harp; Praise him with the timbrel and dance; Praise him with stringed instruments and organs; Praise him on the loud cymbals; Praise him on the high-sounding cymbals."

--Psa. 150: 3-5.

But Paul says to all Christians, "Teach and admonish one another in Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, singing and making melody (ψαλλοντες, psalm-ing) in your hearts to the Lord." Eph. 5: 19. The antithesis here is certainly very marked, and seems to be intentional and significant.

(2). It is at least doubtful whether such a practice is in harmony with the tenor and spirit of the Christian Institution.

(3). The tendency of instrumental music is, I think, to divert the minds of many from the sentiment of the song to the mere sound of the organ, and in this way it often serves to promote formalism in Churches.
[185]

(4). I am not aware that instrumental music has ever served to promote unity, peace, harmony, and love in any congregation of Christians; but I am aware that in some of them it has had a contrary effect.

(5). It is often at variance with the law of love.--Scheme of Redemption, pp. 380-387.

8. Expositor's Greek Testament:

Ψαλλω denoted, first, playing on strings, then singing to such accompaniment; Eph. 5: 19 distinguishes this verb from αδω. Ed. thinks that instrumentation is implied; unless forbidden, Gr. Christians would be sure to grace their songs with music. Through its Lxx. use, especially in the title ψαλμοι, t'hillim (Heb.), the word came to signify the singing of praise to God.--On 1 Cor. 14: 15.

9. Charles John Ellicott, the eminent "Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol," mentioned sometimes by way of preëminence as the De Wette of English commentators, says on Eph. 5: 19:

"With psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." The distinctions between these words have been somewhat differently estimated. Olshausen and Stier would confine ψαλμος to the Psalms of the Old Testament, 'υμνος to any Christian song of praise; this does not seem borne out by 1 Cor. 14: 26, compare Jas. 5: 13. * * * In a passage so general as the present, no such rigorous distinctions seem called for; ψαλμος most probably, as Meyer suggests, denotes a sacred song of a character similar to that of the Psalms, * * *; 'υμνος, a song more especially of [186] praise, whether to Christ (ver. 19), or God (ver. 20; compare Acts 16: 25, Heb. 2: 12); ωδη, a definition generally of the genus to which all such compositions belonged. * * * αδοντες και ψαλλοντες] "singing and making melody in your heart;" participal clause, coördinate with (Meyer), not subordinate to (so as to specify the moral quality of the psalmody, μετα συνεσιος, Chrysostom) the foregoing λαλουντες, etc. Harless very clearly shows that εν τη καρδια, without 'υμων, could not indicate any antithesis between the heart and lips, much less any qualitative definition,-- * * * but that simply another kind of psalmody is mentioned, that of the inward heart.

Thus, this eminent New Testament exegete carefully distinguishes between the melody made, as in the ancient usage of ψαλλω, on the lyre or other instrument, and that made, in the New Testament usage of the term, in the heart. The latter is so distinct from the former that he calls it "another kind of psalmody."

Then, he translates and comments on I Cor. 14: 15 as follows:

"I will sing praise with the spirit, and I will sing praise with the understanding;" i. e. "I will not only sing praise with my spirit, but will interpret what I sing." The term ψαλλαν (properly το δια δακτυλων επι ψαυειν των χορδων της λυρας, Etym. M.) is here probably used without any reference to any instrument (Comp. Jas. 5: 13), but as denoting the singing of praise.

Thus, this eminent critic finds the instrument ruled out of this passage; and on strong contextual and [187] philological grounds, many eminent scholars, some of whom are quoted in this work, find it ruled out of every other passage containing the word whether in the New Testament or in cotemporaneous literature.

10. Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, the eminent Lutheran scholar and New Testament commentator, referred to by competent critics as the "prince of exegetes," makes the following comment on Eph. 5: 19:

The distinction between ψαλμος and 'υμνος consists in this, that by ψαλμος Paul denotes a religious song in general bearing the character of the Old Testament psalms, but by 'υμνος specially a song of praise, and that, in accordance with the context, addressed to Christ (ver. 19) and God (ver. 20). Properly ψαλμος (which originally means the making the cithara sound) is a song in general, and that indeed as sung to a stringed instrument; but in the New Testament the character of the psalm is determined by the psalms of the Old Testament, so called κατ' εζοχην preëminently" (1 Cor. 14: 15, 26; Jas. 5: 13). According to Harless, the two words are not different as regards their contents, but ψαλμοις is the expression of the spiritual song for the Jewish-Christians, 'υμνοις for the Gentile-Christians. An external distinction in itself improbable, and very arbitrary, since the special signification of 'υμνος, song of praise, is thoroughly established, and also was a word very current in Greek, which--as well in itself as more especially with regard to its sense established in Christian usage in accordance with the conception of the Old Testament psalms--could not but be [188] equally intelligible for the Gentile-Christians as for the Jewish-Christians. According to Olshausen, ψαλμοι are here the psalms of the Old Testament, which had passed over from the synagogue into the use of the church. But worship is not spoken of here; and that the Christians, filled by the Spirit, improvised psalms, is clear from 1 Cor. 14: 15, 26. Such Christian psalms and hymns are meant, as the Spirit gave them to be uttered (Acts 2: 4, 10: 46, 19: 6),--phenomena doubtless, which, like the operations of the Spirit generally in the first age of the church, are withdrawn from our special cognizance. --και ωδαις πνευματικαις.] Inasmuch as ωδη may be any song, even secular, πνευματικαις is here added, so that by ωδαις πνευματικαις is denoted the whole genus, of which the ψαλμοι and 'υμνοι were species. * * * αδοντες και ψαλλοντες εν τη καρδια 'υμων τω κυριω] coördinate with the preceding λαλουντες κ. τ. λ. containing another singing of praise, namely, that which goes on in the silence of the heart. The point of difference lies in εν ταις καρδιαις 'υμων, as contradistinguished from the preceding εαυτοις. Usually this second participial clause is regarded as subordinate to the previous one; it is held to affirm that that reciprocal singing of praise must take place not merely with the mouth, but also in the heart. But how could it have occurred to Paul here to enter such a protest against mere lip-praise, when he, in fact, represents the psalm-singing, etc., as the utterance of the being filled by the Spirit, and makes express mention of πνευματικαις ωδαις, in which case, at any rate, the thought of a mere singing with the mouth was of itself excluded.--Commentary on the New Testament, Gal. and Eph., pp. 506, 507.

Now, notwithstanding this eminent authority favored instrumental music in the worship, and while [189] he does not say, in specific terms, that this idea had disappeared from ψαλλω in its New Testament usage, yet the testimony which he bears clearly shows that he recognized a change of meaning in the word at the opening of the New Testament period. In proof of this, we collate and submit the following facts candidly admitted by him in the passage quoted:

1. He says ψαλμος "originally means the making the cithara sound." Mark the word "originally." In Chapter II., of the present work, which is devoted to the Lexicons, it is abundantly shown that this was one of its ancient meanings--a fact freely conceded by those who deny that it had this meaning in New Testament times.

2. Although he says it "properly" means "a song in general, and that indeed as sung to a stringed instrument," yet it is clear that, in his case, as in that of many other scholars, its ancient classical meaning is confused with its later meaning. This is shown by his use of different expressions which seem to be intended to make the impression that there is some sort of difference in the meaning of the term in the two periods. For instance, referring to ψαλμος as "a word very current in Greek," he speaks particularly of "its sense established in Christian usage," which he would hardly do if, in his judgment, that usage did not vary from classical usage.

3. He testifies that in Eph. 5: 19, where the "psalloing" is said to be "in the heart," and where the word is used in connection with αδω, another word meaning to sing, it denotes "another singing of [190] praise, namely, that which goes on in the silence of the heart."

4. Finally, he describes all the music of the passage signified by ψαλλω as "psalm-singing," and this cannot mean psalm-playing.

11. Erasmus (Desiderius), a cotemporary of Martin Luther, who has the reputation of being the most renowned classical scholar of his age and is represented by high authority as "the most gifted and industrious pioneer of modern scholarship," says:

We have brought into our churches a certain operose and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words, as I hardly think was ever heard in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them. * * * Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ-makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time in learning these whining tones.--Commentary on I Cor. 14: 19.

12. John Calvin. This illustrious Reformer and reputed founder of Presbyterianism says:

Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of [191] outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to Him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1 Cor. 14: 16). The voice of man, although not understood by the generality, assuredly excels all inanimate instruments of music; and yet we see what Paul determines concerning speaking in an unknown tongue. What shall we then say of chanting which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound? * * * What, therefore, was in use under the law is by no means entitled to our practice under the Gospel; and these things being not only superfluous, but useless, are to be abstained from because pure and simple modulation is sufficient for the praise of God, if it is sung with the heart and with the mouth. We know that our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, and by His advent has abolished these legal shadows. Instrumental music, we therefore maintain, was only tolerated on account of the times and the people, because they were as boys, as the sacred Scripture speaketh, whose condition required these puerile rudiments. But in gospel times we must not have recourse to these unless we wish to destroy the evangelical perfection and to obscure the meridian light which we enjoy in Christ our Lord.--Calvin's Commentary on the Thirty-third Psalm, and on 1 Sam. 18: 1-9.

13. John Chrysostom. This celebrated Greek Father of the church, whose Homilies on the Scriptures have been widely circulated, lived in the fourth century of the Christian era, being born, as noted on a preceding page, A.D. 347. His period, therefore, extends back to within two hundred and fifty years [192] of the Apostles, and even at that early day the same view which, as we have seen, was advocated by Calvin, was held as to why instrumental music was allowed in the Jewish worship. Chrysostom says:

It was only permitted to the Jews as sacrifice was, for the heaviness and grossness of their souls. God condescended to their weakness, because they were lately drawn off from idols; but now, instead of organs, we may use our own bodies to praise him withal.--Chrysostom on Psa. 149, Vol. iii. p. 634, Paris, 1616; and on Psa. 144, Vol. i. p. 862, cited by Bingham, Vol. II., p. 485, London Edit.[19]

14. Justin Martyr. Wherever Christianity has been long established, the name of this justly celebrated Church Father of Palestine, who is said to have suffered martyrdom in the year 165, is well known. He was born at the beginning of the second [193] century, and hence his period begins where the apostolic period closed. His testimony is, therefore, of the greatest importance that can be justly attached to the testimony of uninspired men. Eusebius says (Book IV. Chap. 11.) that he "was the most noted of those that flourished in" the second century. We quote him among the commentators that his testimony may be considered in connection with that of Chrysostom and Calvin in its bearing on the question of instrumental music in the Jewish worship as well as in Christian worship.

A considerable number of Justin's writings have come down to us, and some have been attributed to him, concerning the genuineness of which, scholars are not agreed. The work entitled, "Questions and Answers to the Orthodox," which has long been attributed to him, is claimed by some critics to have been written by another person. But even if it were proven conclusively that Justin was not the author of this work, it remains a fact that it was written by some Christian scholar of that early period, or near that period, and its testimony, even in such an event, would still be of the greatest value. On the subject which we now have in hand, this ancient author, as we render his language, says:

Simply singing is not agreeable to children, but singing with lifeless instruments and with dancing and clapping; on which account the use of this kind of instruments and of others agreeable to children is removed from the songs in the churches, and there [194] is left remaining simply singing.--Justin's Questions and Answers to the Orthodox, Ques. 107, p. 462.[20]

This testimony is certainly explicit and to the point. The term which he uses for children (νηπιοι) is the same used by Paul in Gal. 4: 1, 3, and the context shows that he intends to describe by it the infant state of the Jews under the law, and that it was because of this undeveloped condition that the Lord permitted the use of instrumental music in the Jewish worship. Be this as it may, he is very clear and positive as to its omission from the worship after the establishment of the church.

15. Theodore Beza, the great Genevan scholar and translator, who was a friend and coadjutor of Calvin, says:

If the apostle justly prohibits the use of unknown tongues in the church, much less would he have tolerated these artificial musical performances, which are addressed to the ear alone, and seldom strike the understanding even of the performers themselves.--Girardeau's Instrumental Music, p. 166.

16. David Pareus, a scholar of the seventeenth century and a Professor of theology in the Heidelberg University, says:
[195]

In the Christian church the mind must be incited to spiritual joy, not by pipes and trumpets and timbrels, with which God formerly indulged his ancient people on account of the hardness of their hearts, but by psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.--Commentary on 1 Cor. 14: 7.

17. Dean Henry Alford. This brilliant commentator on the Greek New Testament, though strongly in favor of instrumental music in the worship, yet is compelled, as a scholar, to make statements which support the opposition, renders psalleto (ψαλλετω) in Jas. 5: 13--"let him sing praise." He then adds in parenthesis the significant remarks:

Literally play on an instrument but used in reff. Rom. and I Cor. and elsewhere of singing praise generally. The word "Psalm" is an evidence of this latter sense.

Then, on Eph. 5: 19, he renders the words αδοντες και ψαλλοντες εν τη καρδια 'υμων, "singing and playing in your hearts." The playing, according to Alford, is in the heart. On the term ψαλμος in this passage, he says:

The word properly signifies those sacred songs which were performed with musical accompaniment, as 'υμνοι without it; but the two must evidently here not be confined strictly to their proper meaning.

According to these candid utterances, this great New Testament exegete knew that the word psallo (ψαλλω) in the New Testament meant to sing, and was used as meaning to play, only in a figurative sense; that is, to play in the heart.
[196]

On psalmos (ψαλμος) in I Cor. 14: 26 he says:

Most probably a hymn of praise to sing in the power of the Spirit, as did Miriam, Deborah, Simeon, etc.

18. Charles Haddon Spurgeon. It is a well-known fact that this renowned London preacher, whose name is familiar in religious circles throughout the English-speaking world, did not use instrumental music in the worship. In the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, where thousands gathered every week to hear him preach, simply singing without any kind of instrumental music, was used. James A. Garfield, after attending worship in the famous Tabernacle and listening to the mighty volume of vocal melody that went up in praise to God, said, on his return to the United States, that for once in his life, while listening to that impressive service of song, he had sympathy with those who did not use instrumental music in the worship. Of this distinguished preacher some time before his death, Professor Girardeau said:

Some few yet stand firm against what is now called, in a painfully significant phrase, the "downgrade" tendencies of this age. Prominent among them is that eminent servant of Christ--a star in His right hand--the Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon, who not only proclaims with power the pure doctrines of God's word, but retains and upholds an apostolic simplicity of worship. The great congregation which [197] is blessed with the privilege of listening to his instructions has no organ "to assist" them in singing their praises to their God and Savior. They find their vocal organs sufficient. Their tongues and voices express the gratitude of their hearts.--Instrumental Music in the Church, p. 176.


----------



## dcomin

bygracealone said:


> Anyway, I also found a number of other resources that I will list. I realize that when we provide this amount of content, it can certainly be overwhelming, but I figure it will serve as a helpful resource for those who appreciate this sort of stuff



Wow Stevie! I've got a headache now! Almost as bad as if someone were blaring and ORGAN next to my head!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

All that just goes to show a couple of things.

1) The complete and eclectic sources that agree on this point. 

2) The overwhelming and constant voice of the Church through the ages. 

3) What else did the East and West agree on besides this? Practically nothing.

4) How novel the position of the 21st century "RPW" is when placed against the voices of the past.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Your syllogism is missing a necessary premise in order to be valid.
> That is: Paul and Silas had musical instruments with them in prision.
> As it is your syllogism proves nothing.



The OT command isn't conditional as to whether one happens to have instrumentation on hand; therefore your "necessary premise" is redundant and the original premise stands.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> We might also add:
> 
> "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them..." (Acts 2:14)
> 
> Major: Peter preached to God without mechanical amplification
> Minor: he did not breach prescribed worship.
> Ergo: use of mechanical amplification is null and void.
> 
> It would be just as fallacious.



The fallacy of this parallel is manifest from the fact that mechanical amplification was not commanded under OT worship, hence there was no command to be made null and void.


----------



## Casey

Perhaps the "Thanks" button should be changed to read:

*The Following User Says Thank You to ________ For This Post That I (Probably) Agree With & (May Even) Find Useful:*


----------



## Bygracealone

dcomin said:


> Wow Stevie! I've got a headache now! Almost as bad as if someone were blaring and ORGAN next to my head!





Well, I didn't want to get another wake up call from you tomorrow morning, so I thought I'd contribute a post long enough to keep you occupied for a while


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> We might also add:
> 
> "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them..." (Acts 2:14)
> 
> Major: Peter preached to God without mechanical amplification
> Minor: he did not breach prescribed worship.
> Ergo: use of mechanical amplification is null and void.
> 
> It would be just as fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fallacy of this parallel is manifest from the fact that mechanical amplification was not commanded under OT worship, hence there was no command to be made null and void.
Click to expand...


So you are willing to state that at no time in the OT did the people of God ever sign without instruments accompaniment? Because if instruments were an element, it is not permitted to refrain from an element of worship.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

fredtgreco said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> We might also add:
> 
> "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them..." (Acts 2:14)
> 
> Major: Peter preached to God without mechanical amplification
> Minor: he did not breach prescribed worship.
> Ergo: use of mechanical amplification is null and void.
> 
> It would be just as fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> The fallacy of this parallel is manifest from the fact that mechanical amplification was not commanded under OT worship, hence there was no command to be made null and void.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are willing to state that at no time in the OT did the people of God ever sing without instruments accompaniment? Because if instruments were an element, it is not permitted to refrain from an element of worship.
Click to expand...


What are you trying to say here?


----------



## dcomin

fredtgreco said:


> So you are willing to state that at no time in the OT did the people of God ever sign without instruments accompaniment? Because if instruments were an element, it is not permitted to refrain from an element of worship.



Instruments were an element of OT worship and they were appointed to be used *specifically *in connection with the priestly and Levitital work of the sacrifice, as the passages I've cited in 1 and 2 Chronicles demonstrate. 2 Chronicles 29 plainly shows that "when the sacrifice was ended" the instruments were put away and the praise of God continued with the singing of David and Asaph's Psalms, according to God's appointment. There is no logical problem here.


----------



## dcomin

Bygracealone said:


> Well, I didn't want to get another wake up call from you tomorrow morning, so I thought I'd contribute a post long enough to keep you occupied for a while



Shall we tell the members of the PB at what time you were still in bed????


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> So you are willing to state that at no time in the OT did the people of God ever sign without instruments accompaniment? Because if instruments were an element, it is not permitted to refrain from an element of worship.



The question fails to account for the debated point of this discussion. JD wants to make the Psalms *prescriptive* for NT worship where OT commands have not been specifically abrogated. This means that the command to sing with musical instrumentation is binding on the church and such instrumentation is an *ordinary part* of worship, being prescribed and limited by God's own revealed will. This is entirely different from the 19th century Presbyterian movement which sought to make instrumental accompaniment a *circumstance* of worship to help keep the singing in tune. This allows for the use or non use of mechanical instruments; but in JD's argument the music itself is worship offered to God.

Now, to answer the query in this context -- yes, there were undoubtedly times when the people of God sang without instrumental accompaniment. Their "convocations" would have been without mechanical instruments. Traditional Presbyterians argue that the temple worship was a model of the eschatological service of Christ in the heavenly tabernacle whilst synagogue worship was the model for the earthly worship of the apostolic church. Proof for both points is found in the epistle to Hebrews, where Christ is vividly portrayed as the great High priest who fulfils the "tabernacle" service in the very presence of God whilst believers are exhorted to "synagogue" together.

Was there any time in which the people worshipped without musical accompaniment? It is granted by all that they did, but in what context? It was in the context of convocation or synagogue worship. It is also granted by all that musical accompaniment was commanded, but in what context? It was in the context of sacrificial service that musical instruments were commanded (not simply permitted) to be used in worship. The real question which needs to be answered, therefore, is this -- which context of worship is normative for the New Testament church? Once it is concluded on the basis of NT evidence that synagogue worship is normative, and that the sacrificial service of the tabernacle/temple has been fulfilled in heavenly places in Christ and abrogated so far as earthly obligation is concerned, then the question is easily answered -- the non-instrumental worship of the synagogue is the pattern for NT congregations whilst the musical accompaniment of the sacrificial service is abrogated.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Wow! Argumentum ad nausem! 



bygracealone said:


> Seems to show that one of the differences between an Orthodox synagogue and a Reformed synagogue may be it's use of instruments in the worship service...



So, I guess you concur with the point I made that rebutted your earlier assertion:



bygracealone said:


> You see, it was well understood that the musical instruments were only to be used in the temple services, by the Levites, during the sacrifice. So, it’s no surprise that they weren't used in synagogue worship since none of these things are present.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> Once it is concluded on the basis of NT evidence that synagogue worship is normative



Where is it conclusively shown that synagogue worship is normative? Christ demonstrated time and time again that Jewish practice and adherence had become corrupted.



> and that the sacrificial service of the tabernacle/temple has been fulfilled in heavenly places in Christ and abrogated so far as earthly obligation is concerned,



And it has, insofar as the sacrificial requirements associated with the Law of Moses are concerned, but it is clear that singing and making melody was not abrogated.



> then the question is easily answered -- the non-instrumental worship of the synagogue is the pattern for NT congregations whilst the musical accompaniment of the sacrificial service is abrogated.



And so 2 faulty premises lead to an incorrect conclusion.


----------



## panta dokimazete

as an aside - you'd think a fellow with both his graduate degrees focused around the human voice (Voice Performance and Vocal Pedagogy) would be *less* "vocal" about the use of instruments...


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your syllogism is missing a necessary premise in order to be valid.
> That is: Paul and Silas had musical instruments with them in prision.
> As it is your syllogism proves nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OT command isn't conditional as to whether one happens to have instrumentation on hand; therefore your "necessary premise" is redundant and the original premise stands.
Click to expand...


OK, at the risk of being a little terse: 
The only way your original syllogism, based on Paul and Silas in prison. could have proved anything is if they had had musical instruments with them in jail _and refrained from using them._

The OT clearly commands both sung praise (Ps. 149:1 may be read as unaccompanied, and there are other commads to sing praise that were pre David and thus, presumably unaccompanied) and instrumental accompanyment of sung praise (Ps. 149:3). If the circumstances of a particular incident are such that the apostles don't have musical instruments present, then citing the incident says NOTHING whatsoever about what they practiced when instruments were available to them.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> All that just goes to show a couple of things.
> 
> 1) The complete and eclectic sources that agree on this point.
> 
> 2) The overwhelming and constant voice of the Church through the ages.
> 
> 3) What else did the East and West agree on besides this? Practically nothing.
> 
> 4) How novel the position of the 21st century "RPW" is when placed against the voices of the past.



I could site just as many well-known, scholarly proponents of instruments in worship throughout the ages. The list of scholars referenced proves only your first point - and the exact same thing could be said of the pro-instrument group. The only thing that bygracealone's post proves is that a lot of people agree with you, which really adds nothing to this discussion...


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once it is concluded on the basis of NT evidence that synagogue worship is normative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it conclusively shown that synagogue worship is normative? Christ demonstrated time and time again that Jewish practice and adherence had become corrupted.
Click to expand...


The NT assemblies were synagogue-meetings, James 2:2; Heb. 10:25; likewise those who presided over such assemblies took their names from the synagogue -- presbuteroi; further, the various procedures, such as voting in office-bearers, the power of excommunication, and the congregational Amen, are from the synagogue. This evidence, taken in connection with the fact that the Christian congregation was historically annexed from the Jewish synagogue, conclusively shows that synagogue worship was normative for the apostolic church. For more evidence one may consult Litton's "Church of Christ, pp. 185-188, available here: The Church of Christ, in Its Idea ... - Google Book Search


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> OK, at the risk of being a little terse:
> The only way your original syllogism, based on Paul and Silas in prison. could have proved anything is if they had had musical instruments with them in jail _and refrained from using them._



Your objection doesn't take into account the point being controverted. If the OT command is *prescriptive* for NT worship then the OT command is obliging and non-negotiable. Other non-instrumental contexts are irrelevant.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> Your objection doesn't take into account the point being controverted. If the OT command is *prescriptive* for NT worship then the OT command is obliging and non-negotiable. Other non-instrumental contexts are irrelevant.



They are instructive, not irrelevant concerning what is commanded and what is allowable within the context of praxis. Obviously, the NT is instructive in that instruments are not *required*, but not *prohibited*, and *prescriptive* in terms of orthopraxy, in that the NT points to the Psalms as our guide to worship in spirit and truth.

Not *either/or*, but *both/and* within the liberty of conscience.


----------



## Bygracealone

dcomin said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't want to get another wake up call from you tomorrow morning, so I thought I'd contribute a post long enough to keep you occupied for a while
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we tell the members of the PB at what time you were still in bed????
Click to expand...


No shame here Doogie, it was my first night back home after a week of being in hotel rooms and guest beds and driving some 1500 miles... There truly is no place like home and your own bed. So yeah, I definitely slept in this morning


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Bygracealone said:


> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I didn't want to get another wake up call from you tomorrow morning, so I thought I'd contribute a post long enough to keep you occupied for a while
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we tell the members of the PB at what time you were still in bed????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shame here Doogie, it was my first night back home after a week of being in hotel rooms and guest beds and driving some 1500 miles... There truly is no place like home and your own bed. So yeah, I definitely slept in this morning
Click to expand...


 Inquiring minds want to know...did you get some good books in Grand Rapids??


----------



## Bygracealone

> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Argumentum ad nausem!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to show that one of the differences between an Orthodox synagogue and a Reformed synagogue may be it's use of instruments in the worship service...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I guess you concur with the point I made that rebutted your earlier assertion:
> 
> 
> 
> bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, it was well understood that the musical instruments were only to be used in the temple services, by the Levites, during the sacrifice. So, it’s no surprise that they weren't used in synagogue worship since none of these things are present.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


JD, not at all. If you go back and re-read the full post in context, you'll see that I qualified which synagogue worship I was referring to; I was referring to Orthodox synagogue worship. The Orthodox are more conservative and strive to be truer to the ancient practices. They are the ones that don't allow musical instruments.


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> Not *either/or*, but *both/and* within the liberty of conscience.



Your both/and category creates "prescribed circumstances," contrary to the regulative principle of worship. As Owen writes, any circumstance made obliging by authority is an element of worship: "such additionals, that are called circumstantial, are made parts of worship as are made necessary by virtue of command to be observed." (Works 15:36.)


----------



## Bygracealone

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we tell the members of the PB at what time you were still in bed????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shame here Doogie, it was my first night back home after a week of being in hotel rooms and guest beds and driving some 1500 miles... There truly is no place like home and your own bed. So yeah, I definitely slept in this morning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know...did you get some good books in Grand Rapids??
Click to expand...


I know it's off topic, but you have to respond to a question like this, right?

Hi Andrew, ohhhhh yeah!!! I visited Beeke's shop as well as Baker Books. I got the three volume work by John Brown on the "Sayings and Discourses of Our Lord." Also got "The Covenant of Life Opened" by Rutherford (Rev. Winzer, Casey, etc., I'm still studying the subject about Mosaic Covenant  )

Also got "Psalmody Through the Ages" by Ted Postma and "The Messiah and the Psalms" by Richard Belcher. I got a few other used books as well (some Hodge, Boettner, and Berkouwer). Overall, it was a productive book shopping trip.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once it is concluded on the basis of NT evidence that synagogue worship is normative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is it conclusively shown that synagogue worship is normative? Christ demonstrated time and time again that Jewish practice and adherence had become corrupted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NT assemblies were synagogue-meetings, James 2:2; Heb. 10:25; likewise those who presided over such assemblies took their names from the synagogue -- presbuteroi; further, the various procedures, such as voting in office-bearers, the power of excommunication, and the congregational Amen, are from the synagogue. This evidence, taken in connection with the fact that the Christian congregation was historically annexed from the Jewish synagogue, conclusively shows that synagogue worship was normative for the apostolic church. For more evidence one may consult Litton's "Church of Christ, pp. 185-188, available here: The Church of Christ, in Its Idea ... - Google Book Search
Click to expand...


