# Synagogue Worship, Musical Instruments, and the Regulative Principle



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 23, 2006)

I haven't given up on the musical instruments in worship issue. Jeff Bartel posted in a previous thread about Musical Instruments in Worship the following:


> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I personally have benefited from Brian Schwertley's 3 part audio series on Musical Instruments in Worship. He is very zealous, but his arguments are very good.


Let me add to the word "zealous" to describe Schwertly's presentation: _arrogant, uncharitable, and frenetic_. If I was to get that kind of presentation to my face he'd get more than an earful. How many times must I hear that I'm Popish and idolatrous?!

I do appreciate the gentle tone of Andrew and Jeff in the previous thread on the subject and wish to continue in that vein. I think Brian Schwertley expresses precisely what Andrew stated in that thread that "...there is much emotion on the issue...." I learned much from the audio series but I might have learned more if Schwertly were not so obnoxious.

OK, now that I have that off my chest, between the previous thread and this I have learned much about the history of instrumental music in worship. I grant the following:

1. Early Church Fathers thought that the instruments were Jewish and ceremonial.
2. The Reformers thought they were Jewish and ceremonial (and Popish). I don't really hear anything new from most of the quotes following Calvin's but they seem to be variations on the theme. Once the early Reformers linked them to the Papal system, there's not much new introduced except language to the same.

That said, I'm still not convinced that the Scriptures link instruments completely to the Levitical sacrifices (specifically Temple sacrifices) and them only.

I had an epiphany when he started arguing about Synagogue worship: New Testament Worship is not patterned off of Temple Worship, it is patterned off of Synagogue Worship. This is something I knew but is very significant, in my estimation, to the debate at hand. He spends nearly all his time showing how we don't conduct Temple ceremonies any more. Duh. How does he deal with the fact that there were no instruments in Synagogue worship? Well, you see, the Rabbis rule them out of Synagogue worship so we shouldn't think they belong either. Say that again?

OK, Rabbis believed that instruments were ceremonial implements. They didn't introduce them into Synagogue worship because they believed them to be ceremonial. NT worship is patterned after Synagogue worship so we should do the same.

I have a slight problem: it seems that Synagogue worship itself is a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship when one applies the same rigid application of the RPW as presented. Where is it anywhere commanded? Where is it prescribed what is appropriate and what is not in Synagogue worship? Schwertly doesn't spend any time developing why NT worship, patterned off of Synagogue worship and NOT temple worship, ought to be bound by either by Rabbinical tradition or a pattern that Synagogue worship itself is not bound by (namely Temple patterns and forms).

For instance, Schwertly mentions that a horn was used in Synagogue to announce the beggining of worship much like a Church Bell. That was the only instrument used and authorized. OK, so the implication is that we should get our ideas about what is proper in NT worship from the Talmud?! What kind of authority does Rabbinical teaching have for a pattern of NT worship?

Synagogue worship didn't even appear until the Babylonian exile. I think tradition credits Ezra with its creation. I just don't see any Biblical passages governing its elements and patterns. That which governed Temple Worship did not govern Synagogue Worship so what does the disappearance of a shadow that didn't inform Synagogue worship do to inform NT worship? Schwertly wastes so much energy telling us what we all know about the Temple and calling us Popish that he neglects to answer that issue.

It is useful to add that _the only people explictly commanded in the OT Scriptures to sing the Psalms in the Temple were the Levites_. The congregation did not sing them in Temple Worship. To demonstrate that only the Levites are shown playing instruments in narrative passages (as he does to show that only Levites are allowed to play instruments) reveals that they were commanded to do so but it is also true that they were the only folks trained in their use. There weren't too many music schools that Joe the Benjamite could attend to learn to play the lyre. Thinking out loud: we're commanded to sing Psalms in worship now and we're not Levites. Any distinction as to who is authorized to render "priestly praise" in NT worship is torn with the veil is it not? To use how a Jew would understand instruments in the Psalms only proves that a non-Levite Jew would understand that, in the Temple, they were not only prohibited from playing an instrument BUT ALSO FROM SINGING!!

So I guess I wonder this:
1. How was Synagogue worship acceptable when Scripture never commanded it?
2. Since the Scriptures don't govern it directly but it is governed by Rabbinical tradition, how much authority do we grant Synagogue patterns?
3. Rabbis certainly believed instruments to be ceremonial and only playable by Levites. They would have also believed that only Levites should sing the Psalms in the Temple. How does that inform us?
4. How does a Rabbis view of what is, and isn't, ceremonial inform us who know the reality from the type?

I'm still willing to learn on this but I would like to see some more thought put into this. I appreciate the historical appeals here but I see a common, accepted theme that instruments are ceremonial but don't really see the "support" to the idea except that it's been repeated so many times that it is accepted fact. I have a great deal of respect for the voices of the Saints but if NT worship is patterned from Synagogue worship, uninformed by Temple Worship, then what does that argument have to do with NT worship? Maybe if somebody can present the exegetical argument that forms the basis for the Historical theology it would be useful...

[Edited on 4-23-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Apr 23, 2006)

nice post - looking forward to a response.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 23, 2006)

A brief outline of a case for the early establishment and divine appointment of the synagogue is here.
The extract is taken from Dr. Richard Bacon's dissertation _A Pattern in the Heveans Part 1: Ecclesiology._ In full under FPCR free ebooks here.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 23, 2006)

Rich,

I commend your studies. You are asking good questions. For reasons I have already stated, I will not re-enter this debate. 

However, if you have not already done so, you may wish to consider reading the sections on worship in the synagogue as a model for Christian worship in the treatises on instrumental music by John Girardeau, Robert Nevin and G.I. Williamson. John Price's book also has a relevant section on the regulative principle applied to musical instruments. There are many other works on these subjects that are worth researching.

God bless your studies, Rich.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 23, 2006)

Thanks both Chris and Andrew! 

To all: have a blessed Lord's Day. Mine is coming to a close and I have to go to bed. I'll be interested to read what appears here while I study the inside of my eyelids for a few hours.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Let me add to the word "zealous" to describe Schwertly's presentation: _arrogant, uncharitable, and frenetic_. If I was to get that kind of presentation to my face he'd get more than an earful. How many times must I hear that I'm Popish and idolatrous?!



Yeah...I was trying to be charitable toward the guy. If you can get past the tone, there is much to be learned (at least in certain areas) by Schwertly.

As for your questions on this thread, they are excellent questions to be asking. I wish I could provide the answers to them all. I have ideas, but instead of just throwing them out there, I would rather take my time and digest some good information to develop the doctrines before going public with them.