That *some* synagogue practices were adopted as the NT church was "testing everything and keeping the good" is without dispute, but that synagogue worship _in toto_ was *normative and prescribed* for the NT church in terms of orthodoxy or orthopraxy is not supported by Scripture or the history of the church.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not *either/or*, but *both/and* within the liberty of conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both/and category creates "prescribed circumstances," contrary to the regulative principle of worship. As Owen writes, any circumstance made obliging by authority is an element of worship: "such additionals, that are called circumstantial, are made parts of worship as are made necessary by virtue of command to be observed." (Works 15:36.)
Click to expand...


so...you observe communion and baptism at *every* worship service?


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not *either/or*, but *both/and* within the liberty of conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your both/and category creates "prescribed circumstances," contrary to the regulative principle of worship. As Owen writes, any circumstance made obliging by authority is an element of worship: "such additionals, that are called circumstantial, are made parts of worship as are made necessary by virtue of command to be observed." (Works 15:36.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so...you observe communion and baptism at *every* worship service?
Click to expand...


I can't see the relevance of the question seeing as the circumstance is determined by prudence not by scriptural prescription; but the sacraments are administered as need requires, not every worship service.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then, since there is no passage in the NT that abrogates the command, then musical instruments are still to be used in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you purchased a harp for next Lord's day service?
Click to expand...


I would, but they're very expensive!


----------



## bookslover

dcomin said:


> *Gal. 4:9* - "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?"



And you're going to sneak musical instruments into this verse how, exactly?


----------



## bookslover

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you purchased a harp for next Lord's day service?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have a stringed instrument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Psalms nowhere command a guitar.
Click to expand...


That's because there were no guitars in Old Testament times (the lyre comes close, though). Besides, I believe musical instruments are part of the circumstances of worship rather than the specific contents covered by the RPW and, therefore, are a matter of liberty.


----------



## bookslover

dcomin said:


> I have cited Scripture after Scripture to demonstrate that the musical instruments used in OT worship were appointed by God for particular use in the temple ritual in connection with the sacrifice. Please don't say I haven't marshalled the Scriptures to support my position.



Again, yes, you have successfully demonstrated your position. But you have not demonstrated that musical instruments are banned in New Testament worship.


----------



## bookslover

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The overwhelming and constant voice of the Church through the ages.



To which I would say that the Church, in this instance, was wrong for 1200 years. Besides, we are to build our arguments on Scripture, not church history.


----------



## dcomin

bookslover said:


> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gal. 4:9* - "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're going to sneak musical instruments into this verse how, exactly?
Click to expand...


Sir, I am not trying to "sneak" anything anywhere, for such an action would be underhanded, dishonest, and disrespectful of the Holy Scriptures. Did you intend to accuse me of such motives?


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your both/and category creates "prescribed circumstances," contrary to the regulative principle of worship. As Owen writes, any circumstance made obliging by authority is an element of worship: "such additionals, that are called circumstantial, are made parts of worship as are made necessary by virtue of command to be observed." (Works 15:36.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so...you observe communion and baptism at *every* worship service?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't see the relevance of the question seeing as the circumstance is determined by prudence not by scriptural prescription; but the sacraments are administered as need requires, not every worship service.
Click to expand...


To illustrate the larger point: Instruments are a prescribed part of worship, per the Psalms, but not necessitated by prescription in *every* instance, as clearly demonstrated by the examples of worship _sans_ instruments in the NT.


----------



## bookslover

dcomin said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gal. 4:9* - "But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're going to sneak musical instruments into this verse how, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, I am not trying to "sneak" anything anywhere, for such an action would be underhanded, dishonest, and disrespectful of the Holy Scriptures. Did you intend to accuse me of such motives?
Click to expand...


No, I just want to know how you see that musical instruments are included in what Paul is talking about here. I probably should have used some kind of smiley after "sneak" to indicate that I was being colloquial, not snide, in my usage of same.


----------



## dcomin

bookslover said:


> dcomin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're going to sneak musical instruments into this verse how, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, I am not trying to "sneak" anything anywhere, for such an action would be underhanded, dishonest, and disrespectful of the Holy Scriptures. Did you intend to accuse me of such motives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I just want to know how you see that musical instruments are included in what Paul is talking about here. I probably should have used some kind of smiley after "sneak" to indicate that I was being colloquial, not snide, in my usage of same.
Click to expand...


The point that I have been trying to demonstrate (obviously, not very persuasively) is that musical instruments were an integral part of the ceremonial worship of the OT - and thus have been abrogated along with all of the other external ceremonial rites of that dispensation. 

Matthew Henry comments on Gal 4:9 


> ...what they suffered themselves to be brought into bondage to were but _weak and beggarly elements_, such things as had no power in them to cleanse the soul, nor to afford any solid satisfaction to the mind, and which were only designed for that state of pupillage under which the church had been, but which had now come to a period."



John Calvin would certainly have categorized the use of musical instruments among the "weak and beggarly elements" - that little Genevan sneak!


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> To illustrate the larger point: Instruments are a prescribed part of worship, per the Psalms, but not necessitated by prescription in *every* instance, as clearly demonstrated by the examples of worship _sans_ instruments in the NT.



Again, this is nothing more than a "prescribed circumstance," which is a sui generis, and outside the boundaries of the regulative principle; for which see Owen's statement above. The sacraments are by definition prescribed parts of worship, but such parts as are added as signs to the Word; their nature requires certain qualifications to be met before administration. Your "prescribed circumstance" of musical instruments, however, is nothing more than a human addition to be used or not used as you deem fit. It is this human arbitrariness which is guarded against by the regulative principle.


----------



## panta dokimazete

It should be no more arbitrary than choosing the particular Scripture for worship or words for the prayers.

I reject your usage of arbitrary as it regards the Lord's worship. Each element should be dutifully considered and accomplished with all gravity and purpose.


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> It should be no more arbitrary than choosing the particular Scripture for worship or words for the prayers.
> 
> I reject your usage of arbitrary as it regards the Lord's worship. Each element should be dutifully considered and accomplished with all gravity and purpose.



Here you revert back to calling it an "element." Elements are such as God has commanded and man is obliged to offer at His will. They are not left to man's discretion. Only the ordering of circumstances is left to human prudence.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Music *is* an element. Singing is required, utilizing instruments as appropriate.

Just as preaching is an element. Proclamation is required, having the Scriptures to hand as appropriate.

Psalm 96:2
Sing to the LORD, bless His name; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Music *is* an element. Singing is required, utilizing instruments as appropriate.
> 
> Just as preaching is an element. Proclamation is required, having the Scriptures to hand as appropriate.
> 
> Psalm 96:2
> Sing to the LORD, bless His name; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day.




Scriptures are not just "appropriate" what else should a preacher preach from?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Must one have the Scriptures on-hand _every time_ one preaches? Is it *required*?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Must one have the Scriptures on-hand _every time_ one preaches? Is it *required*?



Yes it is. What else can one preach on?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Do you have to have a set of Scriptures to hand in order to preach?

I certainly believe it is a matter of appropriateness - if you *can* have them there, you probably *ought*. But I don't think Christ or the Apostles modeled that as a *requirement*.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

2 Tim 3:16-17 requires that you use the Scriptures for teaching and training.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Ok, I am not going to get into infinite regression on this point, my brother. 

I have laid out the rationale and am convinced that Prescriptive Psalmody is defendable within the RPW. I am sure we'll have another go at some point, but I think this thread is about done, from my perspective, anyway.

On a side note: I don't know if ya'll knew that I have had the opportunity to spend a good bit more time on the PB than I normally do. I have been recuperating from MRSA staff on my neck. This discussion has been a welcome distraction, but I am back into the grind again, starting today, so I won't be able to follow the discussion as closely as I have been.

Thanks to Backwoods for offering a platform to discuss the matter and thanks to all the learned brethren that so passionately, yet graciously, defend their well-grounded positions. I have learned a lot. 

Expect another thread on Prescriptive Psalmody.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Thank you as well Panta and  for your recovery.


----------



## dcomin

panta dokimazete said:


> On a side note: I don't know if ya'll knew that I have had the opportunity to spend a good bit more time on the PB than I normally do. I have been recuperating from MRSA staff on my neck. This discussion has been a welcome distraction, but I am back into the grind again, starting today, so I won't be able to follow the discussion as closely as I have been.
> 
> Thanks to Backwoods for offering a platform to discuss the matter and thanks to all the learned brethren that so passionately, yet graciously, defend their well-grounded positions. I have learned a lot.
> 
> Expect another thread on Prescriptive Psalmody.



Had no idea, but praise God for His healing grace! Always appreciate the "iron-sharpening" sparring with you, JD. Thanks for your graciousness as well. Grace and peace!


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, at the risk of being a little terse:
> The only way your original syllogism, based on Paul and Silas in prison. could have proved anything is if they had had musical instruments with them in jail _and refrained from using them._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your objection doesn't take into account the point being controverted. If the OT command is *prescriptive* for NT worship then the OT command is obliging and non-negotiable. Other non-instrumental contexts are irrelevant.
Click to expand...


As the post to which you are replying had noted: the OT contains prescriptive commands for *BOTH* unaccompanied sung praise and accompanied sung praise. It is not one command or the other that is normative but rather both are. The OT is explicit. Although there are a number of places where we cannot determine whether praise is accompaied or not, God clearly commands and commends His praises being sung both ways: unaccompanied (Ps. 57:9 appears to be set outside the sanctuary and may have been unacompanied as does 42:8, 77:6) and with instrumental accompaniment (Ps. 33:2, 71:22, 98:5). Outside the sanctuary, (unless you want to advocate that the Jews ONLY sang the psalms in the sanctuary), it is GNC reasoning from the data to conclude that the choice of unaccompanied worship or accompanied worship was left to the worshipper in the OT and remains left to the worshipper in the NT. 

Given that reality, Paul and Silas exercised what was likely the only option available to them under the circumstances. I don't see a competent jailor letting people keep musical instruments in prison, even if either was a musician, not if he expected to sleep.


----------



## dcomin

timmopussycat said:


> As the post to which you are replying had noted: the OT contains prescriptive commands for *BOTH* unaccompanied sung praise and accompanied sung praise. It is not one command or the other that is normative but rather both are. The OT is explicit. Although there are a number of places where we cannot determine whether praise is accompaied or not, God clearly commands and commends His praises being sung both ways: unaccompanied (Ps. 57:9 appears to be set outside the sanctuary and may have been unacompanied as does 42:8, 77:6) and with instrumental accompaniment (Ps. 33:2, 71:22, 98:5). Outside the sanctuary, (unless you want to advocate that the Jews ONLY sang the psalms in the sanctuary), it is GNC reasoning from the data to conclude that the choice of unaccompanied worship or accompanied worship was left to the worshipper in the OT and remains left to the worshipper in the NT.



Can someone cite a Scriptural example of musical instruments being used in the OT *un-connected *with the sacrificial offering and *clearly* in the context of a corporate worship gathering?


----------



## Roldan

panta dokimazete said:


> The facts remain:
> 
> 1. We are commanded to use the Psalms as a guide to proper worship.
> 2. The Psalms command the use of instruments.
> 3. Instruments were a circumstantial part of worship pre-Temple.
> 4. Instruments are nowhere abrogated by the NT.




Excellent


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> As the post to which you are replying had noted: the OT contains prescriptive commands for *BOTH* unaccompanied sung praise and accompanied sung praise. It is not one command or the other that is normative but rather both are.



This leaves us with two commands unable to be observed in relation to the same element of worship, which would mean that God gave a command relative to His worship and left it willy nilly to be observed as the worshipper saw fit. This is not stretching the regulative principle but snapping it in two.


----------



## Roldan

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well certainly if you do not buy the premise that all elements of the Temple Worship ceased with Christ's atoning Death and Resurrection and Ascension (and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 do not forget) and instruments were an "element" then the discussion is moot.



But it Doesn't matter anyways if the Temple worship instruments have been abrogated cause they were not used for SINGING and PRAISE!!!!! Hello 

I am pursuaded by reading all the arguments against instruments in worship that they are arguing against something totally different. Should we blow a rams horn during worship? of course not. But what does that have to do with SINGING?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the post to which you are replying had noted: the OT contains prescriptive commands for *BOTH* unaccompanied sung praise and accompanied sung praise. It is not one command or the other that is normative but rather both are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves us with two commands unable to be observed in relation to the same element of worship, which would mean that God gave a command relative to His worship and left it willy nilly to be observed as the worshipper saw fit. This is not stretching the regulative principle but snapping it in two.
Click to expand...


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> As the post to which you are replying had noted: the OT contains prescriptive commands for *BOTH* unaccompanied sung praise and accompanied sung praise. It is not one command or the other that is normative but rather both are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This leaves us with two commands unable to be observed in relation to the same element of worship, which would mean that God gave a command relative to His worship and left it willy nilly to be observed as the worshipper saw fit.
Click to expand...


Wrong. It leaves the OT saints the ability to sing to God if instruments were not present and the ability to sing to God if instruments were present. Praising God is the element; the presence or absence of instruments is a circumstance. Ps. 150 proves the point. First is the command Praise the Lord: then the rest of the psalm breaks down how to do it. We are told where to praise: both inside the sanctuary and everywhere outside it. Then we are told why: his mighty acts and excellent greatness. Then we are given the accompanying instruments and finally the human voice in v. 6a. Vs. 1, 2 and 6b (repeating the original command) are the elements established here. vv. 3-5 are circumstances: (That vocal praise is an element whether or not instruments are present is established by other texts). 

These instruments mentioned in Ps. 150 were not present everywhere in Israel. David could have a top flight musical establishement in Jerusalem, but the smallest village in the backwoods Zebulun couldn't do so. Even in present day Canada I can think of some places where unaccompanied praise might be necessary in churches let alone outside them.



> This is not stretching the regulative principle but snapping it in two.



You are making the logical error of concluding that when God gives options in one thing, what that must necessarily imply is that he is thereby granting license in all things. That conclusion does not follow. That God allows for options in one thing does not mean he is _ipso facto_ granting license to apply options in all other things.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> vv. 3-5 are circumstances: (That vocal praise is an element whether or not instruments are present is established by other texts).



Verses 3-5 command certain actions to be done; they do not in the slightest hint that these actions are optional.

Like JD, you are creating a sui generis by allowing for "prescribed circumstances." See the John Owen statement referenced earlier. That which is prescribed by God is ipso fact an element of worship. The regulative principle allows for prescribed elements; it also allows for circumstances concerning worship actions to be ordered prudentially; but it knows no such thing as a circumstance prescribed by God Himself. When God prescribed the circumstance of offering sacrifices at the temple at Jerusalem that circumstance became a part of the element of sacrifice and therefore binding. Likewise, if God commands the use of instruments then the instruments are an element of worship and binding on the worshipper.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> vv. 3-5 are circumstances: (That vocal praise is an element whether or not instruments are present is established by other texts).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verses 3-5 command certain actions to be done; they do not in the slightest hint that these actions are optional.
Click to expand...


So you believe that every synogogue in Israel that used the pslams must have had all the instruments mandated by Ps. 150?



armourbearer said:


> Like JD, you are creating a sui generis by allowing for "prescribed circumstances."



I have good reason to do so. You are ignoring Scriptural testimony that instruments accompanied sung praise and that Scripture also gives us commands to engage in sung praise in contexts in which instruments were unlikely to be present. Your arguement is with Scripture not me. 



armourbearer said:


> [See the John Owen statement referenced earlier. That which is prescribed by God is ipso fact an element of worship.
> The regulative principle allows for prescribed elements; it also allows for circumstances concerning worship actions to be ordered prudentially; but it knows no such thing as a circumstance prescribed by God Himself. When God prescribed the circumstance of offering sacrifices at the temple at Jerusalem that circumstance became a part of the element of sacrifice and therefore binding. Likewise, if God commands the use of instruments then the instruments are an element of worship and binding on the worshipper.



When God himself commends singing with instruments and singing without instruments both became possible. Please note that God did not make the accompanyment or lack thereof of sung praise a matter of covenant but a matter of subsequent command.

Many psalms are cast in a personal context (e.g., Ps. 89:1): the man who wrote this was making a personal promise to God of what he would do. He would teach all generations with his mouth forever. Would he do so in each instance accompanied by the full gamut of Ps. 150? Or would Ps. 92:4 only be sung in the temple with instrumental accompanyment and not in the synogogue since such accompanyment was (allegedly) lacking there? Or could it be sung by a shepherd on a hillside overlooking lake Tiberias contemplating a Galilean sunset?


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> And you are ignoring Scriptural testimony that instruments accompanied sung praise and that it also gives us commands to engage in sung praise in contexts in which instruments were unlikely to be present. Your arguement is with Scripture not me.



If my argument were with Scripture I would yield. My argument is with your misinterpretation of Scripture. You have asserted that there are commands to sing unaccompanied. All you have put forth for evidence of this assertion is that there are commands to sing without any mention of instruments. The evidence does not support the assertion.

As noted previously, a circumstantial command ties the worship to that circumstance so that it become non-negotiable. I allow that there are contexts in which there was unaccompanied singing, e.g., convocations; but I also note that the temple worship required the use of mechanical instrumentation to orchestrate the sacrificial service. In the former context, there is no warrant for the use of instrumental accompaniment; in the latter, instrumental accompaniment was jure divino and binding. The convocations continue in NT congregational worship; the temple worship is accomplished by Jesus Christ in the heavenly tabernacle made without hands.

One thing is certain, your idea of willy-nilly prescriptions creates confusion, of which God certainly is not the author.


----------



## panta dokimazete

To reiterate: it is not unique unto itself:

*Music* is an element. Singing is required, utilizing instruments as appropriate.

Just as preaching is an element. Proclamation is required, having the Scriptures to hand as appropriate.

Psalm 96:2
Sing to the LORD, bless His name; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Again why would the Scriptures be as "appropriate"? What else could/would you preach from?


----------



## Casey

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Again why would the Scriptures be as "appropriate"? What else could/would you preach from?


He can speak for himself, but I think what he meant was that if you suddenly found yourself before a crowd willing to hear the gospel, you could still preach the gospel even if you don't have a Bible physically in your hand.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Or, if you were in a worship service and did not have the Scriptures immediately to hand - it is normative to have them, but not *required* for every instance of praxis.

That is, you would not be in sin if you preached without the Scriptures immediately to hand.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

How does that have anything to do with use/non-use of Instrumental music? One can memorize the Scriptures and not need _per se_ to have the Scriptures on their person. The Scrolls and the instruments are not interrelated in Old Testament Temple Worship. But that has nothing to do with an exegetical argument as the requirement/abrogation of musical instruments in Corporate worship.


----------



## panta dokimazete

We are correlating element praxis, not interrelating them. The exegetical argument stands:

We are commanded to use the Psalms as our guide in worship.

We are commanded to sing *and* make melody, that is, practice music as a worship element.

There is, therefore, no abrogation of the element of music in the NT or the circumstance of praxis of the Psalms in worship.

The basis of the sui generis argument seems to be that it causes confusion - I contend that it causes no more confusion than the the due diligence required for the practice of *any* worship element, so this is an invalid argument.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Do you necessarily need instruments to make melody?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Not to answer a question with a question, but:

Do you necessarily need the Scriptures on hand to preach? 

The answer in both instances is *no*, but do those "instruments" facilitate orthopraxy? Yes.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

How do the instruments necessarily "facilitate orthopraxy"?


----------



## DeoOpt

So you bring in the instraments, ie bass, guitar, drums. Then you start dancing, clapping, raiseing your hands. Yes its all about entertainment rather than worship. Ohh dont stop ther next you will want a coffee and book shope so it will be convenient on the Lords day to do so. Dont think it wont happen? Well my friends it happend to me when I attended a particular reformed church for 2 years, slowley thay incorperated these things into there worship. I left that church. But remember "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"


----------



## RTaron

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Do you necessarily need instruments to make melody?



Yes, your voice box can be considered an instrument of music. I dare say that man can not equal by invention its beauty and versatility.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> How do the instruments necessarily "facilitate orthopraxy"?



Well, for one, if skillfully practiced, they keep the singing decent and in order, just as the Scriptures do for preaching.


----------



## RTaron

panta dokimazete said:


> [Well, for one, if skillfully practiced, they keep the singing decent and in order, just as the Scriptures do for preaching.



Panta, since you are getting all pragmatic about this, you can just as easily practice with your voice and lead the congregation in A Capella singing.



check this out, that is me doing all four parts.

Get your gitarish inventions out of here!


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are ignoring Scriptural testimony that instruments accompanied sung praise and that it also gives us commands to engage in sung praise in contexts in which instruments were unlikely to be present. Your arguement is with Scripture not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If my argument were with Scripture I would yield. My argument is with your misinterpretation of Scripture. You have asserted that there are commands to sing unaccompanied. All you have put forth for evidence of this assertion is that there are commands to sing without any mention of instruments. The evidence does not support the assertion.
> 
> As noted previously, a circumstantial command ties the worship to that circumstance so that it become non-negotiable. I allow that there are contexts in which there was unaccompanied singing, e.g., convocations; but I also note that the temple worship required the use of mechanical instrumentation to orchestrate the sacrificial service. In the former context, there is no warrant for the use of instrumental accompaniment; in the latter, instrumental accompaniment was jure divino and binding. The convocations continue in NT congregational worship; the temple worship is accomplished by Jesus Christ in the heavenly tabernacle made without hands.
> 
> One thing is certain, your idea of willy-nilly prescriptions creates confusion, of which God certainly is not the author.
Click to expand...


So you allow that there were worship contexts in which there was unaccompanied singing - but you claim that temple worship required the use of instruments for sacrifices only? Please explain why Ps. 61 (which is set to stringed instruments) does not mention sacrifice or Ps 66 is silent likewise? 

The hidden premise under your argument is that we are not allowed to do what God has not commanded. The fact is, before David, God never commanded that he be worshipped by sung praise: although songs were used as a teaching device in some places e.g., Deut. 32. So if we were never allowed to do what God has not commanded, one would expect no singing of praise to God before the command came in David's day to do so. Or if people did engage in sung praise uncommanded we might expect an immediate judgment. But this is not what we find. 

Now it is certain that people sang praise to God even when not commanded to do so (e.g., Ex. 15. 1-16, Judges 5) and He did not object. Second, in at least one case, these songs involved instruments (Ex. 15:20,21) and again God did not object. If we can trust the psalm headings, then it appears that Ps. 34, 52, 54, 56, and 90 were written before sung praise was commanded, and some of the other psalms (Ps. 7, 18, 63) may also have been written before the Levites took on singing and instrumental duties. So your premises that unacompanied songs were limited in the old covenant to convocations and that instruments were never used outside sacrifices are both demonstrably incorrect. As I said before, your quarrel is with Scripture and not me.


----------



## timmopussycat

DeoOpt said:


> So you bring in the instraments, ie bass, guitar, drums. Then you start dancing, clapping, raiseing your hands. Yes its all about entertainment rather than worship. Ohh dont stop ther next you will want a coffee and book shope so it will be convenient on the Lords day to do so. Dont think it wont happen? Well my friends it happend to me when I attended a particular reformed church for 2 years, slowley thay incorperated these things into there worship. I left that church. But remember "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"



You are jumping to a conclusion that does not necessarily follow. The correct use of instruments to accompany worship does not necessarily lead to the conclusions you draw. I can't dispute what happenened in your case, but you can't dispute that I have been 18 years in a church that uses instruments and occasional dance (which by the way is the biblical use of dance, since dance was never commanded as a regular part of the OT worship but only occurred on very special occasions) and we certainly don't entertain.


----------



## timmopussycat

RTaron said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you necessarily need instruments to make melody?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your voice box can be considered an instrument of music. I dare say that man can not equal by invention its beauty and versatility.
Click to expand...


The full orchestra matches the beauty of the human voice and its versatility considerably exceeds that of the voice by any measure. Remember too that all human inventions have their ultimate source in God who gave the capacity for the invention when he created the world and gave man the brain to discover and perfect the invention.


----------



## panta dokimazete

RTaron said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Well, for one, if skillfully practiced, they keep the singing decent and in order, just as the Scriptures do for preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Panta, since you are getting all pragmatic about this, you can just as easily practice with your voice and lead the congregation in A Capella singing.
Click to expand...


Just as you can practice the Scriptures by heart and preach without them to hand. 



> check this out, that is me doing all four parts.
> 
> Get your gitarish inventions out of here!



Prudence advises that I not split hairs on this 

But for fun, here is a new song with stringed instruments


----------



## RTaron

timmopussycat said:


> [The full orchestra matches the beauty of the human voice and its versatility considerably exceeds that of the voice by any measure. Remember too that all human inventions have their ultimate source in God who gave the capacity for the invention when he created the world and gave man the brain to discover and perfect the invention.



Okay, you win. A full orchestra is more versatile than one human voice. Next will you be arguing that any one or all of these instruments are praising God from the heart with the distinct sound of praise? As in declaring God's mighty acts. *No, I think not.* They can only make uncertain sounds like the babbling of one speaking in tongues.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

RTaron said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The full orchestra matches the beauty of the human voice and its versatility considerably exceeds that of the voice by any measure. Remember too that all human inventions have their ultimate source in God who gave the capacity for the invention when he created the world and gave man the brain to discover and perfect the invention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you win. A full orchestra is more versatile than one human voice. Next will you be arguing that any one or all of these instruments are praising God from the heart with the distinct sound of praise? As in declaring God's mighty acts. *No, I think not.* They can only make uncertain sounds like the babbling of one speaking in tongues.
Click to expand...


No, that's not the point. Instruments are just that - tools used for worshipping God, but unable to worship God by themselves. Tim's point is that God gave man the ability to worship Him through inventions such as instruments.


----------



## dcomin

ColdSilverMoon said:


> No, that's not the point. Instruments are just that - *tools *used for worshipping God, but unable to worship God by themselves. Tim's point is that God gave man the ability to worship Him through inventions such as instruments.



*Exodus 20:25* 'And if you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone; for if you use your tool on it, you have profaned it.

Before you dismiss this as patently unrelated to the issue under discussion, think about the reason for this command and the purpose of worship...


----------



## Davidius

ColdSilverMoon said:


> RTaron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> [The full orchestra matches the beauty of the human voice and its versatility considerably exceeds that of the voice by any measure. Remember too that all human inventions have their ultimate source in God who gave the capacity for the invention when he created the world and gave man the brain to discover and perfect the invention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you win. A full orchestra is more versatile than one human voice. Next will you be arguing that any one or all of these instruments are praising God from the heart with the distinct sound of praise? As in declaring God's mighty acts. *No, I think not.* They can only make uncertain sounds like the babbling of one speaking in tongues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not the point. Instruments are just that - tools used for worshipping God, but unable to worship God by themselves. Tim's point is that God gave man the ability to worship Him through inventions such as instruments.
Click to expand...




I think that the argument should remain on exegetical grounds. Incense was used in the temple as a part of worship. What is a wave offering? David danced as an expression of his love to God. None of these acts are comprised primarily of speech, so to say that instruments cannot be used in worship _merely_ because they "make a noise" instead of _________ is unfounded, in my opinion.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

dcomin said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not the point. Instruments are just that - *tools *used for worshipping God, but unable to worship God by themselves. Tim's point is that God gave man the ability to worship Him through inventions such as instruments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Exodus 20:25* 'And if you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone; for if you use your tool on it, you have profaned it.
> 
> Before you dismiss this as patently unrelated to the issue under discussion, think about the reason for this command and the purpose of worship...
Click to expand...


Well, this discussion isn't about the sacrificial system, which is what your Scripture reference concerns. Sacrifices were necessarily 100% pure (or at least symbolically so), otherwise they could not atone for sin. Worship does not require perfection. If only perfect people could worship, churches would be quite empty on Sunday morning...


----------



## RTaron

ColdSilverMoon said:


> [No, that's not the point. Instruments are just that - tools used for worshipping God, but unable to worship God by themselves. Tim's point is that God gave man the ability to worship Him through inventions such as instruments.



I thought our presupposition for this thread was the RPW. 
The point is to worship God with reverence and godly fear. That means coming to him and asking, Lord what will you have me to do? 

You just put your foot in your mouth while speaking about your liberty in making inventions for worship. 

Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them.
Psalms 106:29
Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.
Psalms 106:39
Ecclesiastes 7:29 *Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.


----------



## DeoOpt

timmopussycat said:


> DeoOpt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you bring in the instraments, ie bass, guitar, drums. Then you start dancing, clapping, raiseing your hands. Yes its all about entertainment rather than worship. Ohh dont stop ther next you will want a coffee and book shope so it will be convenient on the Lords day to do so. Dont think it wont happen? Well my friends it happend to me when I attended a particular reformed church for 2 years, slowley thay incorperated these things into there worship. I left that church. But remember "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are jumping to a conclusion that does not necessarily follow. The correct use of instruments to accompany worship does not necessarily lead to the conclusions you draw. I can't dispute what happenened in your case, but you can't dispute that I have been 18 years in a church that uses instruments and occasional dance (which by the way is the biblical use of dance, since dance was never commanded as a regular part of the OT worship but only occurred on very special occasions) and we certainly don't entertain.
Click to expand...

My dear Mr Bunyan. After being in a traditional seculer church for a good portion of my life, (and thanks be to God Im in a reformed church now) I guess my "jumping to conclusions' was out of disdane for that easy believeism churches out there with wich I do not want to go back to, nore be reminded of that "slough of despond" in wich I was once shamfully aquainted with. And I am glad that I escaped that "city of distruction". And am now on my pilgramige to that "celestial city" Perhapes you have been talking to "worldly wise man" to much our perhapes "the man in the Iron cage." But I remember my visit at "the Interpriters house" and have lerned much. Pehapes you want go skipping down "bypass medow " and straight to the castle dispier." but I will have no part of that type of worship.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

RTaron said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> [No, that's not the point. Instruments are just that - tools used for worshipping God, but unable to worship God by themselves. Tim's point is that God gave man the ability to worship Him through inventions such as instruments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought our presupposition for this thread was the RPW.
> The point is to worship God with reverence and godly fear. That means coming to him and asking, Lord what will you have me to do?
> 
> You just put your foot in your mouth while speaking about your liberty in making inventions for worship.
> 
> Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them.
> Psalms 106:29
> Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.
> Psalms 106:39
> Ecclesiastes 7:29 *Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying at all. Would you mind elaborating a bit?


----------



## Bygracealone

SPURGEON 

"We should like to see all the pipes of the organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly fill with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior to all that wind or strings can accomplish that it is a shame to degrade its harmonies by association with blowing and scraping…That the great Lord cares to be praised by bellows we very gravely question; we cannot see any connection between the glory of God and sounds produced by machinery. One broken note from a grateful heart must have more real acceptable praise in it than all the wind which sweeps through whistling pipes. Instrumental music…was no doubt well-suited to…the infant state of the Church under the law, but in the Gospel’s spiritual domain these may well be let go with all the other beggarly elements." 

"Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." (Commentary on Psalms 42:4) 

"David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)

WESLEY 

"I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685)

CALVIN 

"Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)

CHRYSOSTOM 

"David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

C'mon Steve none of those guys have any idea about which they speak...


----------



## Bygracealone

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> C'mon Steve none of those guys have any idea about which they speak...


----------



## RTaron

Bygracealone said:


> CHRYSOSTOM
> 
> "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)



WoW! that is a cool quote from Chrysostom.  thanks.


----------



## panta dokimazete

And so the exegetical discussion is diluted...


----------



## timmopussycat

Bygracealone said:


> SPURGEON
> 
> "We should like to see all the pipes of the organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly fill with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior to all that wind or strings can accomplish that it is a shame to degrade its harmonies by association with blowing and scraping…That the great Lord cares to be praised by bellows we very gravely question; we cannot see any connection between the glory of God and sounds produced by machinery. One broken note from a grateful heart must have more real acceptable praise in it than all the wind which sweeps through whistling pipes. Instrumental music…was no doubt well-suited to…the infant state of the Church under the law, but in the Gospel’s spiritual domain these may well be let go with all the other beggarly elements."
> 
> "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." (Commentary on Psalms 42:4)
> 
> "David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)
> 
> WESLEY
> 
> "I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685)
> 
> CALVIN
> 
> "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)
> 
> CHRYSOSTOM
> 
> "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)



The above is pure opinions of men; not exegesis of Scripture, hence irrelevant.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

timmopussycat said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> SPURGEON
> 
> "We should like to see all the pipes of the organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly fill with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior to all that wind or strings can accomplish that it is a shame to degrade its harmonies by association with blowing and scraping…That the great Lord cares to be praised by bellows we very gravely question; we cannot see any connection between the glory of God and sounds produced by machinery. One broken note from a grateful heart must have more real acceptable praise in it than all the wind which sweeps through whistling pipes. Instrumental music…was no doubt well-suited to…the infant state of the Church under the law, but in the Gospel’s spiritual domain these may well be let go with all the other beggarly elements."
> 
> "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." (Commentary on Psalms 42:4)
> 
> "David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)
> 
> WESLEY
> 
> "I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685)
> 
> CALVIN
> 
> "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)
> 
> CHRYSOSTOM
> 
> "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is pure opinions of men; not exegesis of Scripture, hence irrelevant.
Click to expand...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

timmopussycat said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> SPURGEON
> 
> "We should like to see all the pipes of the organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly fill with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior to all that wind or strings can accomplish that it is a shame to degrade its harmonies by association with blowing and scraping…That the great Lord cares to be praised by bellows we very gravely question; we cannot see any connection between the glory of God and sounds produced by machinery. One broken note from a grateful heart must have more real acceptable praise in it than all the wind which sweeps through whistling pipes. Instrumental music…was no doubt well-suited to…the infant state of the Church under the law, but in the Gospel’s spiritual domain these may well be let go with all the other beggarly elements."
> 
> "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." (Commentary on Psalms 42:4)
> 
> "David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)
> 
> WESLEY
> 
> "I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685)
> 
> CALVIN
> 
> "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)
> 
> CHRYSOSTOM
> 
> "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is pure opinions of men; not exegesis of Scripture, hence irrelevant.
Click to expand...


In other words

"Even those these men are respected by everyone and have written boatloads they disagree with me on this issue, ergo they are irrelevant".


----------



## timmopussycat

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> SPURGEON
> 
> "We should like to see all the pipes of the organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly fill with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior to all that wind or strings can accomplish that it is a shame to degrade its harmonies by association with blowing and scraping…That the great Lord cares to be praised by bellows we very gravely question; we cannot see any connection between the glory of God and sounds produced by machinery. One broken note from a grateful heart must have more real acceptable praise in it than all the wind which sweeps through whistling pipes. Instrumental music…was no doubt well-suited to…the infant state of the Church under the law, but in the Gospel’s spiritual domain these may well be let go with all the other beggarly elements."
> 
> "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." (Commentary on Psalms 42:4)
> 
> "David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)
> 
> WESLEY
> 
> "I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685)
> 
> CALVIN
> 
> "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)
> 
> CHRYSOSTOM
> 
> "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is pure opinions of men; not exegesis of Scripture, hence irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words
> 
> "Even those these men are respected by everyone and have written boatloads they disagree with me on this issue, ergo they are irrelevant".
Click to expand...


Since when do any "Reformed" accept the opinions of men as authoritative when they are not buttressed by Scripture? And if you do accept such opinions, why aren't you a Lutheran? After all Luther is respected by everyone worth mentioning within Protestant Christianity, has written boatloads of stuff with a very high theological batting average for being right, has he not? 

Let me answer my question for you. You are not a Lutheran because you think you can show from Scripture that Luther got some important things wrong, am I right? Well, I think I can show from Scripture that the opinion the men you cite are pushing is as incorrect as Luther is on the points where you differ from him (except on hymns in church perhaps!). 

Sorry if this seems snide, but I have said "Ad fontes!" already. How many more times do I have to say it?


----------



## ChristianTrader

timmopussycat said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> SPURGEON
> 
> "We should like to see all the pipes of the organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly fill with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior to all that wind or strings can accomplish that it is a shame to degrade its harmonies by association with blowing and scraping…That the great Lord cares to be praised by bellows we very gravely question; we cannot see any connection between the glory of God and sounds produced by machinery. One broken note from a grateful heart must have more real acceptable praise in it than all the wind which sweeps through whistling pipes. Instrumental music…was no doubt well-suited to…the infant state of the Church under the law, but in the Gospel’s spiritual domain these may well be let go with all the other beggarly elements."
> 
> "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." (Commentary on Psalms 42:4)
> 
> "David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)
> 
> WESLEY
> 
> "I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685)
> 
> CALVIN
> 
> "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)
> 
> CHRYSOSTOM
> 
> "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is pure opinions of men; not exegesis of Scripture, hence irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant is way too strong a term. There exists a view between, quoting some respected church fathers, then saying, "Let the discussion cease". and "I have my Bible and the Holy Spirit, and I need to hear nothing else from anybody."

There is also the problem that exegesis does not exist in a vacuum. It is always colored by various views that you bring to the text. Some are correct but some can also be false.

CT


----------



## RTaron

ChristianTrader;445904 Irrelevant is way too strong a term. There exists a view between said:


> CT




Good point CT. you are always a moderating influence. 

I don't know about you all, but I am tired of seeing those quotes quoted. 

Let's move on to this question, if i may be so bold as to propose one.

What is praise? We want a good scriptural definition. 

Then, ..Can mechanical instruments give praise?

Is this off topic?


----------



## Roldan

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Do you necessarily need instruments to make melody?



I can beatbox really good, would that be coo in worship? I'm using my voicebox


----------



## timmopussycat

RTaron said:


> ChristianTrader;445904 Irrelevant is way too strong a term. There exists a view between said:
> 
> 
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point CT. you are always a moderating influence.
> 
> I don't know about you all, but I am tired of seeing those quotes quoted.
> 
> Let's move on to this question, if i may be so bold as to propose one.
> 
> What is praise? We want a good scriptural definition.
> 
> Then, ..Can mechanical instruments give praise?
> 
> Is this off topic?
Click to expand...


Yes because the question obscures what is at issue. The problem is not whether or not mechanical instruments give praise (they can't), but whether or not the use of non-vocal instruments to accompany sung praise originally instituted by God midway through the Mosaic covenanant may be a legitimate use of such instruments now.
And I am not saying that the opinions of Christian worthies are irrelevant, I just ask that they be supported by Scripture.


----------



## RTaron

timmopussycat said:


> RTaron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader;445904 Irrelevant is way too strong a term. There exists a view between said:
> 
> 
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point CT. you are always a moderating influence.
> 
> I don't know about you all, but I am tired of seeing those quotes quoted.
> 
> Let's move on to this question, if i may be so bold as to propose one.
> 
> What is praise? We want a good scriptural definition.
> 
> Then, ..Can mechanical instruments give praise?
> 
> Is this off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes because the question obscures what is at issue. The problem is not whether or not mechanical instruments give praise (they can't), but whether or not the use of non-vocal instruments to accompany sung praise originally instituted by God midway through the Mosaic covenanant may be a legitimate use of such instruments now.
> And I am not saying that the opinions of Christian worthies are irrelevant, I just ask that they be supported by Scripture.
Click to expand...




So, you aren't promoting the use of mechanical instruments in public worship apart from singing Praise?


----------



## timmopussycat

RTaron said:


> So, you aren't promoting the use of mechanical instruments in public worship apart from singing Praise?



As I understood the discussion, it was whether or not musical instruments other than voices were permitted in church worship. Using musical instruments other than voices to do anything else in church is a separate question I am not here addressing at all.


----------



## timmopussycat

Davidius said:


> If Peter preached unamplified to 3000+ people outdoors, surely anyone indoors can handle your average Reformed church. Lift up that voice!



Depends on the acoustics of the church. If it has a flat ceiling in the meeting room and is square in shape no problem. But if it has a raised ceiling or oblong shape the acoustics may make it impossible for even a roaring sargent major to be heard.
Martyn Lloyd Jones says somewhere that Westminster chapel "has killed men" who ministered there in the days before amplification.


----------



## RTaron

timmopussycat said:


> As I understood the discussion, it was whether or not musical instruments other than voices were permitted in church worship. Using musical instruments other than voices to do anything else in church is a separate question I am not here addressing at all.



Okay fair enough we should only talk about instruments accompanying the singing. Frankly, it was hard trying to follow JD's ideas of what was prescriptive in the psalms for worship. 

I follow the argument that the instruments were ordained for use in conjunction with the sacrifices and that they should cease after the final sacrifice. 

What it sounds like you and JD might be saying is that the instruments were not only used for the Levitical system of offering sacrifices, but they were for some other purpose. What was that purpose?


----------



## Bygracealone

timmopussycat said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> SPURGEON
> 
> "We should like to see all the pipes of the organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly fill with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior to all that wind or strings can accomplish that it is a shame to degrade its harmonies by association with blowing and scraping…That the great Lord cares to be praised by bellows we very gravely question; we cannot see any connection between the glory of God and sounds produced by machinery. One broken note from a grateful heart must have more real acceptable praise in it than all the wind which sweeps through whistling pipes. Instrumental music…was no doubt well-suited to…the infant state of the Church under the law, but in the Gospel’s spiritual domain these may well be let go with all the other beggarly elements."
> 
> "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." (Commentary on Psalms 42:4)
> 
> "David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)
> 
> WESLEY
> 
> "I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard." (John Wesley, founder of Methodism, quoted in Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 685)
> 
> CALVIN
> 
> "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)
> 
> CHRYSOSTOM
> 
> "David formerly sang songs, also today we sing hymns. He had a lyre with lifeless strings, the church has a lyre with living strings. Our tongues are the strings of the lyre with a different tone indeed but much more in accordance with piety. Here there is no need for the cithara, or for stretched strings, or for the plectrum, or for art, or for any instrument; but, if you like, you may yourself become a cithara, mortifying the members of the flesh and making a full harmony of mind and body. For when the flesh no longer lusts against the Spirit, but has submitted to its orders and has been led at length into the best and most admirable path, then will you create a spiritual melody." (Chrysostom, 347-407, Exposition of Psalms 41, (381-398 A.D.) Source Readings in Music History, ed. O. Strunk, W. W. Norton and Co.: New York, 1950, pg. 70.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above is pure opinions of men; not exegesis of Scripture, hence irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Interesting... Have you not been expressing your "opinion" throughout this thread? Should I therefore conclude that your posts are irrelevant? 

In the above quotes, Spurgeon and Calvin support their views with 1 Cor. 14. I would hardly call this the "pure opinions of men" and I wouldn't dare say these men were strangers to the discipline of exegesis. Furthermore, if you look more carefully at the quotes, you'll notice the sources from which they come; they come from commentaries; commentaries on the Psalms; commentaries that exegete the Scriptures and draw conclusions from that exegesis. What we have in these quotes is the fruit of their exegesis, not just the "pure opinions of men." 

Furthermore, I don't even agree with all that these men teach, in fact, they don't always agree with each other, but that's actually the point for including the quotes--there was a great amount of harmony on this position at one time among the various denominations. That harmony lasted many years until it was disrupted by those who introduced instruments into the assemblies. So much for striving for peace within the Church...

Psalm 122:6-9 6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: "May they prosper who love you. 7 Peace be within your walls, Prosperity within your palaces." 8 For the sake of my brethren and companions, I will now say, "Peace be within you." 9 Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek your good. 

We must realize that the use of instruments in worship is an overall new practice in light of the history of the Church. The introduction of instruments into worship is one of the roots to the awful "worship wars" we see today. Brothers, it is my prayer that our Lord will bring back the harmony we once had in the Church. I know He will answer that prayer ultimately, but I pray that we might see it even before glory. 

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity! 

Sadly, this unity is hindered because Churches/elders/leadership have allowed the preferences of men to be included and expressed in the worship service from assembly to assembly. Where preferences are given the stage, there is no end to the "wars." 

Unity and peace will be found when we get back to worshipping our Lord in the simple, but profound manner of singing His Word (the Psalms) in light of the glorious work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (without instruments because He is the final sacrifice).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

&


----------



## dcomin

Bygracealone said:


> We must realize that the use of instruments in worship is an overall new practice in light of the history of the Church. The introduction of instruments into worship is one of the roots to the awful "worship wars" we see today. Brothers, it is my prayer that our Lord will bring back the harmony we once had in the Church. I know He will answer that prayer ultimately, but I pray that we might see it even before glory.
> 
> Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity!
> 
> Sadly, this unity is hindered because Churches/elders/leadership have allowed the preferences of men to be included and expressed in the worship service from assembly to assembly. Where preferences are given the stage, there is no end to the "wars."
> 
> Unity and peace will be found when we get back to worshipping our Lord in the simple, but profound manner of singing His Word (the Psalms) in light of the glorious work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (without instruments because He is the final sacrifice).



Well said, brother Steve. Amen.


----------



## timmopussycat

RTaron said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understood the discussion, it was whether or not musical instruments other than voices were permitted in church worship. Using musical instruments other than voices to do anything else in church is a separate question I am not here addressing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay fair enough we should only talk about instruments accompanying the singing. Frankly, it was hard trying to follow JD's ideas of what was prescriptive in the psalms for worship.
> 
> I follow the argument that the instruments were ordained for use in conjunction with the sacrifices and that they should cease after the final sacrifice.
> 
> What it sounds like you and JD might be saying is that the instruments were not only used for the Levitical system of offering sacrifices, but they were for some other purpose. What was that purpose?
Click to expand...


The fundamental purpose of the Psalms is to glorify God. In OT Israel, although much glorifying of God was connected with the sacrifices, not all glorifying of God was tied to the sacrifices. The psalms are not linked with the sacrifices so that they cease once the sacrifice is made because: 
a) As I keep saying, some of them were written before David set up the Levitical worship teams. 
b) The content of many psalms is not linked to the system. Many celebrate the Lord's deliverance of their author without reference to the system. 
c) Nor were Psalms sung only in conjunction with the sacrifices or in the temple. Jewish boys and girls were taught the psalms in their village schools.
d) Although the sacrifices have ceased with Christ's one sufficient sacrifice of himself, he himself has commanded us to remember his death. Some of the Psalms prophecy details of his death and are needed to be used in the rememberence thereof. 
e) Whether or not we are meant to sing Psalms exclusively in the NT, we are clearly commanded to sing Psalms today, and the Psalms themselves tell us that accompanying sung Psalms by musical instruments is permisable. The only way that instrumental accompaniment of sung Psalms could be impermissible in the New Covenant era is if God had prohibited the use of Psalms in the New Covenant era because they were too linked to the OC sacrificial system.


----------



## timmopussycat

Bygrace alone said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> SPURGEON
> 
> "We should like to see all the pipes of the organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly fill with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior to all that wind or strings can accomplish that it is a shame to degrade its harmonies by association with blowing and scraping…That the great Lord cares to be praised by bellows we very gravely question; we cannot see any connection between the glory of God and sounds produced by machinery. One broken note from a grateful heart must have more real acceptable praise in it than all the wind which sweeps through whistling pipes. Instrumental music…was no doubt well-suited to…the infant state of the Church under the law, but in the Gospel’s spiritual domain these may well be let go with all the other beggarly elements."
> 
> "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes. We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." (Commentary on Psalms 42:4)
> 
> "David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it." (Spurgeon preached to 20,000 people every Sunday for 20 years in the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle and never were mechanical instruments of music used in his services. When asked why, he quoted 1st Corinthians 14:15. "I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." He then declared: "I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Baptist)
> 
> CALVIN
> 
> "Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (1 Corinthians 14:16) (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)
> 
> The above is pure opinions of men; not exegesis of Scripture, hence irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting... Have you not been expressing your "opinion" throughout this thread? Should I therefore conclude that your posts are irrelevant?
> 
> In the above quotes, Spurgeon and Calvin support their views with 1 Cor. 14. I would hardly call this the "pure opinions of men" and I wouldn't dare say these men were strangers to the discipline of exegesis. Furthermore, if you look more carefully at the quotes, you'll notice the sources from which they come; they come from commentaries; commentaries on the Psalms; commentaries that exegete the Scriptures and draw conclusions from that exegesis. What we have in these quotes is the fruit of their exegesis, not just the "pure opinions of men."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because men are no strangers to the exegetical process doesn't mean they can't make mistakes and just because they cite a Scripture doesn't mean they use it rightly. One element of exegesis is justifying one's view that a particular Scripture entails a particular teaching. To assert, as Calvin and Spurgeon do that the 1 Cor. 14 verse applies to instrumental accompaniment of sung praise is demonstatably false due to misunderstandings of what instrumental accompanyment of sung praise is and what was possible for Paul to have meant by his words. Let me prove my point.
> 
> When we accompany sung praise with instruments we are not singing to God with machinery nor are we singing in an unknown tongue, we are accompanying sung praise to God. As far as we can know, nobody in the history of Israel thought accompaiment was another language, nor was it the dominant view of Greek music theorists (I speak as a professionally trained musician), if in fact such a view had been conjectured at all. In context of 1 Cor. 14 Paul is aiming to reduce confusion in services due to multiple speakers using multiple languages. He does not mention instruments at all. But maybe that is an implicit necessary consequence of his words, you say. No it is not. For Paul well knew that instrumental accompaniment of sung praise did not always yield confusion, he had participated in the sacrifices which did involve instrumental accompaniment and he knew by experience that instrumental accompaniment did not necessarily yield confusion. The final proof that instrumental accompaniment does not necessarily lead to confusion in worship is that God had commanded accompaniment in Israel's worship, and he is not a God of confusion but of peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Bygrace alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I don't even agree with all that these men teach, in fact, they don't always agree with each other, but that's actually the point for including the quotes--there was a great amount of harmony on this position at one time among the various denominations. That harmony lasted many years until it was disrupted by those who introduced instruments into the assemblies. So much for striving for peace within the Church...
> 
> We must realize that the use of instruments in worship is an overall new practice in light of the history of the Church. The introduction of instruments into worship is one of the roots to the awful "worship wars" we see today. Brothers, it is my prayer that our Lord will bring back the harmony we once had in the Church. I know He will answer that prayer ultimately, but I pray that we might see it even before glory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the Reformed believed that one man plus the truth was a majority, not that the majority in error rules. Aside from that, is there some merit to saying that even though the justification for prohibiting instrumental accompaniment is unsound, we should restrict biblical liberty for the sake of peace? Whatever merits this argument may have had at the time accompanying instruments were introduced, and I recognize that it would have had some, it does not apply to the present situation when instumental accompaniment is already established as biblically legitimate in many churches.
> 
> In such contexts, the attempt to unbiblically limit Chrisitan freedom will simply add another worship war. I don't ask you to do something that you in conscience cannot do. I don't invade your churches and advocate or demand you conform to my reading of Scripture. But I am not going to create an unnecessary worship war in churches using instrumental accompanyment of sung praise by trying to eliminate accompanying instruments when I have no biblical grounds for doing so and if someone tries to impose such I would resist; for in my context such actions would be adding confusion not peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Bygrace alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, this unity is hindered because Churches/elders/leadership have allowed the preferences of men to be included and expressed in the worship service from assembly to assembly. Where preferences are given the stage, there is no end to the "wars."
> 
> Unity and peace will be found when we get back to worshipping our Lord in the simple, but profound manner of singing His Word (the Psalms) in light of the glorious work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (without instruments because He is the final sacrifice).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All we are doing is allowing for a liberty that God has not prohibited. Christian churches/elders/leadership have simply recognized that we have liberty in this area to accompany sung worship with instruments in a manner that does not cause confusion. Churches who in practice abuse the freedom and create confusion (e.g., when guitars & drums are overamplified so that the congregation cannot hear the words it sings, or those using texts teaching unscriptural doctrine), need to be challenged on their practice, but they need to be called out on true biblical grounds not demonstrably unbiblical ones.
> 
> And just for the record I am not EP either. Since I am presently a citizen of heaven where other texts than the psalms are sung, I am going to sing any text that is either Scripture or doctrinally faithful to Scripture.
Click to expand...


----------



## R Harris

dcomin said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> We must realize that the use of instruments in worship is an overall new practice in light of the history of the Church. The introduction of instruments into worship is one of the roots to the awful "worship wars" we see today. Brothers, it is my prayer that our Lord will bring back the harmony we once had in the Church. I know He will answer that prayer ultimately, but I pray that we might see it even before glory.
> 
> Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity!
> 
> Sadly, this unity is hindered because Churches/elders/leadership have allowed the preferences of men to be included and expressed in the worship service from assembly to assembly. Where preferences are given the stage, there is no end to the "wars."
> 
> Unity and peace will be found when we get back to worshipping our Lord in the simple, but profound manner of singing His Word (the Psalms) in light of the glorious work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (without instruments because He is the final sacrifice).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said, brother Steve. Amen.
Click to expand...


I haven't taken the time to go through all 200 posts on this thread, so if this has already been mentioned, forgive me.

As Steve mentioned above, the use of instruments in the new covenant era did not come into popularity until the 19th century. So for basically 1700 years, musical instruments in worship was the exception, not the rule.

In fact, Rowland Ward of Australia did some research on the issue, and discovered that prior to the Pope's decree in 666 AD (Vitalius, I believe?), he could only find one recorded instance up to that time that a musical instrument had been used in worship - at a church in Spain, I believe, in the 5th century. Even after the Pope's decree, there was still only sparse use of them until I believe the 14th century. Then when the Reformation came along, the reformers threw them right back out.

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

Now, here we are only 4 generations later, and discussion of instrumental usage in "mainstream" evangelical Christianity is a complete non-issue.

Does this not astonish anyone? Of course, several other well known examples of doctrinal deterioration could be cited in the last 130 years, but it truly is amazing that the instrument issue, along with other worship issues, has been so deeply buried.


----------



## JoelYrick

I have a question for both timmopussycat and panta. I've been following along with this thread and I haven't quite decided what your positions are regarding whether instruments are elements or circumstances. 