Keep studying friend...you're doing great!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> A brief outline of a case for the early establishment and divine appointment of the synagogue is here.
> The extract is taken from Dr. Richard Bacon's dissertation _A Pattern in the Heveans Part 1: Ecclesiology._ In full under FPCR free ebooks here.


Great article!

A few quotes:

Lev 23:3 seems to be the command for synagogue worship


> The word for convocation comes, as we might expect from the English translation, from the verb qara´, "œto call or convoke." Not only were the feast days of the annual Hebrew calendar regarded as holy convocations, so also was the weekly Sabbath regarded as a holy convocation or miqra´-qodesh. Given the context of Leviticus 23:3, it is difficult to agree with the interpretation of some that it refers only to holding worship services at home. Rather, the reason that the Sabbath in verse three is separated from the rest of the "œfeasts of Jehovah" beginning in verses four and following is that the people were not required to go to the sanctuary in Jerusalem week by week. It is here, rather than post-exilic times as D. Bannerman and others have speculated, that we find the origins of synagogue worship.[4] Further, the term "œdwellings" used in Leviticus 23:3 has reference not so much to houses as seats or even habitations. The Hebrew term "œmoshebh" and the particular form of Leviticus 23:3, moshbotheykem, can also be translated as "œyour cities" (as in Second Kings 2:19) or even as "œyour assemblies" (as at Psalm 1:1 and 107:32).[5]





> We might reason as follows: If Christ partook of the synagogue worship, then the synagogue worship was lawful (Hebrews 7:26; First Peter 2:22). But Christ partook of the synagogue worship (Luke 4:16; Matthew 4:23). Therefore the synagogue worship was lawful (modus ponens).[14] At the same time, however, we must reason from Deuteronomy 12 and similar passages thus: If an institution of God´s worship is not commanded, then it is unlawful (Deuteronomy 12:5-6, 32; Ezekiel 20:28; Colossians 2:22-23; Matthew 15:6, 9).[15] But the synagogue is not unlawful (by double negation of our previous conclusion: q = not not q). Therefore the synagogue is a commanded institution (modus tollens).[16]
> But if Leviticus 23:3 is not the command instituting the synagogue as the weekly miqra´-qodesh, then there is no such command.[17] This we prove reasoning modus tollens as above: If there is no Scriptural command instituting the Sabbath synagogue worship, then Leviticus 23:3 is not such a command. But Leviticus 23:3 does institute a weekly miqra´-qodesh. Therefore, there is a Scripture command instituting the Sabbath synagogue worship. We thus demonstrate apagogically that if Leviticus 23:3 does not institute the synagogue (or if there is no other passage in holy writ that institutes it), then at least one of our presuppositions of a consistent Scripture and a sinless Christ must be a false presupposition. If valid deductions from our axioms result in contradictions, then our axioms must be false. But we do not accept the contradiction that the synagogue is both lawful and unlawful at the same time and in the same way. We maintain that the synagogue must have originated in "œthe pattern in the heavens" and was revealed through Moses in Leviticus 23:3.


Seems to be an acknowledgement here that Synagogue worship transcends the ceremonial worship of the Temple:


> The Jewish synagogue was, in conclusion, a place of study and teaching. It was, moreover, a place of covenantal or ecclesiastical government. And most of all, the synagogue was a place where God was worshipped not in the passing manner of the temple, but making use of the moral elements of worship that transcend the particulars of the Mosaic institutions. The Synagogue is a multifaceted institution, as Charles Lee Feinberg demonstrated nearly fifty years ago:
> "The Jewish Synagogue is not only a house of prayer (beth tefillah), but a place of communal gathering (beth haknesseth) and a place of study (beth hamidrash). The synagogue contains the ark, the scrolls of the law, the perpetual light, the candelabra, and the bimah or pulpit. The ark containing the scroll is built into the eastern wall toward Palestine. The main scrolls in the ark are of the Pentateuch, but there are smaller scrolls also containing the former and latter prophets. The perpetual light stands for the light that burned continually in the tabernacle and the temple. The bimah is the pulpit in front of the synagogue. The reading desk for the reading of the law is in the center of the sanctuary. Synagogues, in keeping with the Jewish interpretation of Exodus 20:4"“6, have no paintings, statues, or carvings of any kind. *Orthodox Jews forbid the use of an organ in the service, because rabbinical law set this prohibition as a token of mourning over the destruction of the Temple where the Levites played on musical instruments.* All orthodox synagogues have a separate balcony or section for women. This had its origin in the Temple where there was a Court of Women. Each synagogue or temple has a rabbi who is the spiritual leader.[28]"


Surely _we_ don't refrain from instruments because we're still mourning for the Temple?  That's an interesting note though: what does that imply about instruments prior to its destruction if that is the Rabbinical tradition? If they never played instruments then how would the Temple's destruction distinguish current worship from the former regarding instrumental use? Might just be a note that "...we've chosen not to introduce them because we're in mourning..." even though they believe they have the freedom to do so.

A very useful article. I agree with the author that Lev 23:3 institutes Synagogue Worship.

The nagging question remains however: What bounded propriety within Synagogue Worship? All of God's condemnations about high places, strange fire, and the like deal with false sanctuary worship. I can't think of a single verse that even obliquely refers to problems in Synagogue worship.

Perhaps what might be said is that neglect in the regularity of Synagogue Worship (ignoring the command of Lev 23:3) was prevalent as people forgot the Law regularly and the purpose of Synagogue was to teach the Law. Nevertheless, since the particulars of that were never spelled out it almost seems like everything within Synagogue worship is a circumstance of worship other than making sure that you are gathered every Sabbath. I'm trying to avoid that conclusion but there is no Biblical data to bound how the Law was exposited, whether Psalms were sung, or whether instruments were played in Synagogue.

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 24, 2006)

> New Testament Worship is not patterned off of Temple Worship, it is patterned off of Synagogue Worship. This is something I knew but is very significant, in my estimation, to the debate at hand.



Yes, this is very significant.

Here is an interesting thought that I think plays into the question just a little. You can draw your own conclusions or thoughts.

When Jesus implemented the Lord's Supper, he did so by utilizing the cups of blessing which are nowhere to be outlined in any Temple Worship. It is however, heavily influenced by Rabbinical sources (Passover/Synagogue worship). Jesus implemented the Supper based on an extra-curricular "activity" used by Jews for Passover. He partook of the cups, then instituted them for us - a pattern of Synagogue worship regarding Passover for Jews (not mentioned previously), now instituted for the continuation of the Christian church.