At times, I've thought that you are saying that there are two separate elements involved here. One element is unaccompanied singing, the other is singing with instruments. The circumstance is similar to how often we administer sacraments and preach the Word. We have liberty to choose how often we sing with or without instruments because we aren't required to perform all elements in every stated worship service. This seems to be a rather novel approach.

The second solution is the more widely held one that instruments are circumstantial parts of worship. Singing is the element. I don't think you two are offering this as a solution, but at times it seems that you refer to this position.

Do you hold to one of these positions or have I unfairly described your arguments?

Please help clear this up, thanks!


----------



## panta dokimazete

Music is the element - singing is required, instruments are a recommended circumstance, based on practice and command.


----------



## JoelYrick

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


----------



## panta dokimazete

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


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


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



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

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


----------



## timmopussycat

JoelYrick said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## timmopussycat

R Harris said:


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



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


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

timmopussycat said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply find it amazing that for essentially 1700 years, the NON-use of instruments in worship was considered a no-brainer by just about everyone; then in the mid to late 19th century (a very bad century for Christianity in many ways), all of that changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, sincel the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


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



huh? who proposes _that_?



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



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


----------



## JoelYrick

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

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

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

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


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can/does the whole congregation make praise to God if only one or two are making the praise while the rest sit silently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huh? who proposes _that_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly please show the Scriptures that show instruments played by themselves apart from the voice of human praise in Worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there _was_, my brother  - I think I actually defended the converse.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## panta dokimazete

JoelYrick said:


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



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

Is it disobedience to _ban_ instruments from worship?

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


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can/does the whole congregation make praise to God if only one or two are making the praise while the rest sit silently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huh? who proposes _that_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly please show the Scriptures that show instruments played by themselves apart from the voice of human praise in Worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there _was_, my brother  - I think I actually defended the converse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who proposes that? Go to practically any non-RPCNA, PRC, etc. church on a Lord's Day and you will hear all kinds of instrumental music with no praise, no involvement of the congregation corporately in worship.
Click to expand...


But where in my thesis did I defend the practice?

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


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

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


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


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



One could make the case...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So solo Organ music during the offertory etc. is not allowable accordign to the RPW then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could make the case...
Click to expand...


Using the RPW I do not see how.


----------



## JoelYrick

panta dokimazete said:


> JoelYrick said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question then I would suppose is, in light of Psalms 149 and 150 is a church obedient in worship by never using an instrument since music is the only command and instruments are circumstantial?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that is the bottom line, isn't it?
> 
> Is it disobedience to _ban_ instruments from worship?
> 
> Would it be disobedience to _ban_ the presence of Scripture on-hand from worship?
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> So solo Organ music during the offertory etc. is not allowable accordign to the RPW then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could make the case...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the RPW I do not see how.
Click to expand...


Please elaborate.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could make the case...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the RPW I do not see how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please elaborate.
Click to expand...


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

But anyway...

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


----------



## panta dokimazete

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

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


----------



## R Harris

timmopussycat said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply find it amazing that for essentially 1700 years, the NON-use of instruments in worship was considered a no-brainer by just about everyone; then in the mid to late 19th century (a very bad century for Christianity in many ways), all of that changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, since the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?
Click to expand...


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

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

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

Riiiiggghhhttttt . . . . . . .

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


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> I'm not sure that there is a definitive command for *all* the congregation to sing for *every* song, but to your point, I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship.
> 
> I will reiterate - an instrumental PreludePostlude to worship would not be inappropriate.



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

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


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that there is a definitive command for *all* the congregation to sing for *every* song, but to your point, I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship.
> 
> I will reiterate - an instrumental PreludePostlude to worship would not be inappropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Scripture for that? According to the RPW you must have Scriptural warrant for all things you do in Worship or you should not do it. Period.
> 
> Far too much has been left to "preference" and "likes & dislikes" In my humble opinion.
Click to expand...


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

Good thing we aren't discussing _likes and dislikes_, then.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

panta dokimazete said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that there is a definitive command for *all* the congregation to sing for *every* song, but to your point, I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship.
> 
> I will reiterate - an instrumental PreludePostlude to worship would not be inappropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Scripture for that? According to the RPW you must have Scriptural warrant for all things you do in Worship or you should not do it. Period.
> 
> Far too much has been left to "preference" and "likes & dislikes" In my humble opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allright, BP - I am not sure what point you are making - I answered your question - _"I don't think there is a specific command for instruments without voices in worship"_, because I don't see a clear warrant for instruments without voices _in worship_- how is that contrary to the RPW?
> 
> Good thing we aren't discussing _likes and dislikes_, then.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## panta dokimazete

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

I keep thinking we are not discussing the same thing.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

What do you think we are discussing?


----------



## panta dokimazete

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


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well what are you arguing about?


----------



## panta dokimazete

I am not arguing, I keep responding that "I don't think there is a specific command for instruments _without_ voices in worship" as RPW compliant.

Do you disagree with this?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

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


----------



## panta dokimazete




----------



## timmopussycat

R Harris said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply find it amazing that for essentially 1700 years, the NON-use of instruments in worship was considered a no-brainer by just about everyone; then in the mid to late 19th century (a very bad century for Christianity in many ways), all of that changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, since the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So for 600 years, 99.9% of the church got it wrong, and the Pope came along in 666 AD and set things right. Ok . . . . . .
> 
> As I mentioned, usage was still sparse until much later, and during the Reformation, the reformers got rid of them. So, all the reformers also got it wrong. Ok . . . . . . .
> 
> BUT - the brilliant minds of the 19th and 20th century (like the Dispensationalists and Arminians) enlightened everyone, and now we are safe and secure.
> 
> Riiiiggghhhttttt . . . . . . .
> 
> I realize that numbers alone don't establish truth, but when the heavy hitters of theology over 1700 years (and still many in the 19th and 20th century, who still found their arguments from Scripture sound) stand side by side on this issue, it would be wise for one to at least sit up and take notice. But alas, the vast majority today (and sadly, even reformed scholars) don't even bother.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## ChristianTrader

timmopussycat said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, since the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So for 600 years, 99.9% of the church got it wrong, and the Pope came along in 666 AD and set things right. Ok . . . . . .
> 
> As I mentioned, usage was still sparse until much later, and during the Reformation, the reformers got rid of them. So, all the reformers also got it wrong. Ok . . . . . . .
> 
> BUT - the brilliant minds of the 19th and 20th century (like the Dispensationalists and Arminians) enlightened everyone, and now we are safe and secure.
> 
> Riiiiggghhhttttt . . . . . . .
> 
> I realize that numbers alone don't establish truth, but when the heavy hitters of theology over 1700 years (and still many in the 19th and 20th century, who still found their arguments from Scripture sound) stand side by side on this issue, it would be wise for one to at least sit up and take notice. But alas, the vast majority today (and sadly, even reformed scholars) don't even bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am one who fully agrees that the teachings of great men of God are a Holy Spirit touched commentary on the Scriptures that we ignore at our peril. But I never dare deploy the argument that unamimity of the Reformd worthies opinions necessarily trumps a solid exegetical argument from Scripture that they are, on a given point incorrect. For what such a practice suggests to me is that the user of it really does not believe in sola Scriptura. Scripture commands us to test all things, not just the ones that our particular heroes of faith disagree on. So if somebody presents an exegetical case that seems to challenge anything I think is biblical, I address myself to the substance of the case presented.
Click to expand...


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

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

CT


----------



## timmopussycat

ChristianTrader said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> So for 600 years, 99.9% of the church got it wrong, and the Pope came along in 666 AD and set things right. Ok . . . . . .
> 
> As I mentioned, usage was still sparse until much later, and during the Reformation, the reformers got rid of them. So, all the reformers also got it wrong. Ok . . . . . . .
> 
> BUT - the brilliant minds of the 19th and 20th century (like the Dispensationalists and Arminians) enlightened everyone, and now we are safe and secure.
> 
> Riiiiggghhhttttt . . . . . . .
> 
> I realize that numbers alone don't establish truth, but when the heavy hitters of theology over 1700 years (and still many in the 19th and 20th century, who still found their arguments from Scripture sound) stand side by side on this issue, it would be wise for one to at least sit up and take notice. But alas, the vast majority today (and sadly, even reformed scholars) don't even bother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am one who fully agrees that the teachings of great men of God are a Holy Spirit touched commentary on the Scriptures that we ignore at our peril. But I never dare deploy the argument that unamimity of the Reformd worthies opinions necessarily trumps a solid exegetical argument from Scripture that they are, on a given point incorrect. For what such a practice suggests to me is that the user of it really does not believe in sola Scriptura. Scripture commands us to test all things, not just the ones that our particular heroes of faith disagree on. So if somebody presents an exegetical case that seems to challenge anything I think is biblical, I address myself to the substance of the case presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the issue of what counts as a solid exegetical argument. When you have such a weight of ancient to not so ancient exegetical argumentation that points to one conclusion, but then there is a new wave of argumentation and exegesis that points to a different conclusion; there seems to have been a change in the philosophy of exegesis and hermeneutics. (By this I mean what counts as a good hermeneutic argument and what a good exegetical exposition looks like). To defend such a change is a HUGE deal. It is such a big deal you start to run up against Jude 1:3 contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, type issues.
> 
> There is little difference between this and saying "Up until year 17xx/18xx, we did not have an accurate Biblical text."
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Whlile what you have said is a possibility requiring investigation in all cases where recent exegesis differs from a longstanding traditional consensus, sometimes what you get is the discovery that the conensus rests on errors of fact or errrors of Scriptural application. It was precisely this grammatical, historical and Scriptural analysis that Calvin and others used to prove that the papacy's claims were unfounded and critical RC doctrines were in error; it is not saying that "up untill the 1800's we did not have an accurate biblical text". When I put forward evidence from the history of both Greece, Israel and provide a Scriptural consideration all of which appearing to prove that Calvin and those who rely on his argument are simply wrong in thinking that Paul must have meant to include instrumental accompaniments within the stricture of his forbidding multiplicity of untranslated languages in the assembly, I may be right or I may be wrong. I recognize that my hypothesis needs to be tested every bit as much as I tested Calvin's. But the needed test is not blind faith is some Reformed worthy or longstdanding historical consensus or the deployment of straw man arguments: what is needed is a serious anlysis of the argument put forward. People should be asking and answering such questions as these that address the justification for the differing view:

Did the Greeks think of music as a language? They will find the answer is no for inasfar as the Greeks related music to any other subject, that subject was Math.

Are the following valid syllogisms? 
God commanded instrumental accompaniment of OT sung praise. 
God is not the author of confusion but of peace. 
Therefore instrumental accompaniment of sung praise in the OT must have been capable of being practiced in a way that was not confusing. 

If IA was ever practiced in a way that was not confusing it is likely (given the dynamics of the situation i.e, a conservative religious traditional establshment and such establishments tend to have rigourous worship rules to minimize confusion) that IA would be practiced in a non-confusing way in the temple at Jerusalem. 
Paul was well acquainted with temple worship. 
He therefore may have known from first hand experience that unconfusing IA was possible.

Paul may well have known that unconfusing IA was possible.
He nowhere explicitly prohibits IA. 
We therefore do not have enough evidence to read a prohibition of IA into his statements prohibiting confusionin the church.

Now testing the points made above is necessary when considering a rethiink of a doctrine and on a board where sola scriptura is the theoretical norm, I might have expected that such testing of contoversial hypotheses would also be the norm. But to date, nobody on the con side of this argument has engaged in this kind of analysis of the differing argument. What has been posted is nothing more than justifications of non-IA traditionalism rathe than engaging with the grammatico, Scriptural and historical details of the argument that challenges their view.

Don Carson makes an interesting comment somehere in the introduction to _Exegetical Fallacies_. "The essence of all critical thought...is the justification of opinions". To show a hypothesis to be incorrect, it is not enough to cite contrary opinions, one must demonstrate that the justification of the hypothesis is unsound in fact or reasoning. Calvin did this routinely. 
Will those who wish to hold to unaccompanied worship follow his example?


----------



## timmopussycat

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply find it amazing that for essentially 1700 years, the NON-use of instruments in worship was considered a no-brainer by just about everyone; then in the mid to late 19th century (a very bad century for Christianity in many ways), all of that changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, sincel the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The odd thing about this argument is that it is exactly the same argument given by my pro-Women's Ordination friends here at PTS.
Click to expand...


And I hope you answer it by demonstrating from Scripture and logic the insufficinecy of their arguments. Why arn't you doing likewise with the IA matter?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

William Ames, _A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship_, pp. 404-406:



> _Cathedrall mufick with Organs_.
> 
> The firft question was, If the Primitive Church had fuch chaunting Idol-service, as is in our Cathedrall Churches? The Rejoynder after fome words fpent about _finging_ (about which he bringeth not the leaft refemblance of that in question, untill the fourth age after Chrift) excepteth firft, that _Organall muficke was gods ordinance in the old Teftament, and that not fignificant, or typicall; and therefore is finfully called Idol-fervice. 2. That all men whofe hearts are not averfe, by diftraction, ftupidity, or prejudice, feele fuch muficke to worke much upon their affections._ To this I fay 1. that his denying of Organall muficke to have beene _fignificant or typicall_, is without reafon, and againft the current of our Divines; taken (as it may feeme) out of Bellarmine de miffa. lib. 2 cap. 15.) who ufeth this evafion againft thofe words of _P. Martyr: Musicall organs perteyne to the Iewifh Ceremonie and agree no more to us, then Circumcifion_. So that we may neglect it, and take him as faying, that nothing which was ordained in the old Teftament (no not facrificing of beafts) is now an Idol-fervice. 2. For that, and the other, both together, it is fit the Rejoynder fhould be put in minde how many, and what kinde of men, he accufeth of _diftraction, ftupidity, or prejudice_!
> 
> _Thomas Aquinas_ (in whofe time this faction was not in generall requeft, much leffe in the Primitive) in 22.q.91.a.2.4 oppofeth thus: _The Church ufeth no mufick for divine praifes, left it fhould feeme to Iudaize_, and anfwereth thus: _Muficall instruments doe more ftirre up the minde to delight, then frame it to a right difpofition. In the old Teftament there was fome need of them, both, &c. and alfo becaufe they did figure out fomething_. Erafmus, in 1. Cor. 14. fayth thus: _We have brought a tedious and player-like muficke into the Church, a tumultuous noyfe of many voyces, fuch as I thinke was not heard among the Theaters of Grecians or Romans. For which purpofe, whole flockes of boyes are maintained at great charges, whofe age alfo is all fpent in learning fuch gibble gabble. At fuch coft is the Church for a [] thing, &c.
> 
> It is evident that that fame Ecclefiafticall chanting and roarings in our Temples (fcarfe alfo underftood of the Priefts themfelves) is a moft foolifh and vaine abufe, and a moft pernicious let to piety. I make no queftion but that all kinde of muficke was a part of the legall pedagogie. In the solemne worfhip of God, I doe not judge it more futable, then if we fhould recall the incenfe, tapers, and other fhadowes of the Law, into ufe. I fay againe, to goe beyond what we are taught, is moft wicked pervivacy. _


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

timmopussycat said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, sincel the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The odd thing about this argument is that it is exactly the same argument given by my pro-Women's Ordination friends here at PTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I hope you answer it by demonstrating from Scripture and logic the insufficiency of their arguments. Why arn't you doing likewise with the IA matter?
Click to expand...


Because Scripture speaks clearly on this matter.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> So you allow that there were worship contexts in which there was unaccompanied singing - but you claim that temple worship required the use of instruments for sacrifices only? Please explain why Ps. 61 (which is set to stringed instruments) does not mention sacrifice or Ps 66 is silent likewise?



First, the title commits it to the chief musician, who is associated with the temple music. Secondly, Ps. 61:8 speaks of performing vows, which is usually connected with the presentation of an offering to the Lord. Thirdly, Ps. 66:13 mentions the burnt offerings.



timmopussycat said:


> The hidden premise under your argument is that we are not allowed to do what God has not commanded. The fact is, before David, God never commanded that he be worshipped by sung praise: although songs were used as a teaching device in some places e.g., Deut. 32. So if we were never allowed to do what God has not commanded, one would expect no singing of praise to God before the command came in David's day to do so. Or if people did engage in sung praise uncommanded we might expect an immediate judgment. But this is not what we find.



Al least you acknowledge the hidden premise under my argument is the regulative principle -- what God has not commanded is fobidden. I would suggest that anyone working from a contradictory premise is not following the confessional guidelines of this board.

The idea that this was uncommanded praise is irrelevant given that these praise songs were inspired.

The Davidic economy was a genuine development in the history of redemption. The divine institutions of worship under David were a fitting expression of that development.


----------



## panta dokimazete

And the inspired praise songs give warrant and guidance concerning composing "uninspired" praise song, just as the inspired prayers of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" prayers and the inspired preaching of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" preaching.

All within the parameters of the RPW.


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> And the inspired praise songs give warrant and guidance concerning composing "uninspired" praise song, just as the inspired prayers of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" prayers and the inspired preaching of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" preaching.
> 
> All within the parameters of the RPW.



You forgot to mention that the inspired writing of Scripture provides warrant for composing uninspired writing of Scripture, and the inspired institution of sacraments gives warrant for uninspired instituting of sacraments.

All within the parameters of the Romish magisterium, but completely contradictory to the RPW. The uninspired prayers and preaching are not made set forms imposed on the congregation. They are the compositions of individuals which the individual delivers and the congregation judges.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> You forgot to mention that the inspired writing of Scripture provides warrant for composing uninspired writing of Scripture, and the inspired institution of sacraments gives warrant for uninspired instituting of sacraments.
> 
> All within the parameters of the Romish magisterium, but completely contradictory to the RPW. The uninspired prayers and preaching are not made set forms imposed on the congregation. They are the compositions of individuals which the individual delivers and the congregation judges.



non sequitur and category error - Please give one instance where it says in Scripture or gives guidance to look to the OT to "write to the Lord a new Word" or "make unto the Lord a new sacrament" as normative for the NT church.

The canon is closed, the sacraments set.

One may however categorize music, preaching and prayer as having Scriptural warrant and guidance for "uninspired" and permissible components.


----------



## Bygracealone

panta dokimazete said:


> And the inspired praise songs give warrant and guidance concerning composing "uninspired" praise song, just as the inspired prayers of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" prayers and the inspired preaching of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" preaching.
> 
> All within the parameters of the RPW.



Each element of worship is subject to the RPW. As it pertains to the element of song, the RPW requires that we only sing inspired songs in worship. 

As it pertains to prayer, we are simply commanded to pray. The Lord hasn't given us an inspired book of prayer and commanded its use in worship like He has in providing us with the Psalter. 

As it pertains to preaching, the same is true. We're not given a book of homilies to be recited in worship. 

But, we are given a song book, the psalter, and we're commanded to sing those particular songs. 

Prayer, preaching, and singing are all distinct elements of worship and each is subject to the RPW in its own right. It's wrong to take one element and equate it with another; they're each distinct and serve a particular function within the worship service.


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> non sequitur and category error - Please give one instance where it says in Scripture or gives guidance to look to the OT to "write to the Lord a new Word" or "make unto the Lord a new sacrament" as normative for the NT church.
> 
> The canon is closed, the sacraments set.
> 
> One may however categorize music, preaching and prayer as having Scriptural warrant and guidance for "uninspired" and permissible components.



Anyone who has studied the progressive nature of revelation knows that the Scripture leaves open the possibility of further revelation up to the point that the canon was closed in Rev. 22. Numb. 12:6, "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." Eph. 3:4, 5, "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

The cateogrical mistake is yours. You set apart music, preaching, and prayer, because you want to have liberty in these areas beyond what the regulative principle of worship permits you.


----------



## panta dokimazete

bygracealone said:


> But, we are given a song book, the psalter, and we're commanded to sing those particular songs.



And be taught and admonished by those same songs - which teach the composition and singing of new "uninspired" songs as well as the use of instruments in worship.


----------



## Bygracealone

panta dokimazete said:


> But, we are given a song book, the psalter, and we're commanded to sing those particular songs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And be taught and admonished by those same songs - which teach the composition and singing of new "uninspired" songs as well as the use of instruments.
Click to expand...


How do they teach the composition of uninspired songs and use of instruments? Please explain.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> non sequitur and category error - Please give one instance where it says in Scripture or gives guidance to look to the OT to "write to the Lord a new Word" or "make unto the Lord a new sacrament" as normative for the NT church.
> 
> The canon is closed, the sacraments set.
> 
> One may however categorize music, preaching and prayer as having Scriptural warrant and guidance for "uninspired" and permissible components.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who has studied the progressive nature of revelation knows that the Scripture leaves open the possibility of further revelation up to the point that the canon was closed in Rev. 22. Numb. 12:6, "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." Eph. 3:4, 5, "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."
Click to expand...


Is it normative for the NT church to expect new Scripture past the apostolic age?



> The cateogrical mistake is yours. You set apart music, preaching, and prayer, because you want to have liberty in these areas beyond what the regulative principle of worship permits you.



I do not want a single thing past the Scriptural prescription - one might say that you refuse to see the accuracy of the proposition presented to protect a dearly held and defended error.

Matthew, let's try and keep to Scriptural arguments and not ad hominum, what do you say?


----------



## MW

This is what Scripture prescribes with respect to the free compositions of men in the days of continuing revelation -- 1 Cor. 14:29, "Let the prophets speak two or three, *and let the other judge*."


----------



## panta dokimazete

Should the NT church expect new and continuing revelation as normative?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Not after the close of the canon. Revelation has ceased in that sense.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Bygracealone said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, we are given a song book, the psalter, and we're commanded to sing those particular songs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And be taught and admonished by those same songs - which teach the composition and singing of new "uninspired" songs as well as the use of instruments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do they teach the composition of uninspired songs and use of instruments? Please explain.
Click to expand...


Good Question...


----------



## R Harris

timmopussycat said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now testing the points made above is necessary when considering a rethiink of a doctrine and on a board where sola scriptura is the theoretical norm, I might have expected that such testing of contoversial hypotheses would also be the norm. But to date, nobody on the con side of this argument has engaged in this kind of analysis of the differing argument. What has been posted is nothing more than justifications of non-IA traditionalism rathe than engaging with the grammatico, Scriptural and historical details of the argument that challenges their view.
> 
> Don Carson makes an interesting comment somehere in the introduction to _Exegetical Fallacies_. "The essence of all critical thought...is the justification of opinions". To show a hypothesis to be incorrect, it is not enough to cite contrary opinions, one must demonstrate that the justification of the hypothesis is unsound in fact or reasoning. Calvin did this routinely.
> Will those who wish to hold to unaccompanied worship follow his example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Comin and Benjamin have cogently laid out the scriptural arguments for the non-use of musical instruments. I know you have seen them in this thread, but you either reject them or ignore them.
> 
> Regarding historical interpretation, the rejection of historical precedent can cut both ways.
> 
> Dispensationalists of the 19th century and early 20th century rejected the traditional eschatological positions up to that point. In fact, John Walvoord made that very point in one of his books (_The Blessed Hope_, I think) in that he stated dispensational belief was indeed apostolic, but was "quickly lost" after the turn of the century. It was thereafter buried for 1720 years, until Darby and Irving made the recovery in the 1820s, with Scofield sealing the restoration in the early 20th century. Of course, Joseph Smith did the same thing, when the "angel" visited him in New York about the same time as Darby and Irving made their "discoveries." So, Smith was tasked with setting everybody straight with his new book of Mormon.
> 
> So it is funny that you bring that up, because the Dispensationalists, Mormons, Transcendentalists, Christian Scientists, and other assorted strange cults all basically came up with new "insights" to the Scriptures that everyone else in the previous 1700 years had apparently been too stupid to figure out. (This is why I stated in a previous post that the 19th century was not a good century from a theological perspective.)
> 
> Therefore, yes, one should be careful to simply throw out the window the positions of conservative, historic, orthodox believers of 1700 years without careful treading. And if one does come forward with the new position, a little bit of humility in doing so is never a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> And be taught and admonished by those same songs - which teach the composition and singing of new "uninspired" songs as well as the use of instruments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do they teach the composition of uninspired songs and use of instruments? Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Question...
Click to expand...


I am shifting my responses to this thread - come ask there


----------



## timmopussycat

R Harris said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Comin and Benjamin have cogently laid out the scriptural arguments for the non-use of musical instruments. I know you have seen them in this thread, but you either reject them or ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the only one that I saw which was Calvin's misuse of I Cor 14's proscription of unknown tongues in the assembly.
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Regarding historical interpretation, the rejection of historical precedent can cut both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it can. Jusification by faith alone was lost for 1000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> [So it is funny that you bring that up, because the Dispensationalists, Mormons, Transcendentalists, Christian Scientists, and other assorted strange cults all basically came up with new "insights" to the Scriptures that everyone else in the previous 1700 years had apparently been too stupid to figure out. (This is why I stated in a previous post that the 19th century was not a good century from a theological perspective.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have historically answered such errors by Scriptural exegesis, not appeals to tradition. And in the case of music, the Lutherans have recognized, from long before the 1900's, that the NT does not prohibit uninspired song in the worship services of the church. And they were certainly protestant at the time they began the practice.
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Therefore, yes, one should be careful to simply throw out the window the positions of conservative, historic, orthodox believers of 1700 years without careful treading. And if one does come forward with the new position, a little bit of humility in doing so is never a bad thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As noted above, the Luthans also rejected the Psalms only misapplication of the RPW. And when people will, engage the arguments for the new position, instead of merely respoding "Tradition!" or putting forth unsound arguments, I will be happy to moderate my tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> As noted above, the Luthans also rejected the Psalms only misapplication of the RPW.



The Augsburg Confession rejects the RPW: Concerning ecclesiastical rites (made by men), "they teach that those rites are to be observed which may be observed without sin, and are profitable for tranquillity and good order in the church; such as are set holidays, feasts, and such like. Yet concerning such things, men are to be admonished that consciences are not to be burdened as if such service were necessary to salvation."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

As Matthew said the Lutherans reject thee Reformed distinctive of the RPW. Yet they also did not use instruments in worship for the first 100 years of their existence.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you allow that there were worship contexts in which there was unaccompanied singing - but you claim that temple worship required the use of instruments for sacrifices only? Please explain why Ps. 61 (which is set to stringed instruments) does not mention sacrifice or Ps 66 is silent likewise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, the title commits it to the chief musician, who is associated with the temple music. Secondly, Ps. 61:8 speaks of performing vows, which is usually connected with the presentation of an offering to the Lord. Thirdly, Ps. 66:13 mentions the burnt offerings.
Click to expand...


Bad examples granted but consider better ones. Ps. 72:22-24 makes the point that the psalmist will sing praises with the harp “all day long”. The sacrifices were at set times not all day. Ps. 98: 4, 5 link singing and accompaniment with no limitations to the temple as does Ps. 108:1-3, Ps. 144:9. And of course Ps. 150 1c is (unless you want to posit the angels as air breathers) a poetic way of saying that praise should be carried out everywhere as well as v. 1b’s instruction to carry out praise in the temple. 



timmopussycat said:


> The hidden premise under your argument is that we are not allowed to do what God has not commanded. The fact is, before David, God never commanded that he be worshipped by sung praise: although songs were used as a teaching device in some places e.g., Deut. 32. So if we were never allowed to do what God has not commanded, one would expect no singing of praise to God before the command came in David's day to do so. Or if people did engage in sung praise uncommanded we might expect an immediate judgment. But this is not what we find.





armourbearer said:


> Al least you acknowledge the hidden premise under my argument is the regulative principle -- what God has not commanded is fobidden. I would suggest that anyone working from a contradictory premise is not following the confessional guidelines of this board.
> 
> The idea that this was uncommanded praise is irrelevant given that these praise songs were inspired.



The problem is not that they were inspired, the problem is that up until David, the Lord did not explicitly allow for any such songs in his worship. If the interpretation of the RPW is correct that says whatever not explicitly commanded is forbidden, God was bound, in faithfulness to his name to judge Deborah for doing something he had not explicitly permitted. Otherwise God has become the author of confusion, which as you note is impossible. So something has to give and that something is the notion that the RPW permits only that which is explicitly commanded by God. 



armourbearer said:


> The Davidic economy was a genuine development in the history of redemption. The divine institutions of worship under David were a fitting expression of that development.



Indeed so. 
But since Scripture records no amendment of the Mosaic covenant to include the new institutions, they cannot be proven by GNC to be part of the Mosaic covenant. Lacking such demonstration, they cannot be presumed to expire with it.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Bad examples granted but consider better ones. Ps. 72:22-24 makes the point that the psalmist will sing praises with the harp “all day long”. The sacrifices were at set times not all day. Ps. 98: 4, 5 link singing and accompaniment with no limitations to the temple as does Ps. 108:1-3, Ps. 144:9. And of course Ps. 150 1c is (unless you want to posit the angels as air breathers) a poetic way of saying that praise should be carried out everywhere as well as v. 1b’s instruction to carry out praise in the temple.



Psalms is not a collection of disparate writings but a book, Luke 20:42, Acts 1:20. The "temple" context which makes your previous examples inappropriate continues to overshadow your new examples. One cannot take individual psalms out of the book's original setting and insist that these must be interpreted differently than other psalms.



timmopussycat said:


> The problem is not that they were inspired, the problem is that up until David, the Lord did not explicitly allow for any such songs in his worship. If the interpretation of the RPW is correct that says whatever not explicitly commanded is forbidden, God was bound, in faithfulness to his name to judge Deborah for doing something he had not explicitly permitted. Otherwise God has become the author of confusion, which as you note is impossible. So something has to give and that something is the notion that the RPW permits only that which is explicitly commanded by God.



I don't abide by your concept of God being bound to do this or that. Our God hath done whatsoever He hath pleased. Revelation is what God has been pleased to make known of Himself, not a predetermined concept of what He is able to do. If God inspired His servants with songs prior to the time of David it was more than in His right to do so.



timmopussycat said:


> But since Scripture records no amendment of the Mosaic covenant to include the new institutions, they cannot be proven by GNC to be part of the Mosaic covenant. Lacking such demonstration, they cannot be presumed to expire with it.



The concept of a place for God's Name was appointed by Moses, but the identification of that place with "Jerusalem" was not made known until the times of David. Yet the Lord Jesus specifically contrasts worship in Jerusalem with worship in spirit and truth. Clearly, therefore, the Davidic development of the Mosaic institutions was abolished with the Mosaic institutions themselves. Trumpets were ordained with the Mosaic economy, and these were extended by David to include various other mechanical sounding instruments. Both the Mosaic rite and its Davidic extension are physically abolished under New Testament worship. As Hebrews 12:18, 19 says, we have not come to the sound of a trumpet.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bad examples granted but consider better ones. Ps. 72:22-24 makes the point that the psalmist will sing praises with the harp “all day long”. The sacrifices were at set times not all day. Ps. 98: 4, 5 link singing and accompaniment with no limitations to the temple as does Ps. 108:1-3, Ps. 144:9. And of course Ps. 150 1c is (unless you want to posit the angels as air breathers) a poetic way of saying that praise should be carried out everywhere as well as v. 1b’s instruction to carry out praise in the "sanctuary" (corrected).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalms is not a collection of disparate writings but a book, Luke 20:42, Acts 1:20. The "temple" context which makes your previous examples inappropriate continues to overshadow your new examples. One cannot take individual psalms out of the book's original setting and insist that these must be interpreted differently than other psalms.
Click to expand...


You are missing the point. 
However subsequent editors handled and collected the psalms to form a book, the editors were not inspired; rather they recognized that the authors were inspired much as the church later recognized that the authors of both OTand NT were inspired. The individual authors composed the psalms individually over a period of about 800 years and the individual settings in which they are composed must be taken seriously including the fact that some were composed before David set up musically accompanied worship in Jerusalem. I might also add the fact that they are poetry must also be taken equally seriously. Psalm 150:1a commands Praise, 1b and 1c establish once and for all that praise to the Lord was to take place inside and outside the sanctuary, and the rest of the psalm is a poetic exhortation to use all possible instruments and voices to do so. It is not a Directory along the lines of that produced by the Westminster Divines. 



timmopussycat said:


> The problem is not that they were inspired, the problem is that up until David, the Lord did not explicitly allow for any such songs in his worship. If the interpretation of the RPW is correct that says whatever not explicitly commanded is forbidden, God was bound, in faithfulness to his name to judge Deborah for doing something he had not explicitly permitted. Otherwise God has become the author of confusion, which as you note is impossible. So something has to give and that something is the notion that the RPW permits only that which is explicitly commanded by God.





armourbearer said:


> I don't abide by your concept of God being bound to do this or that. Our God hath done whatsoever He hath pleased. Revelation is what God has been pleased to make known of Himself, not a predetermined concept of what He is able to do. If God inspired His servants with songs prior to the time of David it was more than in His right to do so.



I agree that God has the right to do whatever He wants to do at any time unless He himself forecloses such a right for purposes as seem good to him. 

But if your interpretation of the RPW is right God, by allowing uncommanded sung praise, whether inspired or not, without amending the covenant in which it was contained in order to righteously institute the change, an action which formally contradicts his previous commandment. Such contradictions create confusion not peace. So you may either maintain your version of the RPW or abandon the biblical postulate that God is not the author of confusion.



timmopussycat said:


> But since Scripture records no amendment of the Mosaic covenant to include the new institutions, they cannot be proven by GNC to be part of the Mosaic covenant. Lacking such demonstration, they cannot be presumed to expire with it.





armourbearer said:


> The concept of a place for God's Name was appointed by Moses, but the identification of that place with "Jerusalem" was not made known until the times of David. Yet the Lord Jesus specifically contrasts worship in Jerusalem with worship in spirit and truth. Clearly, therefore, the Davidic development of the Mosaic institutions was abolished with the Mosaic institutions themselves.



Could a regenerate OT Jew worship in Jerusalem in spirit and in truth? If the answer is "no", your conclusion follws logically. But if any Jews in the OT Jerusalem could worship God in spirit and in truth, your conclusion does not follow. (And given what the NT tells us about unregenerates incapacity for spiritual things, the godly remnant must have been regenerate). 

Finally, the context of Christ's discussion with the Samaritan woman did not address the "how" to worship but "where" to worship. Christ only states that neither Samaria ("this mountain") or Jerusalem are the only places to worship and that worship is no longer tied to geographical locations. Given such a context, the abolishing of all the Jewish worship "how-to's" is not a necessary consequence of Christ's words. 

Lacking demonstration that David's innovations were formally incorporated into the Mosaic covenant, the most we can say is that they were occasional commands given to God's people. Since, as I have shown previously, they have rationales attached which transcend the Sinai covenant, those commands remain operative until the rationales cease to be valid 



armourbearer said:


> Trumpets were ordained with the Mosaic economy, and these were extended by David to include various other mechanical sounding instruments. Both the Mosaic rite and its Davidic extension are physically abolished under New Testament worship. As Hebrews 12:18, 19 says, we have not come to the sound of a trumpet.



The trumpet sound referred to is specifically identified in the text as the supernatural trumpet blast sounded at the institution of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai. Nothing about the regular order of worship within the Mosaic covenant covenant is mentioned or necessarily implied in this text. And you have yet to prove that the Davidic innovations were incorporated into that covenant.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> This is what Scripture prescribes with respect to the free compositions of men in the days of continuing revelation -- 1 Cor. 14:29, "Let the prophets speak two or three, *and let the other judge*."



So what is wrong with judging the compositions of men by their doctrinal faithfulness to Scripture? If faithful use them, if not discard sooner than ASAP!


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> The idea that this was uncommanded praise is irrelevant given that these praise songs were inspired.



Missed this the first time around. You really don't want to deploy this argument and not only because it places God in a formal contradiction with himself if your understanding of the RPW is correct. 

An additional problem for you is that if inspired material does not contradict your understanding of the RPW, than you can have no objection to singing, say, Heb. 12:18-24 in a worship service.


----------



## jaybird0827

"Backwoods"

I am encouraged by your recent comment posted on my blog. Thank you!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

jaybird0827 said:


> "Backwoods"
> 
> I am encouraged by your recent comment posted on my blog. Thank you!



You are quite welcome!!!


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> You are missing the point.
> However subsequent editors handled and collected the psalms to form a book, they were not inspired; it was the authors who were. The editors were not inspired: rather they recognized that the authors were inspired much as the church later recognized that the authors of the NT were inspired. The individual authors composed the psalms individually over a period of about 800 years and the individual settings in which they are composed must be taken seriously. I might also add the fact that they are poetry must also be taken equally seriously. Psalm 150:1a commands Praise, 1b and 1c establish once and for all that praise to the Lord was to take place inside and outside the sanctuary, and the rest of the psalm is a poetic exhortation to use all possible instruments and voices to do so. It is not a Directory along the lines of that produced by the Westminster Divines.



I consider form criticism dead and buried. If you want to revive it that is your preropgative, but it has no usefulness for understanding the book as we have received it from God. It is called the book of Psalms. In Hebrew it is Tehillim -- praises. Whatever might be said about the book being poetry, it is intended to be sung. The exchange between singular and plural indicates it is intended to be sung in a corporate setting. The inscription "to the chief musician" and various cultic allusions identify this corporate setting as that of the temple. The interpreter ignores these clear markers at their own peril.



timmopussycat said:


> But if your interpretation of the RPW is right. God, by allowing uncommanded sung praise, whether inspired or not, has, contradicted his previous commandment without amending the covenant in which it was contained in order to righteously institute the change. Such a contradiction makes havoc of the Biblical claim that God is not the author of confusion but of peace.



This is simply insupportable. Deut. 12:32, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Addition and detraction is not only forbidden so far as the things commanded are concerned (the RPW), but it applies equally to the commands themselves (the revelation). Yet we know very well that God gave further revelation (Heb. 1:1), and made full provision for it. Your argument denies God the right to give this further revelation of Himself and His will to His Church, contrary to Scripture's own testimony; therefore your argument is false.

The RPW only protects against _human_ innovations in God's worship; it makes full scope for God to add and diminish from His own commandments.



timmopussycat said:


> Lacking demonstration that David's innovations were formally incorporated into the Mosaic covenant, the most we can say is that they were occasional commands given to God's people. Since, as I have shown previously, they have rationales attached which transcend the Sinai covenant, those commands remain operative until the rationales cease to be valid.



You have failed to deal with the fact that Moses made provision for a place for God's Name, but David identified the place with Jerusalem. One would have to be ignorant of basic biblical theology to suppose that the Davidic economy was not a development of the Mosaic institutions which reflected the fulfilment of land provision and theocratic government. One should at least study the Levitical orders and the transformation of their functions under the new temple setting. *All* of what was commanded under David was a development of the Mosaic arrangements. Chronicles specifies David as the supervisor of the temple as equally as Exodus identifies Moses as supervising the tabernacle.



timmopussycat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trumpets were ordained with the Mosaic economy, and these were extended by David to include various other mechanical sounding instruments. Both the Mosaic rite and its Davidic extension are physically abolished under New Testament worship. As Hebrews 12:18, 19 says, we have not come to the sound of a trumpet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trumpet sound referred to is specifically identified in the text as the supernatural trumpet blast sounded at the institution of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai. Nothing about the regular order of worship within the Mosaic covenant covenant is mentioned. And you have yet to prove that the Davidic innovations were incorporated into that covenant.
Click to expand...


The judgment-trumpet at Sinai was later incorporated into the sacrificial ritual, and both were subsequently embellished by the Davidic provisions, as Chronicles makes clear.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> So what is wrong with judging the compositions of men by their doctrinal faithfulness to Scripture? If faithful use them, if not discard sooner than ASAP!



The "what is wrong" argument is opposed to the regulative principle of worship. Even if it can be proven to be "not-wrong", it is forbidden if not commanded.

But the Scripture is expressly against it. "Let the prophets speak two or three, *and let the other judge*. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, *let the first hold his peace*."

Let's deal honestly with the Scripture. It speaks expressly to the question of receiving individual compositions into the service. The compositions are to be delivered by the individuals themselves, and the rest of the congregation are to sit silently and judge what is spoken. Clearly, then, praying and preaching do not serve as a scriptural parallel for congregational singing.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Missed this the first time around. You really don't want to deploy this argument and not only because it places God in a formal contradiction with himself if your understanding of the RPW is correct.



As noted in a previous post -- Deut. 12:32 does not rule out progressive revelation, but only forbids *human* additions and detractions.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the point.
> However subsequent editors handled and collected the psalms to form a book, they were not inspired; it was the authors who were. The editors were not inspired: rather they recognized that the authors were inspired much as the church later recognized that the authors of the NT were inspired. The individual authors composed the psalms individually over a period of about 800 years and the individual settings in which they are composed must be taken seriously. I might also add the fact that they are poetry must also be taken equally seriously. Psalm 150:1a commands Praise, 1b and 1c establish once and for all that praise to the Lord was to take place inside and outside the sanctuary, and the rest of the psalm is a poetic exhortation to use all possible instruments and voices to do so. It is not a Directory along the lines of that produced by the Westminster Divines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider form criticism dead and buried. If you want to revive it that is your preropgative, but it has no usefulness for understanding the book as we have received it from God. It is called the book of Psalms. In Hebrew it is Tehillim -- praises. Whatever might be said about the book being poetry, it is intended to be sung. The exchange between singular and plural indicates it is intended to be sung in a corporate setting. The inscription "to the chief musician" and various cultic allusions identify this corporate setting as that of the temple. The interpreter ignores these clear markers at their own peril.
Click to expand...


I consider ingoring contexts sub-reformed and ignoring evidence non-reformed. If you want to revive obscurantism, that is your prerogative, but it is not useful for understanding Scripture, nor helpful in convincing others of your view. I point out that you are systematically ignoring the plain testimony of inspired individual psalms that
1) some were written before David set up worship at Jerusalem and thus, on your view of what God required, create a a formal contradiction with his stated requirements. Such contradictions create confusion of which he is not the author.
and
2) they may be sung by individuals with instrumental accompanyment outside the tabernacle/temple setting. 



timmopussycat said:


> But if your interpretation of the RPW is right. God, by allowing uncommanded sung praise, whether inspired or not, has, contradicted his previous commandment without amending the covenant in which it was contained in order to righteously institute the change. Such a contradiction makes havoc of the Biblical claim that God is not the author of confusion but of peace.





armourbearer said:


> This is simply insupportable. Deut. 12:32, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Addition and detraction is not only forbidden so far as the things commanded are concerned (the RPW), but it applies equally to the commands themselves (the revelation). Yet we know very well that God gave further revelation (Heb. 1:1), and made full provision for it. Your argument denies God the right to give this further revelation of Himself and His will to His Church, contrary to Scripture's own testimony; therefore your argument is false.
> 
> The RPW only protects against _human_ innovations in God's worship; it makes full scope for God to add and diminish from His own commandments.



Your allegation that I deny God the right to give further revelation is simply an isupportable misreading of my argument since I specifically allowed for that possibility. Remember I wrote:



timmopussycat said:


> I agree that God has the right to do whatever He wants to do at any time unless He himself forecloses such a right for purposes as seem good to him.
> 
> But if your interpretation of the RPW is right God, by allowing uncommanded sung praise, whether inspired or not, without amending the covenant in which it was contained in order to righteously institute the change, an action which formally contradicts his previous commandment [as you see it (clarification inserted in case you thought I meant the commandment itself not your view of his commandment)]. Such contradictions create confusion not peace. So you may either maintain your version of the RPW or abandon the biblical postulate that God is not the author of confusion.



God can make a change in any covenant at any time. But, since he is a God of confusion and not of peace, to be faithful to his nature, he must make such changes in a way that avoids creating confusion between what is covenantally required and what is not. To avoid this kind of confusion, all he has to do to do so is formally change the covenant, which in those days meant replacing the covenant by the amended version, as the Abrahamic covenant was replaced by the Mosaic. Lacking such formal amendment, any commands given within an unamended covenantal context, as David's worship mandates were, must be recognized as occasional, but cannot be proved by GNC to be covenantal. 



armourbearer said:


> You have failed to deal with the fact that Moses made provision for a place for God's Name, but David identified the place with Jerusalem. One would have to be ignorant of basic biblical theology to suppose that the Davidic economy was not a development of the Mosaic institutions which reflected the fulfilment of land provision and theocratic government.



When Moses inaugurated the Sinai covenant, he mentions that a place for the Lord was required, but he leaves it up to the Lord to choose the place once Israel was in the land. Therefore, a particular place for the Lord was a covenatal requirement, but the particlar location chosen was not. Which is why David could move the location from Shiloh to Jerusalem, without God formally amending of the covenant.



armourbearer said:


> One should at least study the Levitical orders and the transformation of their functions under the new temple setting. *All* of what was commanded under David was a development of the Mosaic arrangements. Chronicles specifies David as the supervisor of the temple as equally as Exodus identifies Moses as supervising the tabernacle.



Living and working in a psalms only church environment as you do, you may not know that those passages describing the Davidic developments in the Jerusalem tabernacle are very important to the theology behind the biblical use of instruments that underlies the worship of a substantial minority of instrument using churches. As a practicing musician serving within those churches for most of the past thirty years, I have studied the transformation of those functions under David in considerable detail. I have yet to see any statement or any GNC consequence of such statements in those materials that invalidates the case I have been making. The fact that Scripture reveals that God gave to David the plan for the temple, just as he gave Moses the plan for the tabernacle does not prove your point. Remember that the Sinai covenant is God's obligtions to Israel and Israel's obligations to God. Although the tablernacle design was made under Sinai, keeping the sanctuary as Moses designed it was not made a condition of the covenant (its design was not a law spoken to Israel), consequently it could be replaced by the temple without violating the covenant. 

There is a critical difference, however, between the tabernacle/temple and accompanied sung praise. Their rationales are different. With the sacrifices fulflled in Christ's one complete sacrifice for sins forever, there is no more need of a temple and it necessarily goes out of the new covenant. With praise the need continues for praise continues (God is still deserving of praise, the requirement remains and in fact is explictly carried over into the NT). Although the required location "a place for his name" is abolished, no requirements that necessarily abolish accompanied sung praise have been mandated.



armourbearer said:


> Trumpets were ordained with the Mosaic economy, and these were extended by David to include various other mechanical sounding instruments. Both the Mosaic rite and its Davidic extension are physically abolished under New Testament worship. As Hebrews 12:18, 19 says, we have not come to the sound of a trumpet.





timmopussycat said:


> The trumpet sound referred to is specifically identified in the text as the supernatural trumpet blast sounded at the institution of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai. Nothing about the regular order of worship within the Mosaic covenant covenant is mentioned. And you have yet to prove that the Davidic innovations were incorporated into that covenant.





armourbearer said:


> The judgment-trumpet at Sinai was later incorporated into the sacrificial ritual, and both were subsequently embellished by the Davidic provisions, as Chronicles makes clear.



You are confusing apples and oranges without providing evidence for identification. You provide no Scripture or GNC statement from it to support your view that the summoning at Sinai to intiate the covenant which produced terror (Ex. 19:16) was the same as the joyful sounding of trumpets in praise to God (Nu. 10:10, 2 Chron. 5:13) instituted to accompany the sacrifices reconciling men and God within it. The resultant emotional states argue for a difference. Please provide Scripture or a GN consequence of Scripture that proves your point.

And I notice that you have not addressed my demonstration that the abolition of worship practices is not a good and necessary consequence of Christ's statement to the Samaritan woman. Lacking a refutation of this point, your case fails.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I point out that you are systematically ignoring the plain testimony of inspired individual psalms that
> 1) some were written before David set up worship at Jerusalem and thus, on your view of what God required, create a a formal contradiction with his stated requirements. Such contradictions create confusion of which he is not the author.
> and
> 2) they may be sung by individuals with instrumental accompanyment outside the tabernacle/temple setting.



No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. The psalms are the product of the Sprit of God moving the prophet David as a public man not as a private muse. He represented the royal line to be consummated in Christ. 2 Sam 23:1, 2, "the sweet Psalmist of Israel said, The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." If it were any other way it could not be said that the Psalms testify of Christ.

Every directive for using musical instruments in the Psalms is in the context of Israel's worship. Ps. 33:2, "Praise the Lord with harp." Verse 12, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." Verse 22, "Let thy mercy, O Lord, by upon us, according as we hope in thee." Ps. 108:2, "Awake, psaltery and harp: I myself will awake early." Verse 3, "I will praise thee, O Lord, among the people." See Heb. 2:12 for the testimony that this is fulfilled in Christ singing in the midst of the church. Ps. 144:9, "I will sing a new song unto thee, O God: upon a psaltery and an instrument of ten strings will I sing praises unto thee." Verses 12-15, "That our sons ... that our daughters ... that our garners ... that our sheep ... that our oxen..." Verse 15, "Happy is that people, that is in such a case; yea, happy is that people, whose God is the Lord."



timmopussycat said:


> Your allegation that I deny God the right to give further revelation is simply an isupportable misreading of my argument since I specifically allowed for that possibility. Remember I wrote:



The RPW allows for progressive revelation. If you acknowledge this point then you have no basis for maintaining that the RPW is nullified by the fact that God Himself may add to His own word.



timmopussycat said:


> When Moses inaugurated the Sinai covenant, he mentions that a place for the Lord was required, but he leaves it up to the Lord to choose the place once Israel was in the land. Therefore, a particular place for the Lord was a covenatal requirement, but the particlar location chosen was not. Which is why David could move the location from Shiloh to Jerusalem, without God formally amending of the covenant.



All well and good. The fact remains that "Jerusalem worship" as instituted through David was a development of the tabernacle worship as instituted through Moses. Nothing substantially new was appointed by David, but all arrangements were permanent extensions of the Mosaic ritual which reflected the settlement in the land under God's king. Hence when we speak of the abrogation of the ceremonial law we mean not only the Mosaic institutions but also include their Davidic embellishments.



timmopussycat said:


> The fact that Scripture reveals that God gave to David the plan for the temple, just as he gave Moses the plan for the tabernacle does not prove your point. Remember that the Sinai covenant is God's obligtions to Israel and Israel's obligations to God. Although the tablernacle design was made under Sinai, keeping the sanctuary as Moses designed it was not made a condition of the covenant (its design was not a law spoken to Israel), consequently it could be replaced by the temple without violating the covenant.



Gal. 4:25, "For this Agar is *mount Sinai* in Arabia, and answereth to *Jerusalem* which now is, and is in bondage with her children." Jerusalem worship reflected a permanent manifestation of the presence of God on Mt. Sinai; Ps. 68:16, 17, "this is the hill which God desireth to dwell in; yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever... the Lord is among them, *as in Sinai*, in the holy place."



timmopussycat said:


> You provide no Scripture or GNC statement from it to support your view that the summoning at Sinai to intiate the covenant which produced terror (Ex. 19:16) was the same as the joyful sounding of trumpets in praise to God (Nu. 10:10, 2 Chron. 5:13) instituted to accompany the sacrifices reconciling men and God within it.



Exod 26:30, "And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was shewed thee in the mount." The tabernacle functioned as a perpetuation of Israel's gathering to God at Sinai. As the people were hindered from touching the mount, so they were curtained off from the tabernacle. The mount itself is represented by the holy place, and the top of the mount where Moses communed with God in the midst of the cloud is indicated by the holy of holies. The devouring fire of God's presence is instituted in the fire of the altar which consumes the sacrifices to make a sweet savour to the Lord. The trumpet was specifically to be blown during the burnt offering as "a memorial before your God," Numb. 10:10. All Old Testament memorials serve to commemorate the great deeds of God in visiting the children of Israel. The blowing of the trumpet at the burnt offering memorialised that terrifying trumpet which accompanied the devouring fire of God upon Mt. Sinai.



timmopussycat said:


> And I notice that you have not addressed my demonstration that the abolition of worship practices is not a good and necessary consequence of Christ's statement to the Samaritan woman. Lacking a refutation of this point, your case fails.



John 4:21, "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, *nor yet at Jerusalem*, worship the Father." By this statement he contrasts allegiance to the Father of all nations with that allegiance which Jews and Samartians gave to their "fathers." Verse 24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." In contrast to Jerusalem-worship, New Testament worship will reflect God's true nature as a Spirit. This marks a new and spiritual kind of service from that which was offered under the Old Testament.

Further, it is clear from Haggai's shaking prophecy and its Hebrews 12 appropriation to New Testament administration that everything that is "made" has been removed.

God will no longer be worshipped with the elements of the world. The only material emblems employed in His worship are those which He has instituted to serve as sacraments.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I point out that you are systematically ignoring the plain testimony of inspired individual psalms that
> 1) some were written before David set up worship at Jerusalem and thus, on your view of what God required, create a a formal contradiction with his stated requirements. Such contradictions create confusion of which he is not the author.
> and
> 2) they may be sung by individuals with instrumental accompanyment outside the tabernacle/temple setting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
Click to expand...


I have never asserted that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. The reality of the matter we face is that there are at least two traditions of interpretation within the protestant churches on this point and cases made from the bible have been put forward from each. That those cases need to be and should be tested I agree.



armourbearer said:


> The psalms are the product of the Sprit of God moving the prophet David as a public man not as a private muse. He represented the royal line to be consummated in Christ. 2 Sam 23:1, 2, "the sweet Psalmist of Israel said, The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." If it were any other way it could not be said that the Psalms testify of Christ.



Now it is true that the Spirit of the Lord spoke, and not only by David, in the Psalms, but that fact does not make the case.



armourbearer said:


> Every directive for using musical instruments in the Psalms is in the context of Israel's worship.



Flat wrong, as I show below after your examples.



armourbearer said:


> Ps. 33:2, "Praise the Lord with harp." Verse 12, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." Verse 22, "Let thy mercy, O Lord, by upon us, according as we hope in thee." Ps. 108:2, "Awake, psaltery and harp: I myself will awake early." Verse 3, "I will praise thee, O Lord, among the people." See Heb. 2:12 for the testimony that this is fulfilled in Christ singing in the midst of the church. Ps. 144:9, "I will sing a new song unto thee, O God: upon a psaltery and an instrument of ten strings will I sing praises unto thee." Verses 12-15, "That our sons ... that our daughters ... that our garners ... that our sheep ... that our oxen..." Verse 15, "Happy is that people, that is in such a case; yea, happy is that people, whose God is the Lord."