I think much the same way, our local expressions of the church are also patterned after the Jewish Synagogue. Even the Apostle James reminds us of certain theological and practical things when we "synagogue together."

Interesting.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 24, 2006)

Perhaps we could ask this question from another angle too. NOTE*- this is purely conjecture and pondering out loud.* 
How do we know that _all_ elements of temple worship have ceased? Could we not say that they have actually expanded upon their typological fulfillment? The temple was God's picture of being present with His people. We are all priests now, not just the Levites. We all serve in the presence of God now. If musical instruments were commanded of those Levites gifted with it in the old temple, then why not allow those gifted with musical ability now to serve in God's fuller presence?


----------



## Peter (Apr 24, 2006)

Is it true most Jews believe that the Rabbis received an oral tradition from Moses in addition to the written Torah? Does Jesus refute this notion in his dispute with the Pharisees? If so how do we justify the apparent borrowing from the Synagogue?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Perhaps we could ask this question from another angle too. NOTE*- this is purely conjecture and pondering out loud.*
> How do we know that _all_ elements of temple worship have ceased? Could we not say that they have actually expanded upon their typological fulfillment? The temple was God's picture of being present with His people. We are all priests now, not just the Levites. We all serve in the presence of God now. If musical instruments were commanded of those Levites gifted with it in the old temple, then why not allow those gifted with musical ability now to serve in God's fuller presence?


Patrick, that is part of my question. This issue does not seem very clear to me at all. I really wish some of the historical refutations of instrumental music did more than keep repeating the refrain "this is ceremonial so we don't do it". I don't see the thought defended, just repeated. I also see in much of the talk about instrumental music during and around the Reformation a viscerally "violent" attitude toward organs as being Popish. Ever met a Roman Catholic who became Reformed and they tack hard in the opposite direction? It just doesn't "fit" historically anymore to run around quoting Puritans and saying that an organ in a Church is a clear sign that the Church wants to rush back into the arms of the Church of Rome. It just makes one sound like a petty name-caller.

Sometimes we need to remember that, though brilliant in their lives, and revered because they came before us, the Reformers were men like us. After hearing so many quotes that are nearly identical there is a real "me too" quality to the idea. I just don't feel the weight from the Scriptural evidence, combined with a historical vantage point, to jump on that bandwagon and say that instruments are the clear reason for theological decline today due to Divine displeasure. 

Then again, maybe my attitude about instruments is a sign that traditions of men have so inculcated me that I can't bring myself to accept that God hates it. I have to admit, there is a part of me that would just love to be in an _a capella_ Church because I'm so weary of all the baggage associated with instruments in this day and age (praise bands and banal choruses). Done rightly though, it seems like there is a place for it as a circumstance to aid in the praise of the Saints and I haven't been convinced in my conscience that it is displeasing to God. May God cover any ignorance or stubborness of heart with the blood of His Son.

For me, it seems, there is some problem with being as strident as Schwertley is against fellow brethren when you really break down this issue. Again, where is improper Synagogue worship EVER condemned in Scripture and can we extend God's concern about the location or elements in Sanctuary worship to NT worship? It seems that if one insists that the RPW is as rigid for NT Worship as it is for the elements of Temple Worship then, at a minimum, one must demonstrate that the rigidity was at least partly true for Synagogue worship. That seems pretty hard to do from the paucity of commands governing it as well as the silence in condemning "strange Synagogue worship...."

You also raise an excellent point about how "types" of Service might carry over into the NT community. I've seen some arguments that show that ministers of the Gospel have a NT type of Priestly role in the preaching of the Gospel as distinct from and in addition to the Kingly role of Elders in general. Preaching is also seen as prophetic. Is NT worship _just_ synagogue worship or is it a little bit like Temple worship since we are the Temple of God? If so, then why was NT worship patterned after the Synagogue and where do the shadowy "rules" begin to apply where they did not before?

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Is it true most Jews believe that the Rabbis received an oral tradition from Moses in addition to the written Torah? Does Jesus refute this notion in his dispute with the Pharisees? If so how do we justify the apparent borrowing from the Synagogue?


I think it is the Mishnah that is the oral tradition. The written tradition and the various schools are primarily what Christ condemns in his polemics against their beliefs. The Sermon on the Mount is a virtual "your Rabbis are wrong" sermon but those are specific schools and specific strains of thought and not a sweeping condemnation of all study and "commentary" on the Scriptures theretofore (which what they are).

That said, there is some really, really insightful stuff in some of the Talmud (it's a collection of writings from many Rabbis over many years). The way the Synagogue worship is worked out is in there. If Christ had a problem with those portions he sure isn't clear about it because, as noted, He participated regularly in their worship.

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 25, 2006)

The other issue as well, underlying this whole discussion in light of the Regulative principle is, where does Scripture command acapella singing? There are plenty of psalms commanded to be sung with instruments. But I don't recall any songs commanded to be sung specifically without instruments, either in the OT or the NT. I would think such a command would be required in order to make it part of the Regulative Principle.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> The other issue as well, underlying this whole discussion in light of the Regulative principle is, where does Scripture command acapella singing? There are plenty of psalms commanded to be sung with instruments. But I don't recall any songs commanded to be sung specifically without instruments, either in the OT or the NT. I would think such a command would be required in order to make it part of the Regulative Principle.


Perhaps Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19 like it would be the verses. It's really difficult to view those verses as prescribing a type of "rule" for NT worship, however, as they are contextually listed with other general admonishments (proverbial in charachter). They might just as well be commands of how we are to interact outside the Church as in it.

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Certainly the command to sing is there. But these commands do not specify the means. They do not specify with or without instruments. That's a pretty glaring omissionin. For some to argue that the RPW requires acapella singing when no such explicit command exists seems a rather difficult case to prove. But hey, I'm still learning.....


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Certainly the command to sing is there. But these commands do not specify the means. They do not specify with or without instruments. That's a pretty glaring omissionin. For some to argue that the RPW requires acapella singing when no such explicit command exists seems a rather difficult case to prove. But hey, I'm still learning.....


Patrick,

I think that the point in question with both exclusive psalmody and instruments in worship is whether the regulative principle applies as particularly as we (unaccompanied exclusive psalm-singers) say it does. All conservative Presbyterians believe in the regulative principle; the question is how far it applies.

1. For the exclusive psalmody question, does the RPW apply only to the theological content of songs (like prayer, sermons, etc.), or does it apply to the question of which particular songs will be employed?

2. For the instruments question, does the RPW apply only to a vague sense of "decently and orderly," or does it apply to the use of particular instruments?