In the list I gave you, to which your post is a reply, I included certain psalms which you don't mention above. One of them was Ps. 98: 4:5. Ps 98 exhorts "all the earth" (i.e., the nations) not the sanctuary to "Sing praise to God with the lyre and the sound of melody". 
This example commands all other earthy nations to sing praise to God with instruments and it does not require them to do so in the sancturary. This psalm is not provably in the context of sanctuary worship.



timmopussycat said:


> Your allegation that I deny God the right to give further revelation is simply an isupportable misreading of my argument since I specifically allowed for that possibility. Remember I wrote:





armourbearer said:


> The RPW allows for progressive revelation. If you acknowledge this point then you have no basis for maintaining that the RPW is nullified by the fact that God Himself may add to His own word.



Although I understand and allow for progressive revelation, I can most certainly object when your understanding of the Bible's teaching on worship necessarily makes God out to behave in a way that is inconsistent with his own nature and creates confusion, contrary to his own statements about himself. If, as a condition of the Sinai covenant, God had commanded the Israelites only to worship in ways that were explicitly permitted, he created confusion when then allowed non-explicitly permitted accompanied sung praise to take place without judging it. Since God did not amend the covenant and allowed unaccompanied sung praise without judging it and indeed commanded ASP later through David, your interpretation of the Bible's teaching of the RPW simply must be flawed. 

May I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I know you are not sympathetic to the argument presented, but you keep missing the distinction I draw in the paragraph above. God is free to add commandments to his people at any time but his own nature prohibits him from doing so in a way that creates confusion since such action creates a contradiction with his own nature.



armourbearer said:


> All well and good. The fact remains that "Jerusalem worship" as instituted through David was a development of the tabernacle worship as instituted through Moses. Nothing substantially new was appointed by David, but all arrangements were permanent extensions of the Mosaic ritual which reflected the settlement in the land under God's king. Hence when we speak of the abrogation of the ceremonial law we mean not only the Mosaic institutions but also include their Davidic embellishments.



That what David institued was a development arising from the tabernacle I assert as much as you do. What I deny was that those changes must have been necessarily incorporated into that covenant since no such amendment (covenant initiation) is recorded in Scripture between Moses and Christ. When God institutes a covenatal development, he initiates subsequent covenants. Note how the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant, both amending the Noahic covenant were initiated.



armourbearer said:


> Gal. 4:25, "For this Agar is *mount Sinai* in Arabia, and answereth to *Jerusalem* which now is, and is in bondage with her children." Jerusalem worship reflected a permanent manifestation of the presence of God on Mt. Sinai; Ps. 68:16, 17, "this is the hill which God desireth to dwell in; yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever... the Lord is among them, *as in Sinai*, in the holy place."





timmopussycat said:


> You provide no Scripture or GNC statement from it to support your view that the summoning at Sinai to intiate the covenant which produced terror (Ex. 19:16) was the same as the joyful sounding of trumpets in praise to God (Nu. 10:10, 2 Chron. 5:13) instituted to accompany the sacrifices reconciling men and God within it.





armourbearer said:


> Exod 26:30, "And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion thereof which was shewed thee in the mount." The tabernacle functioned as a perpetuation of Israel's gathering to God at Sinai. As the people were hindered from touching the mount, so they were curtained off from the tabernacle. The mount itself is represented by the holy place, and the top of the mount where Moses communed with God in the midst of the cloud is indicated by the holy of holies. The devouring fire of God's presence is instituted in the fire of the altar which consumes the sacrifices to make a sweet savour to the Lord. The trumpet was specifically to be blown during the burnt offering as "a memorial before your God," Numb. 10:10. All Old Testament memorials serve to commemorate the great deeds of God in visiting the children of Israel.



Thank you for finally attempting to respond with a case from the Scripture. But the observations made do not lead by necessary consequence to your conclusion. For parallels may arise from other causes. That the locations were holy, that the people were cordoned off from both Sinai and the tabernacle may be nothing more than parallel instances of teaching God's holiness, and there is no Scriptural statement specifically paralleling the top of the mount with the Holy of Holies. In fact the different behaviours of Moses on Sinai and the High Priest in the tabernacle clearly argue for a difference. Moses never offered a guilt offering for the people on top of Sinai. The devouring fire of God's presence cannot be instituted by the fire of the altar without a violation of the third commandment in the mind of those who so believe, and as I said earlier, Scripture explicity differentiates between the emotional reactions produced by the two differing trumpets because of their different contexts. Finally to say that fulfilling a covenant obligation perpetuates the intiation of that covenant simply won't do. Not only is this confusion between intiation of a covenant and ongoing activity under it the type of theologizing that brought transubstatiation into the Roman Church, it is clearly false to fact in this particular case. If you are married, I sincerely hope you don't think your wedding ceremony is still ongoing because you take out the garbage as an expression your obligation under that covenant to love your wife.



armourbearer said:


> The blowing of the trumpet at the burnt offering memorialised that terrifying trumpet which accompanied the devouring fire of God upon Mt. Sinai.





timmopussycat said:


> And I notice that you have not addressed my demonstration that the abolition of worship practices is not a good and necessary consequence of Christ's statement to the Samaritan woman. Lacking a refutation of this point, your case fails.





armourbearer said:


> John 4:21, "Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, *nor yet at Jerusalem*, worship the Father." By this statement he contrasts allegiance to the Father of all nations with that allegiance which Jews and Samartians gave to their "fathers." Verse 24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." In contrast to Jerusalem-worship, New Testament worship will reflect God's true nature as a Spirit. This marks a new and spiritual kind of service from that which was offered under the Old Testament.



Sorry, not good enough. The Samaritan woman has been talking solely about place at a superficial level in an attempt to divert Jesus' putting his finger on her private life. She has not at all mentioned devotion to ancestral tradition in contrast to a true worship of God, and when Jesus replies nothing more may be shown by his words than he abolishes the notion that there was now in the New Covenant, one special place of worship. There is no evidence in the context that anything more than that was intended. Since we know that devout Jews under the Old Covenant could worship God in both truth and spirit (Simeon and Anna are two examples that come to mind), the only good and necessary consequence of Christ's words is that the New Covenant in contrast to the old, lacks an earthly holy place.



armourbearer said:


> Further, it is clear from Haggai's shaking prophecy and its Hebrews 12 appropriation to New Testament administration that everything that is "made" has been removed.
> 
> God will no longer be worshipped with the elements of the world. The only material emblems employed in His worship are those which He has instituted to serve as sacraments.



Since the worship practices of David were not constituted part of that covenant that vanished, they are not automatically shaken when the old covenant is taken away. They are occasional commands of God remaining valid because the rationale establishing them still applies in this age.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Now it is true that the Spirit of the Lord spoke, and not only by David, in the Psalms, but that fact does not make the case.



I never claimed that it did; it was a counter-argument to your atomisation of a book of holy Scripture and suggestion that individual Psalms were written by David without the national worship in mind.



timmopussycat said:


> In the list I gave you, to which your post is a reply, I included certain psalms which you don't mention above. One of them was Ps. 98: 4:5. Ps 98 exhorts "all the earth" (i.e., the nations) not the sanctuary to "Sing praise to God with the lyre and the sound of melody".
> This example commands all other earthy nations to sing praise to God with instruments and it does not require them to do so in the sancturary. This psalm is not provably in the context of sanctuary worship.



At least you concede that your other examples provide no warrant for what you are seeking to justify from the Psalms. As for Ps. 98, it belongs to a general pattern which alternates between "enthronement" and "new song" psalms. If one notes its canonical positioning between 97 and 99, it will be clear that it formed part of a series of Psalms which called on "Zion" to be glad in her king as the king of all the earth who manifests His saving power on behalf of His people.

If the nature of prophecy is properly accounted for, there is no basis for understanding the reference to musical instruments as foretelling their use in the New Testament. It is well known that the New Testament times of reformation were foretold according to the forms and institutions which were in use under the Old Testament. Thus Isa 66:23, "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD." No one supposes that the new moon feast would be observed by all nations for ever. This is simply an accommodation of the prophetic word to the understanding of the people to whom it was initially delivered.



timmopussycat said:


> Although I understand and allow for progressive revelation, I can most certainly object when your understanding of the Bible's teaching on worship necessarily makes God out to behave in a way that is inconsistent with his own nature and creates confusion, contrary to his own statements about himself.



Of course you *can* object, but you certainly have no basis for doing so. The fact is that God inspired these songs. It can hardly be called a confusing state of affairs when God inspires His servants with new revelation when He had already made provision for it. The people were to constantly look for that prophet like unto Moses, and to diligently prove the prophetic word from age to age.



timmopussycat said:


> That what David institued was a development arising from the tabernacle I assert as much as you do. What I deny was that those changes must have been necessarily incorporated into that covenant since no such amendment (covenant initiation) is recorded in Scripture between Moses and Christ. When God institutes a covenatal development, he initiates subsequent covenants. Note how the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant, both amending the Noahic covenant were initiated.



The Davidic covenant necessitated the development. And if one has ears to hear he will hear the Spirit testifying to this covenant throughout the Psalms.



timmopussycat said:


> But the observations made do not lead by necessary consequence to your conclusion. For parallels may arise from other causes. That the locations were holy, that the people were cordoned off from both Sinai and the tabernacle may be nothing more than parallel instances of teaching God's holiness, and there is no Scriptural statement specifically paralleling the top of the mount with the Holy of Holies.



It is not merely a parallel, but an identification which the Holy Spirit specifically makes in Ps. 68 and Gal. 4. One's biblical theology cannot afford to ignore the express teaching of the Holy Spirit.



timmopussycat said:


> and when Jesus replies nothing more may be shown by his words than he abolishes the notion that there was now in the New Covenant, one special place of worship. There is no evidence in the context that anything more than that was intended.



The ceremonies were tied to Jerusalem as the centre of Israel's worship, as even a cursory reading of the Psalms will reveal. If the centre is removed then the ceremonies must fall with it.



armourbearer said:


> Since the worship practices of David were not constituted part of that covenant that vanished, they are not automatically shaken when the old covenant is taken away. They are occasional commands of God remaining valid because the rationale establishing them still applies in this age.



Haggai wrote after the exile, and spoke concerning the glory of the second temple exceeding the glory of the first temple. His words specifically relate to the ordinances instituted by David. The apostle says things which are *made* shall be removed by this universal shaking. This means that *all* carnal ordinances of the OT have been abrogated. Hence the Hebrews ought not to turn away from God who speaks to them from heaven, which would be the result if they rejected the Christian synoagogue in favour of the temple worship.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now it is true that the Spirit of the Lord spoke, and not only by David, in the Psalms, but that fact does not make the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that it did; it was a counter-argument to your atomisation of a book of holy Scripture and suggestion that individual Psalms were written by David without the national worship in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether you like the fact or not, it is a fact that certain psalms were written by David and others before the national worship was set up. It is therefore speculation to assert that all of them were intended for national worship.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the list I gave you, to which your post is a reply, I included certain psalms which you don't mention above. One of them was Ps. 98: 4:5. Ps 98 exhorts "all the earth" (i.e., the nations) not the sanctuary to "Sing praise to God with the lyre and the sound of melody".
> This example commands all other earthy nations to sing praise to God with instruments and it does not require them to do so in the sancturary. This psalm is not provably in the context of sanctuary worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [At least you concede that your other examples provide no warrant for what you are seeking to justify from the Psalms. As for Ps. 98, it belongs to a general pattern which alternates between "enthronement" and "new song" psalms. If one notes its canonical positioning between 97 and 99, it will be clear that it formed part of a series of Psalms which called on "Zion" to be glad in her king as the king of all the earth who manifests His saving power on behalf of His people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since we know from the book of Jeremiah that the subsequent editors sometimes distorted the order in which prophecies were given, we may not be certain that the order in which the psalms are presented is either original or in consequence, significant. Your dismisal of Ps 98, therefore, does not follow by necessary consequence and since one true counter example is enough to rule your argument out of court, your point fails.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the nature of prophecy is properly accounted for, there is no basis for understanding the reference to musical instruments as foretelling their use in the New Testament. It is well known that the New Testament times of reformation were foretold according to the forms and institutions which were in use under the Old Testament. Thus Isa 66:23, "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD." No one supposes that the new moon feast would be observed by all nations for ever. This is simply an accommodation of the prophetic word to the understanding of the people to whom it was initially delivered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two points: Ps 98 is not prophecy but exhortation. It simply instructs the nations to worship with accompanied songs without telling them to limit the location they do so to Jerusalem.
> 
> Second, the entire reason we know that the Isaiah passage is accomodation is that the NT is clear that all the sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ's one sufficient sacrifice. The point of this entire thread is whether or not there is no explicit teaching in the NT that necessitates regarding Ps. 98 as accomodation.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you *can* object, but you certainly have no basis for doing so. The fact is that God inspired these songs. It can hardly be called a confusing state of affairs when God inspires His servants with new revelation when He had already made provision for it. The people were to constantly look for that prophet like unto Moses, and to diligently prove the prophetic word from age to age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I most certainly have a basis for objecting. Your view has God acting contrary to his nature, something Scripture tells us he cannot do. I wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is free to add commandments to his people at any time but his own nature prohibits him from doing so in a way that creates confusion since such action creates a contradiction with his own nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for as Paul writes, "he cannot deny himself".
> 
> Commanded forms of worship are not prophecy. Yes, the OT saints were to expect prophecy, but:
> premise 1) if your view of the RPW is correct, they were also commanded not to worship in ways which God had not explicitly commanded in the covenant. premise 2) If God now makes changes to the worship practices outlined in his covenant without amending the covenant he is creating confusion and denying himself.
> premise 3) But when David makes changes to worship practice, he is not put to death,
> Conclusion) therefore the Jews understood God's instruction differently than you do.
> 
> Break the syllogism or abandon the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Davidic covenant necessitated the development. And if one has ears to hear he will hear the Spirit testifying to this covenant throughout the Psalms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't argue that the promises of Messiah did not warrant the addition of sung praise and accompaniment therof to Israel's worship. They do. And since its anticpation was celebrated with ASP, how much more does the achievement of that sacrifice warrant the same would be the counter in logic alone absent clear Scriptural testimony to the contrary?
> 
> I simply point out that the changes were not an addition to the Sinai covenant. Rather the institution of unaccompanied sung praise was tied to the institution of sung praise itself. And sung praise in the NT era is not solely synogogal and not sacrificial in character. For unless you want to argue that the that the apostolic church did not sing pslams at a communion service, the church continued to sing praise at the remeberance of one sacrifice - that of Christ's death. If accompanied sung praise was fitting at the sacrifies, logically it is also fitting at the rememberance of Christ's death, absent Scriptural testimony to the contrary. When Paul tells us to sing psalms in Ephesians, we must therefore assume he is leaving open the whole range of Israel's worship practice since he does not qualify his statement. In Colossians he specifically does bring them in as a teaching tool, but he does not exclude sung praise or accompanied sung praise from the communion service.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not merely a parallel, but an identification which the Holy Spirit specifically makes in Ps. 68 and Gal. 4. One's biblical theology cannot afford to ignore the express teaching of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One has to prove one's theology biblical as opposed to what one thinks is biblical. This you fail to do. For you do not refute my demonstration that the parallels between Sinai and the tabernacle are simply not close enough to make your point. Nor do challenge my demonstratio that initiation of a covenant is not the same as obligations under it.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> and when Jesus replies nothing more may be shown by his words than he abolishes the notion that there was now in the New Covenant, one special place of worship. There is no evidence in the context that anything more than that was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ceremonies were tied to Jerusalem as the centre of Israel's worship, as even a cursory reading of the Psalms will reveal. If the centre is removed then the ceremonies must fall with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have here paralleled an interesting statement by Westminster Divinie Anthony Burgess who argued that since the Jewish state had failed, the Mosaic civil law code, as a system, also expired with it. But neither Burgess nor the Assembly went so far as to argue that every Mosaic civil stipulation was now inapplicable: general equity meant that some stipulations remained valid in the NT era.
> 
> Now I proclaim that animal sacrifices and temple cease in the NT with the end of the Old Covenant. But I deny that sung praise and accompanied sung praise also fall with it. For neither sung praise nor ASP were Old Covenant commandments and I observe that sung praise is commanded in the NT, that there remains one sacrificial context remaining praiseworthy in the NT, and ASP cannot be shown to be separated from sung praise anywhere in the NT.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the worship practices of David were not constituted part of that covenant that vanished, they are not automatically shaken when the old covenant is taken away. They are occasional commands of God remaining valid because the rationale establishing them still applies in this age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haggai wrote after the exile, and spoke concerning the glory of the second temple exceeding the glory of the first temple. His words specifically relate to the ordinances instituted by David. The apostle says things which are *made* shall be removed by this universal shaking. This means that *all* carnal ordinances of the OT have been abrogated. Hence the Hebrews ought not to turn away from God who speaks to them from heaven, which would be the result if they rejected the Christian synoagogue in favour of the temple worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rejection of temple worship in the NT did not extend to the praise ordinances as is reveled by the command to sing psalms. In addition, you are continuing to presume that which you have yet to prove i.e., that the praise ordinances were Mosaic. Lacking such proof, your argument fails.
> 
> Christ's dialogue with the Samaritan woman lays down two of the three conditions for NT worship: it must be in spririt and in truth. Paul gives us the third, our worship must not be confusing (either to ourselves or to outsiders). Other than that, all is legitimately variable. I am not insisting that those who want to restrict their worship to sung psalms are necessarily committing sin. If churches want to do so among themselves, that is a matter about which we are not to argue. I merely deny that you have a biblical case for demanding that all Christ's church conform to your practice.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Whether you like the fact or not, it is a fact that certain psalms were written by David and others before the national worship was set up. It is therefore speculation to assert that all of them were intended for national worship.



More form critical conjecture. As noted, the canon calls David the Psalmist of Israel. There is no canonical basis for making him a private muse. The New Testament receives the psalms as a "book," not as a disparate collection of poetry. I fail to see how any person who treats the book of Psalms contrary to its canonical nature can have anything worthwhile to contribute to its study.



timmopussycat said:


> Since we know from the book of Jeremiah that the subsequent editors sometimes distorted the order in which prophecies were given, we may not be certain that the order in which the psalms are presented is either original or in consequence, significant. Your dismisal of Ps 98, therefore, does not follow by necessary consequence and since one true counter example is enough to rule your argument out of court, your point fails.



Now we are introduced to the speculations of the higher criticism.

If one reads the Psalms in Hebrew, he will discover that there is no "Psalm 98" to be found. Your atomisation of this section of the book is dependent entirely on the printer's convention of including chapter and verse divisions for ease of reference.



timmopussycat said:


> Two points: Ps 98 is not prophecy but exhortation. It simply instructs the nations to worship with accompanied songs without telling them to limit the location they do so to Jerusalem.
> 
> Second, the entire reason we know that the Isaiah passage is accomodation is that the NT is clear that all the sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ's one sufficient sacrifice. The point of this entire thread is whether or not there is no explicit teaching in the NT that necessitates regarding Ps. 98 as accomodation.



First, of course it is a prophecy. The whole book of psalms is prophetic. One need only read the Acts of the Apostles to see this fact.

Secondly, as this thread has adequately demonstrated, musical accompaniment was tied to the sacrifices. You have valiantly tried to find individual psalms to negate that fact, but every attempt has led to failure. Nor will Ps. 98 be of any assistance once it is understood in canonical context.



timmopussycat said:


> I most certainly have a basis for objecting. Your view has God acting contrary to his nature, something Scripture tells us he cannot do.



You failed to qualify that God inspiring men to compose songs of praise is contrary to His nature _as perceived by you_. Personally I think piety dictates that we receive God's revelation for what it is and not limit God to human standards.



timmopussycat said:


> Commanded forms of worship are not prophecy. Yes, the OT saints were to expect prophecy, but:
> premise 1) if your view of the RPW is correct, they were also commanded not to worship in ways which God had not explicitly commanded in the covenant. premise 2) If God now makes changes to the worship practices outlined in his covenant without amending the covenant he is creating confusion and denying himself.
> premise 3) But when David makes changes to worship practice, he is not put to death,
> Conclusion) therefore the Jews understood God's instruction differently than you do.



1. They were commanded not to add to God's worship. This does not mean that God cannot add to His worship.
2. The covenant witness was delivered to the people in the form of a "song," Deut. 31:30, so the element of song can hardly be called an addition to the covenant.
3. David's changes are the commandment of God, 2 Chron. 29:25.
4. My understanding is simply that which is spoken in Deut. 12:32.



timmopussycat said:


> I don't argue that the promises of Messiah did not warrant the addition of sung praise and accompaniment therof to Israel's worship. They do. And since its anticpation was celebrated with ASP, how much more does the achievement of that sacrifice warrant the same would be the counter in logic alone absent clear Scriptural testimony to the contrary?



The book of Hebrews doesn't see fulfilment in this way. The "how much more" argument is utilised to show why we should abandon the temple and cleave to Jesus as the apostle and high priest of our profession.



timmopussycat said:


> I simply point out that the changes were not an addition to the Sinai covenant. Rather the institution of unaccompanied sung praise was tied to the institution of sung praise itself. And sung praise in the NT era is not solely synogogal and not sacrificial in character. For unless you want to argue that the that the apostolic church did not sing pslams at a communion service, the church continued to sing praise at the remeberance of one sacrifice - that of Christ's death. If accompanied sung praise was fitting at the sacrifies, logically it is also fitting at the rememberance of Christ's death, absent Scriptural testimony to the contrary. When Paul tells us to sing psalms in Ephesians, we must therefore assume he is leaving open the whole range of Israel's worship practice since he does not qualify his statement. In Colossians he specifically does bring them in as a teaching tool, but he does not exclude sung praise or accompanied sung praise from the communion service.



Both Ephesians and Colossians state that Christ has abolished the handwriting of ordinances, nailing it to the cross. The fact that we rely on New Testament institution for the warrant to sing psalms is itself indicative that the Old Testament worship is fulfilled and abolished by Christ. In the absence of New Testament command to utilise mechanical instruments we have no warrant for their introduction.



timmopussycat said:


> You have here paralleled an interesting statement by Westminster Divinie Anthony Burgess who argued that since the Jewish state had failed, the Mosaic civil law code, as a system, also expired with it. But neither Burgess nor the Assembly went so far as to argue that every Mosaic civil stipulation was now inapplicable: general equity meant that some stipulations remained valid in the NT era.



The divines only apply general equity to judicial law, not to ceremonial law. The Confession simply states the ceremonial law is abrogated without qualification. You, however, show a distinct predilection to revive Old Testament ceremonies, and that with as much zeal as any theonomist seeks the revival of the judicial law.



timmopussycat said:


> The rejection of temple worship in the NT did not extend to the praise ordinances as is reveled by the command to sing psalms. In addition, you are continuing to presume that which you have yet to prove i.e., that the praise ordinances were Mosaic. Lacking such proof, your argument fails.



But you depend on a positive New Testament institution in order to show that the ordinance of praise continues in the New Testament. And why shouldn't it? It accords with the spiritual nature of New Testament worship. No element of the world is required for its performance.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you like the fact or not, it is a fact that certain psalms were written by David and others before the national worship was set up. It is therefore speculation to assert that all of them were intended for national worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More form critical conjecture. As noted, the canon calls David the Psalmist of Israel. There is no canonical basis for making him a private muse. The New Testament receives the psalms as a "book," not as a disparate collection of poetry. I fail to see how any person who treats the book of Psalms contrary to its canonical nature can have anything worthwhile to contribute to its study.
Click to expand...


I am not making David a private muse when I say that some psalms predate his setting up regular sung worship. David was a musician for years before he was king and for part of the time he was a court musician. The duties of a court musician usually include composition. Finally David was anointed by the Holy Spirit before entering Saul's service. So it is entirely possible for him to have composed Holy Spirit inspired psalms before he entered his kingship. 

The phrase "of X" in the psalm superscriptions is usually held to refer to the author since Ps 18 is explicitly attributed to David in 1 Samuel. Ps 90 is a is identified as a prayer wriitten by Moses. Some psalms superscriptions specifically identify historical events e.g, Ps 18 was definitely written after David's deliverance from Saul and perhaps after other enemies later as its placing in 1 Sam suggests. But there is no doubt that Ps 34, referring to David feigning madness before a Philistine king, may well have been written as early as before Saul's death. The superscription lacks "For the director of music" which when appearing in front of such psalms as Ps. 52 and 54, implies that they were written after David had put such an individual in place, whether in his court in Hebron or in later Jerusalem we know not.



timmopussycat said:


> Since we know from the book of Jeremiah that the subsequent editors sometimes distorted the order in which prophecies were given, we may not be certain that the order in which the psalms are presented is either original or in consequence, significant. Your dismisal of Ps 98, therefore, does not follow by necessary consequence and since one true counter example is enough to rule your argument out of court, your point fails.





armourbearer said:


> Now we are introduced to the speculations of the higher criticism.



It is either simple ignorance of fact or an unworthy debating tactic to assert that what I said was higher criticism. It is certain, from the order in which we find the present book, that Jeremiah was not arranged chronologically by the editor who gave it its final form. Although later printers added chapters and verses, somebody between Jeremiah and the LXX took the material that is chapter 45 today and removed it from its context which was chapter 36 as is CERTAIN from the dates given in the two chapters. Between these two passages, we find material identified as originating during the reign of a subsequent king! To assert as I did, that we cannot always trust the subsequent editors of inspired text to present that text chronollogically is a necessary consequce of the fact that the editor of Jeremiah did not do so. To call this "higher criticism" is simply a denial of reality or an ill-advised attempt to tar my argument with the brush of "guilt by association."



armourbearer said:


> If one reads the Psalms in Hebrew, he will discover that there is no "Psalm 98" to be found. Your atomisation of this section of the book is dependent entirely on the printer's convention of including chapter and verse divisions for ease of reference.



Are you trying to say that if one reads a Heb. Bible one will not find the psalms separated or are you saying that if one reads the Heb mss. one will not find the psalms separated? If the former, you are wrong. And if the latter you are also wrong. The material that we know as Ps. 98 is clearly set off from Ps 97 by the superscription "A psalm" and from Ps. 99 by the change of subjects if nothing else.

While there is evidence that we cannot rely on the editorial editing of the OT as far as chronological ordering of OT materials within a book is concerned, there is no evidence that the original editor or editors of Psalms divided originally united material into separate psalms. Lacking such evidence, we can assume that the original Hebrew divisions were correct.



armourbearer said:


> First, of course it is a prophecy. The whole book of psalms is prophetic. One need only read the Acts of the Apostles to see this fact.



A Biblical book may have prophetic elements included in it, but that fact that is does so does not make it exclusively or even dominantly prophetic. We do not call Deuteronomy a prophetic book even though it has prophetic elements included. Ps. 98 is not an explicit prophecy, but present exhortation, even though from our perspective looking back, we can see that the Lord has made known his salvation in a far greater way and done additional marvelous things than the psalmist had seen as present realities, which seemingly require to be celebrated in "new song"



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, as this thread has adequately demonstrated, musical accompaniment was tied to the sacrifices. You have valiantly tried to find individual psalms to negate that fact, but every attempt has led to failure. Nor will Ps. 98 be of any assistance once it is understood in canonical context.



One exception demonstrates the proposition unprovable, and Ps 98 is that exception. You are ignoring its specific teaching in favour of putting your trust in a theological conception not provable by Scripture. Such a practice is not wise.



armourbearer said:


> You failed to qualify that God inspiring men to compose songs of praise is contrary to His nature _as perceived by you_. Personally I think piety dictates that we receive God's revelation for what it is and not limit God to human standards.