I believe that both of these questions are answered by 2 Chron. 29:25-30, where it is seen that both the use of particular instruments, and the use of particular songs ("the words of David, and of Asaph the seer"), depended upon the divine appointment and institution. If particular songs and particular instruments were appointed by God, then that shows that those particulars fall under the regulative principle.

That means that instruments are not "allowed" or "permitted": they are either commanded or forbidden. If that command still applies today, then it is only those particular instruments originally appointed which are to be used, and their use is absolutely mandatory; if it does not apply today (i.e., if it was part and parcel with the ceremonial institutions that existed in that dispensation), then they are just as forbidden from our worship as the slaughter of bulls, sheep, and goats.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Apr 26, 2006)

Rich

You might find this interesting/useful:

http://www.freedomministries.org.uk/masters/worship2.shtml


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 26, 2006)

How are instruments ceremonial? What do they signify?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> That means that instruments are not "allowed" or "permitted": they are either commanded or forbidden. If that command still applies today, then it is only those particular instruments originally appointed which are to be used, and their use is absolutely mandatory; if it does not apply today (i.e., if it was part and parcel with the ceremonial institutions that existed in that dispensation), then they are just as forbidden from our worship as the slaughter of bulls, sheep, and goats.



I guess I'm going further back in the argument. In order to require something as an element of worship, according to the RPW, you must have a positive clear command. I see the postive clear command for singing. I don't see one regarding instruments. If we are to only go with what is commanded, then neither accapella nor instrumental music can be argued for on the basis of the RPW. Neither form is specifically commanded.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> ...





> 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.--*2 Chron. 29:25.*


As I said in my previous post, this shows that instruments were commanded (not permitted or allowed) under the former dispensation; they were not a mere circumstance of worship, but were a specifically and particularly appointed ordinance, which means that they fell under the regulative principle of worship. This means that musical instruments are either moral (and therefore still obligatory) or ceremonial (and therefore now forbidden under this dispensation) -- unless it can be shown that God has somehow, for some reason, relinquished His regulating authority over musical instruments in His worship.

Actually, this would reflect only upon the particularly appointed instruments of that dispensation (see 1 Chron. 15:16ff.), and not musical instruments in general, giving some kind of vague approval to organs, pianos, etc. Not only musical instruments in general were appointed, but particular instruments, played upon by particular families of Levites.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> How are instruments ceremonial? What do they signify?


There have been several different opinions in answer to this question, mostly centering around the greater outpouring and joy of the Holy Spirit of which believers in this dispensation partake (Dabney and Girardeau held to this position, as I recall). While I tend toward that opinion, I believe that John Price's position (as set forth in his _Old Light on New Worship_) is perhaps "simpler": that the musical instruments formed an integral part of the ceremonial system which was abolished in its entirety by Christ; so that if the ceremonial system was abrogated, so were the musical instruments. I don't believe that it is necessary for us to guess at the particular way in which each ceremonial element of Old Testament worship represented Christ or the benefits of the new covenant, in order to prove that they are abrogated under the New Testament.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 26, 2006)

Sean,

Once again, however, you are dealing with Temple worship and commands for Levites under that system. How do those rules spill over into Synagogue worship and, by extension, into NT worship which was modeled after Synagogue worship?

I think it's easy to get caught up in the particulars of Temple worship and spend so much time investigating that and showing that NT worship is not like it to assume that weight is being added to the argument. I don't think you've added any weight to the argument of what is appropriate in either Synagogue or NT worship by your punctilious examination of Temple worship. 

The question stands unanswered as to what the bounds of Synagogue worship were.

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 26, 2006)

At best you could argue that instruments were regulated for temple worship. But where is such a regulation given for synagog worship? And how were instruments regulated before Mosaic worship? And where is the express command for accapella songs in the NT?


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> At best you could argue that instruments were regulated for temple worship. But where is such a regulation given for synagog worship?



Exactly.



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> And how were instruments regulated before Mosaic worship?



Exactly.



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> And where is the express command for accapella songs in the NT?



By an absence of a command to use them. The RPW requires a command to include something as worship, and it follows that if there is no command in the new dispensation, it is forbidden.

I think it is crucial (at least in my understanding) to examine the relationship of instruments to temple worship. If it is shown that instruments were used only in ceremonial temple worship, and there is an absence of a command outside that, it follows that instruments in worship are inherantly tied to ceremonial worship only. 

A lack of command in NTW would prove just that.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 26, 2006)

Jeff, you are assuming that the default position is accapella. Where is the command anywhere in Scripture that this is how to sing properly? Where is the command to sing without instruments. You need positive warrant from Scripture in order to make it an element of worship. Otherwise it's only a circumstance.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Where is the command to sing without instruments. You need positive warrant from Scripture in order to make it an element of worship.



It looks to me as if you have slipped into the NPW here. The NPW requires a command to NOT allow an element, otherwise it is ok. I need not show you a command to "not use intruments", but simply show that there is no command "to use instruments" OR that "instruments are only ceremonial."

It is clear that in the O.T. instruments are not merely a circumstance, but a required element. 

Given that, we have three options:

1) Instruments are a commanded element in the O.T. and the command still applies.

2) Instruments are a commanded element in the O.T. and the command does not still apply given it's ceremonial nature.

3) Instruments are a commanded element in the O.T. & N.T. and therefore case closed.

Which of these can we cross out? The strict RPW'ers cross out 1) and 3) by defeating their arguements. They support 2) by showing that instruments are ceremonial in the O.T. 

I don't see how this is the "default" position.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 26, 2006)

But there is no command anywhere to sing accapella (at least not that I can recall). 
This leaves the 4th option, that instruments are merely circumstantial in all other worship activity outside OT temple worship, because there is no method of song anywhere specified. There is no positive command to sing acapella only, therefore it can't be required as an element of worship. To say that it is a required element of worship without a clear command is a violation of the RPW.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> But there is no command anywhere to sing accapella (at least not that I can recall).



But the term "accapella" as it is commonly used simply means "without instruments." You are asking me to show you where God forbids the use of instruments, and I cannot do that. The problem is that this is the reasoning of the NPW, not the RPW. 



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> This leaves the 4th option, that instruments are merely circumstantial in all other worship activity outside OT temple worship, because there is no method of song anywhere specified.



1) Who said that instruments are part of a "method of song"?

2) Can something that was an element of worship in the O.T. become circumstantial in the N.T.? 



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> There is no positive command to sing acapella only, therefore it can't be required as an element of worship. To say that it is a required element of worship without a clear command is a violation of the RPW.