I do receive God's revelation for what it is. God says he cannot act contrary to his nature: creating confusion in his people is contrary to his nature as Paul says in Corinthians: your understanding of His teaching on worship necessarily creates confusion about what is covenantally required and what is not. Your understanding is therefore wrong. 



armourbearer said:


> 1. They were commanded not to add to God's worship. This does not mean that God cannot add to His worship.



They were covenantally commanded to worship in a certain way, and if you are correct in your view, God provided an object lesson on the point with the deaths of Nadab and Abihu. I have never denied that God could add to or change the requirements of the worship he commands. What I assert is that he must do so in a way that does not create confusion about what is or what is not covenantally permitted, or he is not being true to his nature.

Quit attacking straw men.



armourbearer said:


> 2. The covenant witness was delivered to the people in the form of a "song," Deut. 31:30, so the element of song can hardly be called an addition to the covenant.



You continue to present apples as oranges. They are not: I have provided, and you have failed to rebut, a demonstration that there is a category difference between the institution of a covenant and commanded practices within that covenant. 



armourbearer said:


> 3. David's changes are the commandment of God, 2 Chron. 29:25.


 Agreed. 



armourbearer said:


> 4. My understanding is simply that which is spoken in Deut. 12:32.



Since your first two premises are false, the conclusion does not follow.



armourbearer said:


> The book of Hebrews doesn't see fulfilment in this way. The "how much more" argument is utilised to show why we should abandon the temple and cleave to Jesus as the apostle and high priest of our profession.



I used the how much more as pure logic uncorrected by Scripture. Yes Scripture tells us that we should forsake the animal sacrifices , but it doesn't necessarily tell us to forsake accompaniement to sung praise. For although I suspect Hebrews was written after the rebels in Judea made it impossible for Christians to continue attending the temple (I seem to recall that around 67 a change was made in the early days of the rebellion that had that effect but my suspicions are not proof), the letter does not comand its readers to forsake the temple sacrifices, rather it points out the superiority of Christ's sacrifice over them. Christian Jews in Jerusalem did not stop going to the temple sacrifices until after Acts 20 definately, and If I recall correctly Christians were not forced from the temple until after Paul's death. If Hebrews was in fact written while Christians were still attending the temple, your use of Hebrews to support your point will be contradicted by the fact of contemporary Christian practice.



armourbearer said:


> Both Ephesians and Colossians state that Christ has abolished the handwriting of ordinances, nailing it to the cross. The fact that we rely on New Testament institution for the warrant to sing psalms is itself indicative that the Old Testament worship is fulfilled and abolished by Christ. In the absence of New Testament command to utilise mechanical instruments we have no warrant for their introduction.



The problem is that the institution of sung praise as a regular form of worship was linked wth instruments in at least one context; that of sacrifice. At the time Paul wrote Ephesians and Colossains, he knew that some of his Jewish readers may have been making pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the feasts. He certainly doesn't prohibit therm from doing so because instrumental accompaniment of sacrifices would be involved. And, as I have shown there is a sacrificial context in at least one Christian meeting, that of communion. Since Paul only makes the general statement in Eph. to sing psalms without excluding practices then utilized in any of the contexts in which he could reasonably expect some of his readers to sing them, his general instruction to "sing Psalms" cannot be legitimately pressed so for as to exclude accompaniment.



timmopussycat said:


> You have here paralleled an interesting statement by Westminster Divinie Anthony Burgess who argued that since the Jewish state had failed, the Mosaic civil law code, as a system, also expired with it. But neither Burgess nor the Assembly went so far as to argue that every Mosaic civil stipulation was now inapplicable: general equity meant that some stipulations remained valid in the NT era.





armourbearer said:


> The divines only apply general equity to judicial law, not to ceremonial law. The Confession simply states the ceremonial law is abrogated without qualification. You, however, show a distinct predilection to revive Old Testament ceremonies, and that with as much zeal as any theonomist seeks the revival of the judicial law.



And, unlike the Theonomist, I have shown that I have Scriptural reason for doing so. The instrumental amendments to worship were not original to the Mosaic covenant and were not incorporated within it by covenantal amendment. Consequently they cannot be regarded as covenantal but must be seen as occasional commands, which were a classification never specifically treated by the Assembly. The rationale provided for their introduction was not only that they were God's commands but also includes repeated statements that the changes were "fitting" to be done. Just as the promise of deliverance from the Sinatic covenant deserved more praise than that covenant itself, the accomplishment of that deliverance deserves fitting praise. If animal sacrifices deserve instrumental accompaniment to sung praise it is a logically necessary consequence that the rememberance of Christ's sacrifice equally deserves ASP, absent specific NT instructions to the contrary. 

Did the Assemby err by not treating occaisional commands and by not including the praise commands within that category? Arguably it did. And while I know the burden of proving that assertion on this board is on me, outside this board in the wider church context, the burden will be on unaccompanied psalms only advocates to disprove the case I have presented if they wish to be successful in convincing others that their view is biblical. If the best that any UPO advocates can do is loaded with errors of historical fact, propostions not provably necessary, category errors, guilt by association or any other form of unreason, don't be surprised if your view is not widely received. 



timmopussycat said:


> The rejection of temple worship in the NT did not extend to the praise ordinances as is revealed by the command to sing psalms. In addition, you are continuing to presume that which you have yet to prove i.e., that the praise ordinances were Mosaic. Lacking such proof, your argument fails.





armourbearer said:


> But you depend on a positive New Testament institution in order to show that the ordinance of praise continues in the New Testament. And why shouldn't it? It accords with the spiritual nature of New Testament worship. No element of the world is required for its performance.



You are dodging the question. Both of us depend on the positive institution of the NT to make sung praise a regular part of worship. I have shown that Paul's general statement instituting sung praise referred back to contexts in which both accompanied and unaccompnied praise were used and that the context in which accompanied praise was used continues although modified in the NT. Consequently it is eisegesis to read his general statemnent instituting sung praise in a way that necessarily excludes accompaniment from Christian praise.

Since I sense that the discussion is descending to reiteration of positions, I will conclude my side of it here.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I am not making David a private muse when I say that some psalms predate his setting up regular sung worship. David was a musician for years before he was king and for part of the time he was a court musician. The duties of a court musician usually include composition. Finally David was anointed by the Holy Spirit before entering Saul's service. So it is entirely possible for him to have composed Holy Spirit inspired psalms before he entered his kingship.



Exegesis is not concerned with "possibilities," but with what can be ascertained from the text of Scripture. While David possibly composed songs as a court musician, there is no evidence that the canonical Psalms were composed for private use. To the contrary, the canonical Psalms show that David wrote as a representative man, as Hengstenberg established in the 19th century.



timmopussycat said:


> The phrase "of X" in the psalm superscriptions is usually held to refer to the author since Ps 18 is explicitly attributed to David in 1 Samuel. Ps 90 is a is identified as a prayer wriitten by Moses. Some psalms superscriptions specifically identify historical events e.g, Ps 18 was definitely written after David's deliverance from Saul and perhaps after other enemies later as its placing in 1 Sam suggests. But there is no doubt that Ps 34, referring to David feigning madness before a Philistine king, may well have been written as early as before Saul's death. The superscription lacks "For the director of music" which when appearing in front of such psalms as Ps. 52 and 54, implies that they were written after David had put such an individual in place, whether in his court in Hebron or in later Jerusalem we know not.



Ps. 90 does not say the prayer was _written by_ Moses, but only presents itself as a prayer of Moses.

These expreriences of David were Messianic; he suffered as the anointed of God; and Psalms 34, 52, and 54 are orientated towards corporate appropriation. 34:3, "O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together." Verse 8, 9, "O taste and see that the Lord is good ... O fear the Lord, ye his saints." Verse 11, "Come, ye children." 52:title, "To the chief musician." Verse 9, "for it is good before thy saints." 54:title, "to the chief musician." There is no reason for supposing any psalm was composed for private use.



timmopussycat said:


> To call this "higher criticism" is simply a denial of reality or an ill-advised attempt to tar my argument with the brush of "guilt by association."



The reconstruction of the text is by definition a higher critical enterprise. Your fanciful suggestion depends on the presupposition that Jeremiah intended to write chronologically; but the suggestion of conservative scholars that the prophecies might be grouped by "theme" is perfectly acceptable. At any rate, even if you could prove transposition in the case of Jeremiah, there is no evidence for foisting this on the book of Psalms.



timmopussycat said:


> Are you trying to say that if one reads a Heb. Bible one will not find the psalms separated or are you saying that if one reads the Heb mss. one will not find the psalms separated? If the former, you are wrong. And if the latter you are also wrong. The material that we know as Ps. 98 is clearly set off from Ps 97 by the superscription "A psalm" and from Ps. 99 by the change of subjects if nothing else.



Marvin Tate has nothing to gain from this debate, but he comments (Word series), "in brief, Pss. 96-99 can be treated as a literary unity, divided into two psalm-pairs." The superscription at Ps. 98 only serves to mark off one pair from another, and is not imposing enough to create a distinct literary unit. Howard (Structure) has noted that Pss. 98 and 99 have thirteen words in common and clear thematic links. Pss. 96 and 97 also have numerous verbal and thematic links. Taken in conjunction it is clear that the two pairs are designed to parallel one another. Your atomistic interpretation is contrary to all evidence; so you are effectively left without any examples for your view of musical worship.



timmopussycat said:


> While there is evidence that we cannot rely on the editorial editing of the OT as far as chronological ordering of OT materials within a book is concerned, there is no evidence that the original editor or editors of Psalms divided originally united material into separate psalms. Lacking such evidence, we can assume that the original Hebrew divisions were correct.



What Hebrew divisions? There are none. "Psalm 1," "Psalm 2," "Psalm 3," etc., do not exist as headings in the Hebrew. One only has to note the structural affinity of Pss. 7-9, and the broken acrostic of Pss. 9 and 10 to see that larger literary units exist within the book of Psalms. These literary units prove that the book of Psalms was not intended to be read as a disparate collection of poems.



timmopussycat said:


> A Biblical book may have prophetic elements included in it, but that fact that is does so does not make it exclusively or even dominantly prophetic. We do not call Deuteronomy a prophetic book even though it has prophetic elements included. Ps. 98 is not an explicit prophecy, but present exhortation, even though from our perspective looking back, we can see that the Lord has made known his salvation in a far greater way and done additional marvelous things than the psalmist had seen as present realities, which seemingly require to be celebrated in "new song"



The New Testament receives the book of Psalms as prophetic. One ignores the New Testament evidence at his own peril. 



timmopussycat said:


> One exception demonstrates the proposition unprovable, and Ps 98 is that exception. You are ignoring its specific teaching in favour of putting your trust in a theological conception not provable by Scripture. Such a practice is not wise.



The canonical approach is well established, and a far safer method of interpretation than the old form critical method which atomised books of Scripture and speculated about the text's pre-history.



timmopussycat said:


> I do receive God's revelation for what it is. God says he cannot act contrary to his nature: creating confusion in his people is contrary to his nature as Paul says in Corinthians: your understanding of His teaching on worship necessarily creates confusion about what is covenantally required and what is not. Your understanding is therefore wrong.



As already noted, your objection would pertain as equally to progressive revelation; the command to worship is merely a subset of revelation, and is therefore as progressive as the revelation itself; your objection is simply ridiculous.



timmopussycat said:


> They were covenantally commanded to worship in a certain way, and if you are correct in your view, God provided an object lesson on the point with the deaths of Nadab and Abihu. I have never denied that God could add to or change the requirements of the worship he commands. What I assert is that he must do so in a way that does not create confusion about what is or what is not covenantally permitted, or he is not being true to his nature.



Your argument depends solely on your dislike of the principle announced in Deut. 12:32.



timmopussycat said:


> You continue to present apples as oranges. They are not: I have provided, and you have failed to rebut, a demonstration that there is a category difference between the institution of a covenant and commanded practices within that covenant.



The author of Hebrews 8-10 is of the opinion that the temple worship is obsolete because it belonged to the old covenant. I will listen to HIM, and suggest you ought to do the same.



timmopussycat said:


> If Hebrews was in fact written while Christians were still attending the temple, your use of Hebrews to support your point will be contradicted by the fact of contemporary Christian practice.



Not all practices mentioned in the Scriptures are ipso facto acceptable. It is clear that Hebrews is corrective. It teaches something "better" in Christ.



timmopussycat said:


> The problem is that the institution of sung praise as a regular form of worship was linked wth instruments in at least one context; that of sacrifice. At the time Paul wrote Ephesians and Colossains, he knew that some of his Jewish readers may have been making pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the feasts. He certainly doesn't prohibit therm from doing so because instrumental accompaniment of sacrifices would be involved. And, as I have shown there is a sacrificial context in at least one Christian meeting, that of communion. Since Paul only makes the general statement in Eph. to sing psalms without excluding practices then utilized in any of the contexts in which he could reasonably expect some of his readers to sing them, his general instruction to "sing Psalms" cannot be legitimately pressed so for as to exclude accompaniment.



After being entertained with the fancies of the higher critical rationalism, we are now treated to the superstition of high-church ritualism. Communion is not a sacrifice, but a commemoration of a sacrifice.

The very first commemoration of our Lord's one only sacrifice was instituted by the Lord Himself after the Passover. At this commemoration He and His disciples sang an hymn, with no mention of accompaniment.



timmopussycat said:


> And, unlike the Theonomist, I have shown that I have Scriptural reason for doing so. The instrumental amendments to worship were not original to the Mosaic covenant and were not incorporated within it by covenantal amendment. Consequently they cannot be regarded as covenantal but must be seen as occasional commands, which were a classification never specifically treated by the Assembly.



Occasional commands are not treated by the Assembly because they are no part of the reformed faith. For the divines' view one need only read Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici to see what constitutes a warrant for offering anything to God in worship.



timmopussycat said:


> Did the Assemby err by not treating occaisional commands and by not including the praise commands within that category? Arguably it did. And while I know the burden of proving that assertion on this board is on me, outside this board...



Be that as it may, you are presently arguing against the Confession on a confessional board after you have promised to abide by board rules. Please do your Christian duty and keep your word.



timmopussycat said:


> You are dodging the question. Both of us depend on the positive institution of the NT to make sung praise a regular part of worship. I have shown that Paul's general statement instituting sung praise referred back to contexts in which both accompanied and unaccompnied praise were used and that the context in which accompanied praise was used continues although modified in the NT. Consequently it is eisegesis to read his general statemnent instituting sung praise in a way that necessarily excludes accompaniment from Christian praise.



If one depends on a NT institution to prove what is acceptable in NT worship, then an OT association is irrelevant. Besides, it has been proven that the mechanical instruments were not merely accompaniments to the praise but were themselves an act of worship commanded by God to accompany the sacrifices. Further, the reality is that the apostle does not exclude accompaniment from his instruction because he specifically says the singer is to make melody in his heart. Therefore, as far as the NT is concerned, heart melody suffices as accompaniment to singing psalms without the use of mechanical instruments.


----------



## bookslover

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Where is your scriptural proof for this? Excepting John's visions of angles in heaven in Revelation and descriptions of Temple worship the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all.



"...the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all." Exactly - including no statements whatsoever banning them from worship. 

I believe that instruments are part of the "indifferent matters" of the Bible. The burden of the New Testament is to promulgate and explain the gospel; this being so, the NT has no interest in pronouncing on the subject of musical instruments. What's probable is that there is an assumption among the NT writers that, since instruments were used in the OT, they are to be used in the NT, too.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

bookslover said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your scriptural proof for this? Excepting John's visions of angles in heaven in Revelation and descriptions of Temple worship the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all." Exactly - including no statements whatsoever banning them from worship.
> 
> I believe that instruments are part of the "indifferent matters" of the Bible. The burden of the New Testament is to promulgate and explain the gospel; this being so, the NT has no interest in pronouncing on the subject of musical instruments. What's probable is that there is an assumption among the NT writers that, since instruments were used in the OT, they are to be used in the NT, too.
Click to expand...


Hi:

Musical Instruments were a matter of the Temple Worship. The Temple and its worship service was overthrown and destroyed at 70 AD. Thus, musical instruments were no longer used in the Church for the next 1500 years because they pertain to the infancy of the Church found in the OT Temple worship.

The use of instruments today does not effect Spiritual worship, but is carnal and edifying only to the flesh.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

bookslover said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your scriptural proof for this? Excepting John's visions of angles in heaven in Revelation and descriptions of Temple worship the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all." Exactly - including no statements whatsoever banning them from worship.
> 
> I believe that instruments are part of the "indifferent matters" of the Bible. The burden of the New Testament is to promulgate and explain the gospel; this being so, the NT has no interest in pronouncing on the subject of musical instruments. What's probable is that there is an assumption among the NT writers that, since instruments were used in the OT, they are to be used in the NT, too.
Click to expand...


Why would they assume that if they were not used in the synagogue worship to which they were accustomed? In the context of corporate worship instruments were not used outside of the temple. As a reminder according to the RPW we need positive direction to do something in Christian worship. Is their a positive statement concerning instruments in the New Testament?


----------



## timmopussycat

QUOTE=armourbearer;451298]


timmopussycat said:


> I am not making David a private muse when I say that some psalms predate his setting up regular sung worship. David was a musician for years before he was king and for part of the time he was a court musician. The duties of a court musician usually include composition. Finally David was anointed by the Holy Spirit before entering Saul's service. So it is entirely possible for him to have composed Holy Spirit inspired psalms before he entered his kingship.



Exegesis is not concerned with "possibilities," but with what can be ascertained from the text of Scripture. While David possibly composed songs as a court musician, there is no evidence that the canonical Psalms were composed for private use. To the contrary, the canonical Psalms show that David wrote as a representative man, as Hengstenberg established in the 19th century. [/QUOTE]

I had hoped to cease this discussion: but your post demands comment.

Exegesis is indeed what can be ascertained from Scripture.

One simply cannot establish from the Scripture when all the psalms were composed, or the purpose for which they were composed. You give neither sources or citations for Hengstenberg’s assertion so how can it be judged biblical or not? This is the third time I have asked "ad fontes" in this thread. 



timmopussycat said:


> The phrase "of X" in the psalm superscriptions is usually held to refer to the author since Ps 18 is explicitly attributed to David in 1 Samuel. Ps 90 is a is identified as a prayer written by Moses. Some psalms superscriptions specifically identify historical events e.g., Ps 18 was definitely written after David's deliverance from Saul and perhaps after other enemies later as its placing in 1 Sam suggests. But there is no doubt that Ps 34, referring to David feigning madness before a Philistine king, may well have been written as early as before Saul's death. The superscription lacks "For the director of music" which when appearing in front of such psalms as Ps. 52 and 54, implies that they were written after David had put such an individual in place, whether in his court in Hebron or in later Jerusalem we know not.





armourbearer said:


> Ps. 90 does not say the prayer was _written by_ Moses, but only presents itself as a prayer of Moses.



I don't think you really want to deploy this double edged sword. If you take away the argument that “of Moses” refers to the author of the psalm, how will you reply to anyone who wishes to take away the Davidic authorship of "of David" psalms not specifically attributed to him in the NT? 



armourbearer said:


> These experiences of David were Messianic; he suffered as the anointed of God; and Psalms 34, 52, and 54 are orientated towards corporate appropriation. 34:3, "O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together." Verse 8, 9, "O taste and see that the Lord is good ... O fear the Lord, ye his saints." Verse 11, "Come, ye children." 52:title, "To the chief musician." Verse 9, "for it is good before thy saints." 54:title, "to the chief musician." There is no reason for supposing any psalm was composed for private use.



I never said any psalm including 34 was not composed for a didactic purpose and I don't say that now. What I do say is that we don't know when Ps 34 was composed and that is no evidence in the Scripture to place it any later than before Saul's death. David may have composed it for his raiding band's edification. We just don't know and we cannot deploy arguments that rely on a foundation of ignorance.



armourbearer said:


> [The reconstruction of the text is by definition a higher critical enterprise. Your fanciful suggestion depends on the presupposition that Jeremiah intended to write chronologically; but the suggestion of conservative scholars that the prophecies might be grouped by "theme" is perfectly acceptable. At any rate, even if you could prove transposition in the case of Jeremiah, there is no evidence for foisting this on the book of Psalms.



I am fully aware that Jeremiah is not presented chronologically, but the sequence from chapter 37-44 is chronological and out of sequence with the events of chs. 36 and 45 which preced and follow it. Ch 45 took place at the same time as ch 36 and is linked to specific events of that chapter for Baruch had made his complaint at that time. Now, whether Jeremiah put the message to Baruch away from its chronological location or whether somebody else did, that displacement is an editorial function (and I never claimed that Jeremiah was not the final editor). Consequently, my point still stands: the order in which materials appear in the OT cannot be presumed to be chronological. This is especially true in the Psalms where we know that the psalms were written by different authors and the authors are not identified such as the sequence from Ps 91-100. Since we don't know who the authors of these psalms were, what their dates were, and when they were composed, ANY theological rationale based on suppositions about their chronology is simply unprovable. 



armourbearer said:


> [Marvin Tate has nothing to gain from this debate, but he comments (Word series), "in brief, Pss. 96-99 can be treated as a literary unity, divided into two psalm-pairs." The superscription at Ps. 98 only serves to mark off one pair from another, and is not imposing enough to create a distinct literary unit. Howard (Structure) has noted that Pss. 98 and 99 have thirteen words in common and clear thematic links. Pss. 96 and 97 also have numerous verbal and thematic links. Taken in conjunction it is clear that the two pairs are designed to parallel one another. Your atomistic interpretation is contrary to all evidence; so you are effectively left without any examples for your view of musical worship.



You seem to be operating on the assumption that just because an authority figure states a hypothesis, that hypothesis is necessarily true and need not be tested. The fact that two documents have words in common and clear thematic links is not enough to prove that they were written together. By that argument Ps. 45 was written at the same time, and for the same purpose, as the Song of Songs. Now it may have been so written, but we cannot prove it must have been so written, for if such similarities always proved the union of purpose and date between documents, we could prove the LXX version of Ps. 23 and John 10:1-18 were written at the same time something we know is not the case. 

And finally you have never addressed the problem Ps 150:1 c presents for your view. That clause commands praise everywhere under heaven unless you want to postulate that the angels breathe air.



armourbearer said:


> [What Hebrew divisions? There are none.



Which is exactly what I said: 



timmopussycat said:


> there is no evidence that the original editor or editors of Psalms divided originally united material into separate psalms. Lacking such evidence, we can assume that the original Hebrew divisions were correct./quote]
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Psalm 1," "Psalm 2," "Psalm 3," etc., do not exist as headings in the Hebrew. One only has to note the structural affinity of Pss. 7-9, and the broken acrostic of Pss. 9 and 10 to see that larger literary units exist within the book of Psalms. These literary units prove that the book of Psalms was not intended to be read as a disparate collection of poems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied that the Psalm numbers we have do not exist in the Heb bible nor did I ever deny that some of we now know as separate psalms were originally united in the Heb. These are points of which I am well aware. All I asserted is that some psalms are marked off by superscriptions including Ps. 98.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer;451298}The New Testament receives the book of Psalms as prophetic. One ignores the New Testament evidence at his own peril. [/QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the NT receives the book as prophetic, the NT nowhere tells us it receives the book as *exclusively* prophetic in function. More importantly for our discussion, it does not tell us in what specific ways Ps. 98 is either prophetic or exhortal. If the book is exclusively prophetic, shall we therefore say that its author intended a historically accurate testimony such as Ps 126's testimony to the awstruck state of the Jew's minds on seeing how the Lord had restored Jerusalem and the historicity of their enemies reaction? You will properly say no. But accepting the historical accuracy of these statements leaves you open to considering the historical contexts and authorial intent of other non-prophetic statements.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The canonical approach is well established, and a far safer method of interpretation than the old form critical method which atomised books of Scripture and speculated about the text's pre-history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately what the text of Psalms tell us is not what you think they tell us. The psalms tell us when some, but not all of them, were composed and many do not tell us the specific purpose for which the author composed them. While the NT does call some psalms prophetic it never denies that the psalms had exhortal purposes as well. Finally even if one concedes your point the psalms are exclusively prophetic, Ps. 98 will therefore prophetically command the nations to worship with accompanied praise, which unless you can refute other aspects of the argument, establishes my position rather than yours.
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> As already noted, your objection would pertain as equally to progressive revelation; the command to worship is merely a subset of revelation, and is therefore as progressive as the revelation itself; your objection is simply ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be helpful if you referenced the point to which you are replying. Because you do not do that here, I don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument depends solely on your dislike of the principle announced in Deut. 12:32.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask why you are descending to ad hominem arguments? I do not do anything that the Lord has not commanded. What is at issue here is two different understandings of what exactly is commanded.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The author of Hebrews 8-10 is of the opinion that the temple worship is obsolete because it belonged to the old covenant. I will listen to HIM, and suggest you ought to do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why are you descending to straw man arguments. I have repeatedly affirmed with Hebrews that the temple and its sacrifices are obsolete. But the writer to the Hebrews says not one word about how the praise ordinances relate to those sacrifices. Does abandoning the temple and the sacrifices mean we no longer praise God? No.
> 
> Not all practices mentioned in the Scriptures are ipso facto acceptable. It is clear that Hebrews is corrective. It teaches something "better" in Christ.
> 
> Indeed it does. But while it teaches that we have a better covenant, a better high priest, a better sacrifice, a better holy place and a better covenant, it never teaches a word about worship practices.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> After being entertained with the fancies of the higher critical rationalism, we are now treated to the superstition of high-church ritualism. Communion is not a sacrifice, but a commemoration of a sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I believe I so identified communion as "he remembrance of Christ's sacrifice" in an earlier post. It is fine to disagree with an opponent, provided you state his position correctly but you make yourself look at least unwise if you fail to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very first commemoration of our Lord's one only sacrifice was instituted by the Lord Himself after the Passover. At this commemoration He and His disciples sang an hymn, with no mention of accompaniment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Granted, but your point would only be valid if the disciples were musicians and who said they were? Paul's general command against a background of accompanied praise leaves room for accompaniment but does not prescribe it.
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occasional commands are not treated by the Assembly because they are no part of the reformed faith. For the divines' view one need only read Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici to see what constitutes a warrant for offering anything to God in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Assembly err by not treating occasional commands and by not including the praise commands within that category? Arguably it did. And while I know the burden of proving that assertion on this board is on me, outside this board...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be that as it may, you are presently arguing against the Confession on a confessional board after you have promised to abide by board rules. Please do your Christian duty and keep your word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, my confession is the LBC. Although the writers of that confession may have practiced unaccompanied psalms only, they did not mandate that view, or your understanding of the RPW as confessional. Since they did not so mandate, I am within the board rules that those who seek to “… modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confession i.e. the WCF will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.” I have stated the thesis, supplied the proof and shown that you have provided insufficient rebuttals, all within the parameters of the fellowship of this board.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are dodging the question. Both of us depend on the positive institution of the NT to make sung praise a regular part of worship. I have shown that Paul's general statement instituting sung praise referred back to contexts in which both accompanied and unaccompanied praise were used and that the context in which accompanied praise was used continues although modified in the NT. Consequently it is eisegesis to read his general statement instituting sung praise in a way that necessarily excludes accompaniment from Christian praise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one depends on a NT institution to prove what is acceptable in NT worship, then an OT association is irrelevant. Besides, it has been proven that the mechanical instruments were not merely accompaniments to the praise but were themselves an act of worship commanded by God to accompany the sacrifices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ps 98 disproves your contention. Here is a psalm clearly addressed to Gentiles telling them to worship with accompanied sung praise without telling them to worship at the Jerusalem sacrifices.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer;451298Further said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the consequence does not follow, for making melody in the heart does not necessarily prohibit forms of outward expression for Paul says “singing to one another.”
> Paul’s comment is a general statement covering all forms of Christian get-togthers; it is not a specific ordering of worship services and as I have previously shown, given the background of ongoing Christian temple attendance at the time Paul wrote together with the remembrance of Christ’s death at communion, it cannot be stretched to prohibit accompaniment to praise by necessary consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> One simply cannot establish from the Scripture when all the psalms were composed, or the purpose for which they were composed. You give neither sources or citations for Hengstenberg’s assertion so how can it be judged biblical or not? This is the third time I have asked "ad fontes" in this thread.