No, it is a violation of the NPW. I can't show you were God forbids instruments. I can't show you were God forbids plays, story time, kneeling, pizza, kickboxing or horsebeating (  ), but then again, I don't have to, do I? :bigsmile:


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 26, 2006)

Jeff,

How was any element in Synagogue worship acceptable by the above standard?

Yet Christ participated in it.

You wrote:


> 2) Can something that was an element of worship in the O.T. become circumstantial in the N.T.?


Instruments were an element in *Temple* worship but were they an element in Synagogue worship?

This is the issue I'm wrestling with. Within the Sanctuary, it would be inappropriate for anyone but a Levite to be involved in any aspect attending to the sacrifice. Singing of the Psalms, in fact, was only performed by the Priests in the Temple. One could argue, as you seem to have, that Psalms are a commanded element in Temple worship thus they could not be sung in worship by any but the Priests in the Old Testament.

OK so that's one type of OT worship.

What about Synagogue worship however? That is another type of *OT* worship. It's elements, however, are not prescribed in the Old Testament but there is merely the command to assemble every Sabbath (as noted above). _The congregation in Synagogue worship sang Psalms!_ This means that what was an element reserved solely to the Priests in Temple Worship was not restricted to a specific group in Synagogue worship!

It is logically fallacious to assume that an element in Sanctuary Worship is an element in Synagogue worship. Priests would have to superintend the former while a Rabbi superintended the latter. There are many other differences. An instrument might be a circumstance to Synagogue singing had the Rabbis decided it to be so. Given the lack of any clarity from the Word as to what constituted the elements of worship I wonder yet again whether its parts were all circumstances.

The logical extension you are making from Temple to NT worship (i.e. instruments are elements) is fallacious as well unless there is some sense in which NT worship is Temple worship and, therefore, instruments are an element because of the equivalency of the two.

[Edited on 4-27-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



I'm not asking for you to show where they are forbidden. Acapella is a form of singing. Instrumental music is a form of singing. Neither is specified outside OT temple worship. In order to make something an _element_ of worship you need a positive command to do so. Where is that command?


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I'm not asking for you to show where they are forbidden. Acapella is a form of singing. Instrumental music is a form of singing.



How are you saying that these are forms? Are you defining a "œform" by the culture? Or by Scripture?

How I see it, if it is commanded, it is an element, or a required circumstance that is not left up to our discretion.



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Neither is specified outside OT temple worship. In order to make something an _element_ of worship you need a positive command to do so. Where is that command?



I really don´t understand your reasoning here. 

Instruments are a commanded part of temple worship, but not for N.T. worship. It is that simple.

Acapella is just fancy terminology for "œwithout instruments." 

If we argree that:

Acapella=without instruments

Then we can say your argument is:

"œWere is your positive command to sing without instruments (or acapella)?"

In this, you are requiring me to provide a positive command that forbids the use of instruments in singing, but this is the NPW, not the RPW.

It doesn't seem as if we are getting anywhere.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 27, 2006)

Jeff,

I'm requiring you to show that instruments are an element of NT worship and not a circumstance.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Jeff,
> 
> I'm requiring you to show that instruments are an element of NT worship and not a circumstance.



Requiring me? :bigsmile:

In that case, I'll let Brian Schwertley speak for me:



> Others who object to the thesis of this book will claim that the use of musical instruments in public worship is a discretionary matter"”that is, it is just a mere "œcircumstance of worship common to human actions and societies."106 Such an assertion must ignore the whole Old Testament where it is clearly established that the use of instruments in worship was by divine authority. The use of musical instruments, their very design, and the various Levitical families who played them all were appointed by express commandment. This point is unquestionable. But, it is argued, could not the use of instruments be of divine appointment for the temple and be discretionary for the public worship in the synagogue and the Christian assemblies? No. The regulative principle was never limited to the temple (cf. footnote 104). Furthermore, something incidental to worship by nature is incidental or discretionary in all circumstances. The fact that the Jews in biblical times (indeed until 1810) regarded musical instruments as needing divine warrant for the synagogue should dispel the music-as-circumstance argument. "œIf, as some imagine, the apostles employed instruments of music in public worship, their instruments must have been buried along with them.



As I see it, the status of a particular action (either elemental or circumstantial) does not change from dispensation to dispensation. Worship is worship. The only distinction the Bible makes is between ceremonial worship, and non-ceremonial worship (which does not involve the redefining of elements to circumstances etc.).

If this is the case, the question is not weather instruments are now circumstantial (something that would need to be proved given it's "elemental" status in O.T. worship), but if they are ceremonial or not. I for one, believe that they are.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 27, 2006)

*John L. Girardeau*

on instruments being circumstantial:



> (2.) It is contended that instrumental music is to be ranked among
> the circumstances allowed by the Confession of Faith, and that this is
> proved by the fact that it is on the same foot as other circumstances
> about which there is no dispute: such as houses of worship, reading
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Jeff,
> How was any element in Synagogue worship acceptable by the above standard?
> Yet Christ participated in it.
> ...


I'd like to address whether Synagogue worship was regulated or not. I have to say that given the *fact* of the RPW, we have to accept that it was regulated. They couldn't have even held synagogue unless God commanded it (and he clearly did). We are left to glean certain facts of such worship from Scripture itself (if God saw fit to include a scrap of description, it makes sense that it is prescriptive), and extra-biblical recorded practice (which has to be compared to Scripture).

But I believe the place to begin is to say that what was allowable in Synagogue worship was basically: Temple worship, minus the sacrifices and anything else that could only be lawfully performed at the central shrine. I can't think of anything that Jesus did (never mind what anyone else may have done) at synagogue for which one cannot fine warrant in the OT. And if warrant cannot be found for something Jesus or one of the apostles did, then that behavior should be classed as "circumstancial".

Musical accompaniment is an integral part of some (at least) of the Psalms. We have to accept the fact that instrument isn't always pure ceremony. Often it is accompaniment, and it keeps people singing in time and on key. Psalm 12 (for example), in the title, includes musical direction "upon the 8-stringed lyre". Why is it _more regulative_ to say that "we can't use instruments" or "OK! as long as you use _an 8-stringed lyre,_ (whatever that is!)"--than it is to admit that some form of accompaniment is scripturally unobjectionable?

I'm all for ditching instrumental music as "filler"; we don't need "leaders in worship" (often women, unlawful) who are making *spectators* out of the assembly. There are good reasons to question the legitmacy of "instrumental sacrifices" under this administration. But I have a hard time even reducing accompaniment to a single instrument, when Psalm 150 practically explodes with orchestration. So, I don't see a place in NT worship for instruments alone, or drowning-out or upstaging the singing. But to me, they belong as accompaniment.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 27, 2006)

That is a good point Bruce. If someone argues that instruments must be regulated the same way, then so must the meter of the songs. For often the psalms are commanded to be sung to specific meters. That makes meter a matter of the RPW as well, if we accept the premise that OT temple worship makes instruments a RPW issue outside the temple. I don't hear of any modern Psalters fighting for a Specific Meter Only position.


----------



## Peter (Apr 27, 2006)

I'm open to considering the use of instruments for keeping tune. Such usage would permit keyboards (but not Organs, drums, horns etc.) and wouldnt be too different then the use of a pitchpipe. This use of instruments is worth considering as it indeed appears to make instruments a circumstance (ppl need to define and demonstrate they understand what a 'circumstance' is before they cleave to that hackneyed argument). In this situation the instruments would assist in the preformance of commanded worship (singing) and would not be a part of the religious worship itself. though you will notice Girardeau addresses this line of reasoning by saying that although it assists it is not necessary. He also anticipates Patricks argument on meter by pointing out that a tune is necessary to singing. You cannot sing w/o a meter you can sing w/o an organ.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 27, 2006)

1. The Old Testament clearly identifies musical instruments as an ordinance, appointment, institution, etc. of God. That being the case, God was obviously regulating their use under the Old Testament. Where has God relinquished His authority to regulate the use of instruments in worship? It is incumbent upon those who argue for instruments to show this; otherwise, God still regulates the use of musical instruments in His worship. For instrumentalists to point to Old Testament *commands* to use musical instruments, to justify New Testament *permission* for musical instruments, is not a valid argument.

2. The command (not allowance) to use instruments under the Old Testament, being a command of God under the Old Testament, must be either moral or ceremonial. Neither position is taken by those who argue for instruments.

3. The fact that the command to use instruments is not repeated in the New Testament is significant. (I'm not arguing like a Baptist or Campbellite; just wait.) This is because of the severe limitation of their use under the Old Testament, where they were played upon by Levites, in the Temple, during the sacrificing of animals, etc.

Many of these things are true of the singing of Psalms under the Old Testament; however, with the repetition of the command to sing Psalms under the New Testament, their use is expanded to all members of the church generally (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 5:13). The command to sing Psalms is moral. Under the Old Testament, it was limited by certain ceremonials that existed under that dispensation; but with the introduction of the New Testament, and those ceremonials being stripped away, it is continued in its morality. With the command repeated in the New Testament, it is shown to not be limited to the ceremonial law.

But the command to use instruments is not repeated in the New Testament. Because of this, if we were to continue using instruments in this dispensation, the standing rule is for them to be used by Levites, in the Temple, during the sacrifice, etc. There is no New Testament command introduced to free it of those ceremonials, to expand their use to church members generally, or anything else wherein it might parallel the singing of Psalms. If there is no New Testament command introduced to free it from the ceremonial law (as occurs with Psalmody), it is still bound to the ceremonial law, and must have perished with the expiration of that dispensation.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 27, 2006)

...and I also reject the appeal to the Psalms for instrumental music. Anything appearing in the Psalms (particulars of Temple worship) were themselves regulated by God's particular appointment; i.e., the mentioning of instruments in the Psalms did not indicate that everyone was to play upon those instruments. The Psalms themselves were (many of them) written during the Temple period, and certain particulars that they mention have passed away.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> That is a good point Bruce. If someone argues that instruments must be regulated the same way, then so must the meter of the songs. For often the psalms are commanded to be sung to specific meters. That makes meter a matter of the RPW as well, if we accept the premise that OT temple worship makes instruments a RPW issue outside the temple. I don't hear of any modern Psalters fighting for a Specific Meter Only position.


To which Psalms (and meters) are you referring? I don't remember "C.M." or "10.10.10.10.10" appearing in the titles of any Psalms. At least not in my version.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Several of the psalms were written, "to be sung to the tune of..." then insert title of a contemporary song in their day, whatever that was.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I'm open to considering the use of instruments for keeping tune. Such usage would permit keyboards (but not Organs, drums, horns etc.) and wouldnt be too different then the use of a pitchpipe. This use of instruments is worth considering as it indeed appears to make instruments a circumstance (ppl need to define and demonstrate they understand what a 'circumstance' is before they cleave to that hackneyed argument). In this situation the instruments would assist in the preformance of commanded worship (singing) and would not be a part of the religious worship itself. though you will notice Girardeau addresses this line of reasoning by saying that although it assists it is not necessary. He also anticipates Patricks argument on meter by pointing out that a tune is necessary to singing. You cannot sing w/o a meter you can sing w/o an organ.



But what kind of meter?  
I would never argue instruments are essential to song. They are and only should be an aid or accompaniment to help those less musically gifted in song. I detest "special music" or instumental solos. I see no place for those in worship. I'm only trying to point out that in order to make accapella an element of worship, there must be a clear command. The fact that instruments were at one time mandated for singing several of the psalms would, at least to me, require clarification in the NT as to the fact that instruments were now forbidden, especially when no such prohibition is made in the OT for non-temple worship. You would think that the God of the RPW who was so specific in the OT would give stricter guidelines if it was suppose to be an essential element of worship in the NT. 

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


Bruce,

I hope you know I'm not trying to be cute or difficult in any of my objections but there are some apparent weaknesses, in my estimation, to your assertion about Synagogue worship.

As I see it, you see Temple Worship as containing the full "set" of regulated elements while Synagogue worship only contained a "sub-set" of those. In other words, you see Synagogue worship as "Temple worship minus sacrificial portions". A few problems:

1. I don't believe there was any portion of Temple worship prescribed (or historically recorded) where the reading of the Law and the targumin (explanation) of the Priests took place. In other words, the most central part of Synagogue worship is not prescribed as present in Temple worship. Not only are things taken away (sacrifices) but something central is added (teaching of the Law). This is primarily Christ's activity in the Synagogue.

2. Was the superintendent of worship immaterial? That is, priests are a key element of Temple worship. Why was the superintendent of Synagogue worhsip immaterial in terms of tribe? I'm unclear as to why, in OT worship without any presciption, they could ommit this consideration. Simply saying "Well he wouldn't be sacrificing..." wouldn't answer that. There were Levites "in the neighborhood" after all that were available to be teachers and were geographically too distant to be part of the Temple.

3. What's up with the lack of any rebuke in the OT toward the Synagogues? God everywhere condemns a violation of the RPW wrt Sanctuary worship but there isn't one place I can find where He condemns their false Synagogue worship.