My apologies; I was assuming a knowledge of Psalms studies given the dogmatic way you present your case. Hengstenberg (Works, 7:vi.): "All the Psalms are _songs of Israel_, as David describes his Psalms in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. This implies the whole religious community to have been respected in them. They all not only bore a religious character, but were also appointed to be used in the services of the sanctuary, for which nothing can be proper, but what the individual sings as the organ of the church. The individual comes here into account only in so far as he presents a general aspect."



timmopussycat said:


> I don't think you really want to deploy this double edged sword. If you take away the argument that “of Moses” refers to the author of the psalm, how will you reply to anyone who wishes to take away the Davidic authorship of "of David" psalms not specifically attributed to him in the NT?



I simply accept the NT testimony that these are the Psalms of David. Those who have studied the superscriptions know that the "lamed" prefix can't refer to authorship in each and every case. Psalm 72 is clearly "for" Solomon because the subscription at verse 20 ascribes this literary unit to David.



timmopussycat said:


> I never said any psalm including 34 was not composed for a didactic purpose and I don't say that now. What I do say is that we don't know when Ps 34 was composed and that is no evidence in the Scripture to place it any later than before Saul's death. David may have composed it for his raiding band's edification. We just don't know and we cannot deploy arguments that rely on a foundation of ignorance.



That's correct; you just don't know. Your form critical approach is all conjecture. So let's work with what we do know. Scripture specifically states that these are the psalms of Israel; this has been established over and again, with nothing to gainsay it. Therefore we are justified on the basis of explicit scriptural testimony to interpret the psalms in the context of Israel's worship, and have no reason for understaning them any other way.



timmopussycat said:


> Consequently, my point still stands: the order in which materials appear in the OT cannot be presumed to be chronological. This is especially true in the Psalms where we know that the psalms were written by different authors and the authors are not identified such as the sequence from Ps 91-100. Since we don't know who the authors of these psalms were, what their dates were, and when they were composed, ANY theological rationale based on suppositions about their chronology is simply unprovable.



The Jeremiah example is still mere speculation. The Psalms are received according to their canonical form. In the absence of any other evidence we have no basis to depart from the order in which the text has come down to us.



timmopussycat said:


> You seem to be operating on the assumption that just because an authority figure states a hypothesis, that hypothesis is necessarily true and need not be tested. The fact that two documents have words in common and clear thematic links is not enough to prove that they were written together. By that argument Ps. 45 was written at the same time, and for the same purpose, as the Song of Songs. Now it may have been so written, but we cannot prove it must have been so written, for if such similarities always proved the union of purpose and date between documents, we could prove the LXX version of Ps. 23 and John 10:1-18 were written at the same time something we know is not the case.



No, I don't work on any such "ad verecundiam" assumption. I cited a couple of scholars who have done much research on the subject, and who cannot be claimed to be biased one way or the other. I provided you with facts concerning the verbal and thematic links between these psalms as noted by these scholars. The compositional unity of the psalter is a well-established discipline.



timmopussycat said:


> And finally you have never addressed the problem Ps 150:1 c presents for your view. That clause commands praise everywhere under heaven unless you want to postulate that the angels breathe air.


 
Ps. 150 calls for universal praise. It commences by calling for praise "in his sanctuary." Earlier psalms have established the association of the musical instruments with the service of the sanctuary.



timmopussycat said:


> I never denied that the Psalm numbers we have do not exist in the Heb bible nor did I ever deny that some of we now know as separate psalms were originally united in the Heb. These are points of which I am well aware. All I asserted is that some psalms are marked off by superscriptions including Ps. 98.



If one reads the Psalms without the printer's headers, the larger literary units are obvious. When this is accepted there is no reason to break off Ps. 98 from Ps. 99.



timmopussycat said:


> While the NT receives the book as prophetic, the NT nowhere tells us it receives the book as *exclusively* prophetic in function. More importantly for our discussion, it does not tell us in what specific ways Ps. 98 is either prophetic or exhortal. If the book is exclusively prophetic, shall we therefore say that its author intended a historically accurate testimony such as Ps 126's testimony to the awstruck state of the Jew's minds on seeing how the Lord had restored Jerusalem and the historicity of their enemies reaction? You will properly say no. But accepting the historical accuracy of these statements leaves you open to considering the historical contexts and authorial intent of other non-prophetic statements.



The Psalms as a whole is prophetic, Luke 24:44. Ps. 126 is prophetic. The captivity of Zion was turned by Christ, as Matthew chapter 1 makes clear. Anything other than a canonical interpretation of the Psalms is unworthy of the dignity of the book.



timmopussycat said:


> While the NT does call some psalms prophetic it never denies that the psalms had exhortal purposes as well.



All biblical exhortation is eschatological by nature. The exhortation flows out of the prophetic strain.



timmopussycat said:


> May I ask why you are descending to ad hominem arguments? I do not do anything that the Lord has not commanded. What is at issue here is two different understandings of what exactly is commanded.



It wasn't an argument, but an observation. If one accepts Deut. 12:32 then there is no room for a distinction between commanded and permissive elements of worship. If it is commanded it must be done; and if it is not commanded it must not be done.



timmopussycat said:


> And why are you descending to straw man arguments. I have repeatedly affirmed with Hebrews that the temple and its sacrifices are obsolete. But the writer to the Hebrews says not one word about how the praise ordinances relate to those sacrifices. Does abandoning the temple and the sacrifices mean we no longer praise God? No.



Hebrews prescribes the offering of the sacrifice of praise, chap. 13:15. No mention of mechanical instruments; but it does mention the means -- through Jesus. Clearly it regards Jesus as the fulfilment of the OT mechanical instruments.



timmopussycat said:


> Indeed it does. But while it teaches that we have a better covenant, a better high priest, a better sacrifice, a better holy place and a better covenant, it never teaches a word about worship practices.



Temple, priesthood, and sacrifice were the centre of Israel's worship.



timmopussycat said:


> And I believe I so identified communion as "he remembrance of Christ's sacrifice" in an earlier post. It is fine to disagree with an opponent, provided you state his position correctly but you make yourself look at least unwise if you fail to do so.



If communion is accepted as a commemoration of a sacrifice, then there is no basis for alleging the use of sacrificial accompaniments like mechanical instruments.



timmopussycat said:


> Granted, but your point would only be valid if the disciples were musicians and who said they were? Paul's general command against a background of accompanied praise leaves room for accompaniment but does not prescribe it.



The disciples praised God at communion without the use of musical accompaniment; hence there is no need for musical accompaniment in order to fulfil the duty of praise to God at the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice. Paul's command does prescribe accompaniment of singing when he requires the singer to make melody in his heart; hence one fulfils his duty of singing praise when he makes melody in his heart without the use of mechanical instruments.



timmopussycat said:


> Sorry, my confession is the LBC. Although the writers of that confession may have practiced unaccompanied psalms only, they did not mandate that view, or your understanding of the RPW as confessional. Since they did not so mandate, I am within the board rules that those who seek to “… modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confession i.e. the WCF will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.” I have stated the thesis, supplied the proof and shown that you have provided insufficient rebuttals, all within the parameters of the fellowship of this board.



You seem to have become confused as to what is the issue at this point. The issue is not non-instrumental psalmody, but your addition to the regulative principle of worship. The Confession and Catechisms speak of worship in terms of God's own appointment. It makes no provision for your view of "permissible" practices. You have failed to make any case let alone meet any burden of proof for the vindication of your unreformed view.

Having asked you politely, I now speak as a moderator and call upon you to desist propagating this unconfessional view. You may argue for the use of instruments, but it must be within the guidelines of this board.



timmopussycat said:


> Ps 98 disproves your contention. Here is a psalm clearly addressed to Gentiles telling them to worship with accompanied sung praise without telling them to worship at the Jerusalem sacrifices.



Already answered. (1.) One must consult the surrounding context provided by the larger literary unit. (2.) Prophetic statements are accommodated to the understanding of the people to whom they were delivered -- in this case, Zion.



timmopussycat said:


> Sorry, the consequence does not follow, for making melody in the heart does not necessarily prohibit forms of outward expression for Paul says “singing to one another.”



And presumably if "singing to one another" was not edifying in itself the apostle would have required the use of musical accompaniment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> You seem to have become confused as to what is the issue at this point. The issue is not non-instrumental psalmody, but your addition to the regulative principle of worship. The Confession and Catechisms speak of worship in terms of God's own appointment. It makes no provision for your view of "permissible" practices. You have failed to make any case let alone meet any burden of proof for the vindication of your unreformed view.
> 
> Having asked you politely, I now speak as a moderator and call upon you to desist propagating this unconfessional view. You may argue for the use of instruments, but it must be within the guidelines of this board.


Though I am not EP, I must back up Matthew on this. You need to use an argument built upon a view of worship within the bounds of the RPW and not introduce a novel concept of permissible practices to skirt the requirement that an element of worship must be prescribed. My own view is that instruments are a circumstance but I do not have time to engage in this debate. My sole point is that we need to form our arguments here on the basis of the RPW.


----------



## bookslover

CalvinandHodges said:


> The Temple and its worship service was overthrown and destroyed at 70 AD. Thus, musical instruments were no longer used in the Church for the next 1500 years because they pertain to the infancy of the Church found in the OT Temple worship.



There's no necessary connection between these two statements with regard to the use of instruments. Yes, the Temple worship came to an end, but that doesn't _necessarily_ mean that that fact's interpretation includes the banishment of musical instruments from Christian worship services. Just because Calvin says so doesn't make it so.



> The use of instruments today does not effect Spiritual worship, but is carnal and edifying only to the flesh.



This is a personal opinion (to which you are entitled), not a biblical fact.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

bookslover said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Temple and its worship service was overthrown and destroyed at 70 AD. Thus, musical instruments were no longer used in the Church for the next 1500 years because they pertain to the infancy of the Church found in the OT Temple worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no necessary connection between these two statements with regard to the use of instruments. Yes, the Temple worship came to an end, but that doesn't _necessarily_ mean that that fact's interpretation includes the banishment of musical instruments from Christian worship services. Just because Calvin says so doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The use of instruments today does not effect Spiritual worship, but is carnal and edifying only to the flesh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a personal opinion (to which you are entitled), not a biblical fact.
Click to expand...


That would be nice if it was only Calvin making the argument. And as has been shown _ad nauseum_ in this and other threads there is oodles of Biblical evidence to make this point.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Bookslover writes:



> There's no necessary connection between these two statements with regard to the use of instruments. Yes, the Temple worship came to an end, but that doesn't _necessarily_ mean that that fact's interpretation includes the banishment of musical instruments from Christian worship services. Just because Calvin says so doesn't make it so.


I think there is a necessary connection evidenced by the historical facts. The church stopped using musical instruments after the fall of the Temple. In the OT musical instruments were only associated with Temple/Tabernacle worship. This is so abundantly clear that even the Samaritans understood what the Jews were saying, John 4:20.

Worship in the New Testament is not modeled after Temple worship, but after the worship found in the Synagogue. The whole argument of Paul in Hebrews attests to this: that the Temple and its services prefigured the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now that we possess the fulfillment and the reality of the figures - the shadows are no longer necessary.

It is on this point that we understand musical instruments to have been abolished, because the instruments of the Temple prefigured the Joy of Salvation in Jesus Christ - a joy that cannot be elicited any longer through the use of musical instruments, but by the inward work of the Spirit of God. Thus, David Dickson writes of Psalm 150:



> the typical ceremonies of musical instruments in God's public worship, belonging to the pedagogy of the church, in her minority before Christ, be now abolished with the rest of the ceremonies; yet the moral duties shadowed forth by them, are still to be studied, because this duty of praising God, and praising him with all our mind, strength, and soul, is moral, and whereunto we are perpetually obliged, Commentary on the Psalms, pg. 536.


We have an abundant testimony in Scripture that we are no longer to use instruments in worship, but are to praise God with our own hearts:

*Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, Eph. 5:19.

And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God; and the prisoners heard them, Acts 16:25

Let the word of Christ dwell richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord, Col. 3:16.

Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory, 1 Pet. 1:8.*

As Jesus says to the Samaritan woman:

*But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship hin in spirit and in truth, John 4:23,24.*

The non-use of musical instruments in the Spiritual worship of God in the New Testament is not simply a matter of the testimony of John Calvin, but has been the conviction of the Church throughout the ages - beginning with the 1st Century. The Rev. Price (whose book was mentioned earlier) has gathered many quotes from the Early Church Fathers and onward concerning the Church's attitude towards musical instruments:



> Justin Martyr ... "The use of singing with instrumental music was not received in the Christian churches as it was among the Jews in their infant state, but only the use of plain song ... Musical organs pertain to the Jewish ceremonies and agree no more to us than circumcision."
> 
> Clement of Alexandria ... "Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and are intent on their idol-worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wineless feasts ... 'Praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute, praise Him,' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit ... But for us to make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace, by whom we pay homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute.
> 
> Origin ... "The kithara (lyre) is the active soul being moved by the commandments of God, the psalterion (harp) is the pure mind being moved by spiritual knowledge. The musical instruments of the Old Covenant understood spiritually are applicable to us. The kithara, speaking figuratively, is the body, the psalterion the spirit. These are in tune for the wise man who employs the members of the body and powers of the soul as strings. He who makes melody with the mind makes melody well, speaking spiritual songs and singing in his heart to God."
> 
> Chrysostom ... "It was only permitted to the Jews, as sacrifice was, for the heaviness and grossness of their souls. God condescended to their weakness, because they were lately drawn off from idols: but now instead of organs, we may use our own bodies to praise him withal."
> 
> Augustine ... "Praise the Lord with harp; sing unto Him with the psaltery of ten strings,' For this even now we sang, this expressing with one mouth, we instructed your hearts. Hath not the institution of these Vigils in the name of Christ brought it to pass that harps should be banished out of this place? ... Let none turn his heart to instruments of the theatre."
> 
> The Council of Laodicea (367) forbids the use of musical instruments in worship, and this has remained the policy of the Eastern Orthodox Church to the present day. In 416 the Council of Carthage addressed this issue and declared, "On the Lord's day let all instruments of music be silenced."


The use of musical instruments in American Presbyterianism dates back to only the middle of the 19th century. The use of the organ was strenuously opposed by Dabney, Warfield, Thornwell, and Peck to name a few. C. H. Spurgeon opposed the use of musical instruments among Baptists during his time:



> “David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettinesses of a quartette, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it” (Commentary on Psalm 42:4).


There is no doubt in my mind that the use of a mechanical means to worship God, who is a Spirit, is a carnal, and not a spiritual ordinance.

Though it may be an "opinion" of mine I do believe I have the Scriptures as well as Church Tradition on my side.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> One simply cannot establish from the Scripture when all the psalms were composed, or the purpose for which they were composed. You give neither sources or citations for Hengstenberg’s assertion so how can it be judged biblical or not? This is the third time I have asked "ad fontes" in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies; I was assuming a knowledge of Psalms studies given the dogmatic way you present your case. Hengstenberg (Works, 7:vi.): "All the Psalms are _songs of Israel_, as David describes his Psalms in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. This implies the whole religious community to have been respected in them. They all not only bore a religious character, but were also appointed to be used in the services of the sanctuary, for which nothing can be proper, but what the individual sings as the organ of the church. The individual comes here into account only in so far as he presents a general aspect."
Click to expand...


There are others reading this thread besides myself. They may not be familiar with the literature.
The premise that the psalms are were consciously composed for Israel's temple use simply does not follow by necessary consequence from David's words at this point. Although he claims anointing by the Spirit, that he was Israel's singer of psalms and V. 2 repeats the claim of the Spirit speaking through him, we cannot absolutely determine whether David intended the latter claim as a true general statement describing his psalms (if we take it as linked to v.1) or whether that he intended v. 2 to preface what he says in vv. 3b and 4. Even if one can establish that v.2 is linked specifically to his psalms only, David here says nothing about any limitations the Holy Spirit placed on their use.



timmopussycat said:


> I don't think you really want to deploy this double edged sword. If you take away the argument that “of Moses” refers to the author of the psalm, how will you reply to anyone who wishes to take away the Davidic authorship of "of David" psalms not specifically attributed to him in the NT?





armourbearer said:


> I simply accept the NT testimony that these are the Psalms of David. Those who have studied the superscriptions know that the "lamed" prefix can't refer to authorship in each and every case. Psalm 72 is clearly "for" Solomon because the subscription at verse 20 ascribes this literary unit to David.



Does the NT ever identify the entire book as Davidic or does it limit Davidic identification to particular psalms? Moreover the subscription has to be looked at a little more carefully. This subscription clearly identifies this one psalm as a prayer of David, but there is no evidence in any other psalm that "Of x" refers to anything else than authorship as in the case of Psalm 18.
It cannot be proved that "Of Moses" in Ps. 90 does not identify the author.



armourbearer said:


> That's correct; you just don't know. Your form critical approach is all conjecture. So let's work with what we do know. Scripture specifically states that these are the psalms of Israel; this has been established over and again, with nothing to gainsay it. Therefore we are justified on the basis of explicit scriptural testimony to interpret the psalms in the context of Israel's worship, and have no reason for understaning them any other way.



Unfortunately that contention has not been proven. See my comments on Hengstenberg above.



armourbearer said:


> The Jeremiah example is still mere speculation. The Psalms are received according to their canonical form. In the absence of any other evidence we have no basis to depart from the order in which the text has come down to us.



The canonical form of Jeremiah tells us the dates on which the two prophecies of ch 36 and 45 were given which was the same year. The canonical form of Jeremiah intersperses betwen these two chapters material which it specifically dates at least 11 years later. It is the canonical form of Jeremiah that establishes once and for all that we cannot conclude that adjacent materials in the OT are necessarily given in chronological order.
And that is the only point I was making.

Now focusing on Jeremiah was a bit of a debating trick, because your answer tells me that you are so sure of your case you did not perform the biblical requirement to "test all things" before replying. Had you done so you would have gone to the Psalms and tried to establish whether the canonical Psalms answer the question of whether or not they are in chronological order. The fact is that at least 3 psalms are presented in the canonical book out of chronological sequence. If the book was ordered chronologically Ps. 30 should not come before either Ps. 34 or Ps. 142



timmopussycat said:


> You seem to be operating on the assumption that just because an authority figure states a hypothesis, that hypothesis is necessarily true and need not be tested. The fact that two documents have words in common and clear thematic links is not enough to prove that they were written together. By that argument Ps. 45 was written at the same time, and for the same purpose, as the Song of Songs. Now it may have been so written, but we cannot prove it must have been so written, for if such similarities always proved the union of purpose and date between documents, we could prove the LXX version of Ps. 23 and John 10:1-18 were written at the same time something we know is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't work on any such "ad verecundiam" assumption. I cited a couple of scholars who have done much research on the subject, and who cannot be claimed to be biased one way or the other. I provided you with facts concerning the verbal and thematic links between these psalms as noted by these scholars. The compositional unity of the psalter is a well-established discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever may be true of the Psalms as a whole, that is not the question we face. We are concerned with whether the thematic and verbal correspondences between two psalms are enough to prove simultaneous composition or linked function of those two psalms. I provided a counter example to show that such cannot be necessarily proven and that demonstration if correct rebuts your point. Yet instead of showing my demonstration is flawed, you reply reiterating the opinion rather than proving the premise on which the opinion rests. This is a very unwise exegetical procedure and one in which a Christian teacher should never engage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ps. 150 calls for universal praise. It commences by calling for praise "in his sanctuary." Earlier psalms have established the association of the musical instruments with the service of the sanctuary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but you are ignoring the problem posed for your position by the next line and the last line. The entire rest of the psalm is clearly addressed to earth dwellers so what does "Praise him in the firmament of his power" mean? If heaven, the angels are air breathers, if the atmosphere is intended, it means Praise God everywhere. If the latter is intended, accompanied sung praise was biblically intended to be given everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one reads the Psalms without the printer's headers, the larger literary units are obvious. When this is accepted there is no reason to break off Ps. 98 from Ps. 99.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not, I hope, trying to tell us that unless a psalm has a heading we must assume it is part of the previous psalm, a proposition which entails the notion that the Heb editiors engage in a wholesale dividing of a multitude of previously united psalms to produce the ones we see in today's Hebrew bible. But that is the conclusion to which one must come if one asserts without sufficient evidence, as you have done, that larger literary units in the book are obvious. They are not obvious in this case. Ps 98 is a complete direction for all the earth to praise the Lord; Ps. 99 focuses on the Lord's reign and response. Although some pslams do change subject mid-psalm, not all do and of these two psalms it can be observed that as literary units, they can stand alone. While it is possible that they may have been one psalm or linked as a paired psalms originally, it is not enough to establish doctrine on a possibility. If we are going to rest doctrine on this propostion we must be certain of their unity or link, otherwise the doctrine will not follow by necessary consequence and need not be believed
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Psalms as a whole is prophetic, Luke 24:44. Ps. 126 is prophetic. The captivity of Zion was turned by Christ, as Matthew chapter 1 makes clear. Anything other than a canonical interpretation of the Psalms is unworthy of the dignity of the book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ad fontes again, where in Matt. 1 is Ps. 126 cited or referred to?
> That Ps. 126 would have been ultimately fulfilled in the turning of Zion's captivity by Christ I have no doubt. But that it would have also had earlier fulfillments I also have no doubt, just as Ps. 90 although perfectly and finally fulfilled in Christ was originally written "Of Solomon". In the case of Ps. 126 it would have been fulfilled in the return of the Jews to the land after the Babylonian captivity and even earlier in the deliverance from the surrounding enemies achieved by David.
> 
> The words "everything must be fullfilled that is written about me in the psalms" are simply not enought to establish your case that every reference in the psalms is prophetic. Christ did not say "everything in the psalms has prophetic reference to me." Rather he said that among the things written in the Law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms are things written about me and all of the things written about me must be fulfilled. Once again you are resting your case on an unprovable propostion.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All biblical exhortation is eschatological by nature. The exhortation flows out of the prophetic strain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please support all your assertions with Scripture proofs. I do not accept and you should not accept unsupported assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't an argument, but an observation. If one accepts Deut. 12:32 then there is no room for a distinction between commanded and permissive elements of worship. If it is commanded it must be done; and if it is not commanded it must not be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless the commands are given in such a way as to provide options. For example, God gave Israel the option to set up a king but he did not require them to do so. One may observe in the psalms that options are provided: the psalms exhort singing without mention of instruments, with mention of particular instruments and with mentions of differing instruments. All these options remain open unless proved foreclosed by the lawgiver.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews prescribes the offering of the sacrifice of praise, chap. 13:15. No mention of mechanical instruments; but it does mention the means -- through Jesus. Clearly it regards Jesus as the fulfilment of the OT mechanical instruments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does this text exclude accompanied sung praise? It is not mentioned pro or con. The very next verse makes it clear that for the writer, sacrifices involves more than sung praise.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temple, priesthood, and sacrifice were the centre of Israel's worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Christ's death and its remembrance is the centre of ours. After all he did say "Do this in remembrance of me."
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If communion is accepted as a commemoration of a sacrifice, then there is no basis for alleging the use of sacrificial accompaniments like mechanical instruments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um...your entire theological basis for excluding instruments has been that they were linked to the sacrifices and the sacrifices do not continue. Since communion remembers a sacrifice and thus is a sacrificial context, the link of instruments to sacrifice is no longer enough in itself to necessarily exclude their use in Christian worship.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The disciples praised God at communion without the use of musical accompaniment; hence there is no need for musical accompaniment in order to fulfil the duty of praise to God at the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice. Paul's command does prescribe accompaniment of singing when he requires the singer to make melody in his heart; hence one fulfils his duty of singing praise when he makes melody in his heart without the use of mechanical instruments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I previously observed none of them were known to be musicians or had instruments with them which they were forbidden from using. Given those circumstances, the fact that they took the option of singing unaccompanied does not in itself foreclose the option of singing accompanied if that option is not foreclosed elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have become confused as to what is the issue at this point. The issue is not non-instrumental psalmody, but your addition to the regulative principle of worship. The Confession and Catechisms speak of worship in terms of God's own appointment. It makes no provision for your view of "permissible" practices. You have failed to make any case let alone meet any burden of proof for the vindication of your unreformed view.
> 
> Having asked you politely, I now speak as a moderator and call upon you to desist propagating this unconfessional view. You may argue for the use of instruments, but it must be within the guidelines of this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I have pointed out my confession is not the WCF but LBC which simply does not mandate the RPW as you understand it, even if its writers presumed it. Ferguson in his "An Assembly of Theonomists" demonstrated that the Divines did not dot every last i and cross every last t in the Reformed faith. Some matters were left open to achieve a statment summarizing "generic Calvinism". Now when matters are left unadressed in a constitutional document, those matters remain not constitutional and open for debate since the writers did not foreclose it by incorporating the matter into the founding document. This problem is legitimate and bedevils any and all institutions based on constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ps 98 disproves your contention. Here is a psalm clearly addressed to Gentiles telling them to worship with accompanied sung praise without telling them to worship at the Jerusalem sacrifices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered. (1.) One must consult the surrounding context provided by the larger literary unit. (2.) Prophetic statements are accommodated to the understanding of the people to whom they were delivered -- in this case, Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have failed to demonstrate flaws in my rebuttal to 1) and 2) is not provable from Scripture as applied to the case when someone outside Zion is specifically commanded to do something.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the consequence does not follow, for making melody in the heart does not necessarily prohibit forms of outward expression for Paul says “singing to one another.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> And presumably if "singing to one another" was not edifying in itself the apostle would have required the use of musical accompaniment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never denied unaccompanied singing was edifying. We use the practice routinely in our church. But I deny that accompanied sung praise is necessarily unedifying or an option foreclosed by Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> And as I have pointed out my confession is not the WCF but LBC which simply does not mandate the RPW as you understand it, even if its writers presumed it. Ferguson in his "An Assembly of Theonomists" demonstrated that the Divines did not dot every last i and cross every last t in the Reformed faith. Some matters were left open to achieve a statment summarizing "generic Calvinism". Now when matters are left unadressed in a constitutional document, those matters remain not constitutional and open for debate since the writers did not foreclose it by incorporating the matter into the founding document. This problem is legitimate and bedevils any and all institutions based on constitutions.


This is unacceptable. I'm not going to allow an "open door" interpretation of the RPW here that the LBCF writers "presumed" but did not mandate. We have to have some boundaries here. As I stated you will either argue within the boundaries of the RPW or will desist.

I suppose it's time to close the thread.


----------