There are many "trails" in this discussion and I'm trying to not to engage them all but, to Jeff, that second point addresses your issue that an "element in OT worship is an element in OT worship". No it was not so. Where only a Levite could superintend in the Temple, one from Judah could superintend in the Synagogue. Schwertley and your contention is overthrown by that fact.

I'm not trying to get rid of the RPW but I do see some logically weak ways in which it is being extended toward the Synagogue. From the non-instrumental EP position I see "selective logic" when it suits their case. There is an unwillingness, on their part, to develop the prescriptions for Synagogue worship. It is not enough to barely assert that what God prescribes in one sphere of worship extends to the other. The lack of a Priest in Synagogue worship is glossed over when _he is the most central element in Temple worship_!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2006)

Rich,
_Colonel,_
Maybe your Marines think you're *cute,* but I never said anything like that!

(Back to seriousness)
1) I don't think analysis that separates Temple/synagogue is going to go anywhere. The fact that RPW is in effect, coupled with precious little data on synagogue particulars, to me forces the two together. They are of one piece. So even if reading the Law didn't fit into a regular sacrificial work-day, I fail to see how that excludes it from Temple worship entirely. 

Besides, as for Law-reading in the Temple, it was definitely to take place at least once every 7 years, (Deut. 31:9-11). See also Neh 8. This was to take place in the place designated for the national assembly. It was to take place, then, in the vicinity of the Temple, in the largest available gathering place. (I add this, in case it is objected that in Neh., the gathering takes place in the square beyond the formal temple precincts.) The Deut. passage clearly indicates that the holy environs encompass the whole gathered people, come together for the purpose, whatever the space limitations.

2) I would argue a fortiori, that if the Law governed the whole OT system, and if it was permitted/demanded at the "lowest" level, then from the greater to the lesser, the reading of the Law must have been part and parcel of the larger worship, at least on special occasions, as noted above. It was the governing document, the Constitution. Its too incredible to suppose it formed no part of the regular business, or that the priests and Levites present for duty, but not on the "rotation", were not taken up in such studies

The fact that the book of the Law was dragged out (2 Ki. 22:8) after being neglected indicates that if it was not attended to, it would eventually be ignored.

3) Superintendence of synagogue worship was in the hands of the "elders", just like it is today. There's nothing immaterial about that, in my book. I believe its Edersheim who points out that when the priest was present in the synagogue, he was called upon to read. So, there does appear to be a recognized priority to the priestly dignity in that case, but if a priest was not present, well, the Law must still be read! The Law is of greater importance than the minister.

4) Why no condemnation of abusing the synagogue? Perhaps there was little overt to condemn, if the synagogue service remained simple, and keyed around reading and teaching the Law. The people *are* frequently condemned for neglecting the Law. So, this is an indirect condemnation, and probably indicates that synagogue was simply neglected, not perverted. Given the people's penchant for idolatry, they forsook the synagogues for the high places.

I would say, secondly, that by condemning their sacrifices, at the central shrine, the whole edifice was under condemnation, since it was a whole cloth.

That there was provision for this worship (neglected or not by the majority) seems rather clearly indicated in Psa 74:8 "They said to themselves, "We will utterly subdue them"; they burned all *the meeting places of God in the land.*"

The founding command: duty of the priests to instruct the people:
Lev. 10:11 "And you {Aaron, and by extension the all priestly class henceforth} are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the LORD has spoken to them by Moses."

An interesting side note, and light it casts on previous practice:
2Ki 17:27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, "Send there one of the priests whom you carried away from there, and let him go and dwell there and teach them the law of the god of the land." 

And 2 Chron. 15:3, the "teaching priest":
2Ch 15:3 For a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest and without law, 
see also 17:7

Ez. 44:23 "{The priests} shall teach my people the difference between the holy and the common, and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean."

Eze 7:26 "Disaster comes upon disaster; rumor follows rumor. They seek a vision from the prophet, while the law perishes from the priest and counsel from the elders."

Isa 28:7-9 "These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink; *the priest* and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are swallowed by wine, they stagger with strong drink, they reel in vision, they stumble in giving judgment. For all tables are full of filthy vomit, with no space left. "To whom will he teach knowledge, and to whom will he *explain the message*? Those who are weaned from the milk, those taken from the breast?"

Jer 14:18 If I go out into the field, behold, those pierced by the sword! And if I enter the city, behold, the diseases of famine! For both prophet and *priest ply their trade* through the land and have no knowledge.'"

Jer 18:18 Then they said, "Come, let us make plots against Jeremiah, for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, let us strike him with the tongue, and let us not pay attention to any of his words."

Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

Mal 2:7 For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. 

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 27, 2006)

Fair enough Bruce. I always appreciate the seriousness and thoroughness that you treat these things with. I think I'm comfortable with your description.

I don't think the analysis of Synagogue & Temple worship distinctions is entirely fruitless. Once one admits elemental distinctions between the two that are obvious (particularly the fact that Priests are "optional") then it is harder to just blithely apply everything we know about Temple worship and say "...well NT worship can't be _that_ way."

I think I mentioned earlier as you did above that the neglect of the reading of the Law was pretty manifest (even if Josiah wasn't getting it yearly from the priest he should have been hearing it in Synagogue but neither was occuring).

Can we retain the RPW while admitting that Temple worship, just like the whole of the ceremonial law, was much stricter in every sense than that which we find in the NT? My problem is not in admitting that the RPW exists but perhaps there is more liberty as to the circumstances of the RPW in the New Covenant. Much less has been spelled out regarding elements. For instance, it would not do in the Temple to just choose to use any kind of implements or cups or basins but they were very much prescribed. In the NT, we must serve bread and wine but there is much more liberty as far as the circumstances (one communal cup or a bunch of plastic ones is but one of many examples).

Without neglecting the principle of the RPW, I would argue that the principle is carried out now with more prudence rather than precept. I see in some of the EP and instrumental pleadings a sort of "weak and beggarly" form of the RPW itself.

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Can we retain the RPW while admitting that Temple worship, just like the whole of the ceremonial law, was much stricter in every sense than that which we find in the NT?



In a sense yes, and in a sense no.

Is God less strict regarding the commands that he has laid down? I would suggest that Christ blew the doors wide open and in fact expounded the law, instead of reducing it's "strictness." Whereas in the O.T., the 2nd table of the law regarded one to "love thy neighbor", but Christ pointed that it was not merely the external, but the internal as well. I realize that this is a moral command, but I believe the same applies to elements of worship. 

Christ's kingdom instituted a type of worship that is radically different from the overly outward forms of the temple. Rather, the inward man is emphasized, and meditation/singing with grace in the heart etc. are all points of emphasis in the N.T. That being said, today's culture often devalues the outward elements as if they are useless as long as your heart is ok (even if they are commands in scripture). The RPW accounts for both of these.

So, are we burdened by the outward ceremonial rites of a worship that is passing away? Thanks be to God that we are not. 

Are we still left with valid outward elements that require as meticulous obedience as the command requres (this being the same as temple worship)? Absolutely.



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> My problem is not in admitting that the RPW exists but perhaps there is more liberty as to the circumstances of the RPW in the New Covenant.



It depends on what kind of "liberty" you are talking about. Are we free from the clothing laws that the priests must wear in public worship? Absolutely. But not because we have a greater liberty in degree, but a greater liberty as to type. The ceremonial circumstances have passed away, but there are nonetheless some which remain obligatory on the church today:



> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I
> Of the Holy Scripture
> VI.
> ...and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
> ...



With regards to the circumstances not included under this section (that are still obligatory), they have just as must "strictness" as all of the temple worship. 

I think that this also proves that even if one were to grant that instrumental music was circumstantial in temple worship, it was obligatory, and would then remain an abligatory circumstance in the N.T. Therefore, throw out that electric lute and break out the lyre (and be sure to get the number of strings right, 'cause that can be tricky). 



> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Much less has been spelled out regarding elements. For instance, it would not do in the Temple to just choose to use any kind of implements or cups or basins but they were very much prescribed. In the NT, we must serve bread and wine but there is much more liberty as far as the circumstances (one communal cup or a bunch of plastic ones is but one of many examples).



As I stated above, God has not required such meticulous laws in the New dispensation, but in the laws he does command, he is just as meticulous in the obedience he requires. The commands are fewer, but just as important to keep.

I believe that one of the reasons God required so many specific laws, was to teach us that he is jealous for his worship, and cannot be worship falsely without dishonoring his holy name.

I get the impression that some of your post implies that instruments are assumed to be circumstantial, but In my humble opinion, the status of elements do not change into non-obligatory circumstances, but once an element, keep their status as an element.

Please forgive me if I've rambled a bit on this post, but I hope that it will at least clarify my thoughts a bit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 27, 2006)

Jeff,

I completely agree that we need to be strict to obey what God has commanded. I just sense in the instrumental worship issue a step backwards where the form of the ceremony is presented as more important than the substance. Where the Pharisees obeyed with respect to the edges of their garments in worship, Christ was more concerned with the posture of their hearts. I know that's not what the spirit for the more thoughtful is but I think it comes across that way for some others. Schwertley is a good example of someone who says very uncharitable things and I feel like saying "Dude, worry less about the organ in your Church than the fact that you like to hurl insults at your Brothers and call them Popish." Perhaps that's the Spirit that this focus brings...

I don't agree with the logic that "an element is an element" for the aforementioned reasons (a priest was an element in one but could participate without being a priest in the Synagogue).

I guess the difference is this: I assume they're circumstancial because I don't see that their use in the Temple automatically makes them elemental for all other forms of worship. You assume that once something is an element it is forever an element.

Just because the only example of plates in Sanctuary worship were all prescribed elements, it doesn't make them elements in NT worship. Christ, after all, never commanded that we serve the bread on a plate. We could just as easily be punctilious and say: "Well it is clear that there is no command to use plates in the Lord's Supper. Plates were an element in Sanctuary worship and cannot be a circumstance in NT worship. Use of plates to distribute the Lord's supper is strange fire and God hates it! We can have no unity until the Reformed Churches stop using plates in worship." I could come up with many examples and turn myself into a Pharisee of the Regulative Principle.

It simply does not do for me to take an article for common use and forever freeze it as an element of worship because it was used in the Sanctuary.

I'm not arguing for Rock bands and the like. I'm arguing for prudence. That's what Elders in the New Covenant are for. All the ridiculous "slippery slope" arguments that are presented about puppet shows or doing "anything you like" ignore that we have Elders and a regulative principle that already guides them in circumstances surrounding the elements that already exist. Law does not ensure obedience but prudent liberty acting in love.

[Edited on 4-28-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2006)

I appreciate the grace exhibited in all sides in this discussion. Thanks to the main participants here: Rich (for starting the thread), Patrick, Jeff, Sean.


----------



## Peter (Apr 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> But what kind of meter?
> I would never argue instruments are essential to song. They are and only should be an aid or accompaniment to help those less musically gifted in song. I detest "special music" or instumental solos. I see no place for those in worship. I'm only trying to point out that in order to make accapella an element of worship, there must be a clear command. The fact that instruments were at one time mandated for singing several of the psalms would, at least to me, require clarification in the NT as to the fact that instruments were now forbidden, especially when no such prohibition is made in the OT for non-temple worship. You would think that the God of the RPW who was so specific in the OT would give stricter guidelines if it was suppose to be an essential element of worship in the NT.



Patrick, You're arguing for instruments three ways. 



> I'm only trying to point out that in order to make accapella an element of worship, there must be a clear command.



This argument I categorically reject. There is no light in it. Jeff has demonstrated that this is contra- the RPW under the cloak of RPW language. You misconceive acappella singing as positive institution when it is infact properly negative. The non-use of instruments is not an element, it is by definition the rejection of an element. Negative statements about worship cannot be made to bear the scrutiny of the RPW. Viz Statements about what is not in worship are not subject to the principle. Propositions such as no instruments can be in worship, or no insense, or no praise choirs, or no clowns and circus tricks are not elements; They do not need a clear command to be regulative b/c they are rejections of elements in absense of clear command.



> The fact that instruments were at one time mandated for singing several of the psalms would, at least to me, require clarification in the NT as to the fact that instruments were now forbidden, especially when no such prohibition is made in the OT for non-temple worship.



The a cappella argument for this, which I hold to and has already been explained, is that, in the NT with the repeal of the Temple sacrifice system the instruments that were part of it went with. Also, in the Psalms, I consider many such mention of instruments to be hyperbolic expressions of praise as some of them were forbidden in the temple worship.



> But what kind of meter?
> I would never argue instruments are essential to song. They are and only should be an aid or accompaniment to help those less musically gifted in song.



This, I would admit, there is some weight to, but as my objections have not been answered I am not fully pursuaded. You acknowledge instruments are not essential to singing, yet music is and music requires a meter. What kind of meter doesnt matter so long as it makes the words of the song singable. I think maybe instruments might be allowed under the condition no one in the congregation could sight read music.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 28, 2006)

Thanks Peter. 
I would agree, if instruments are allowed, then it is only an aid not an essential, and they are only to be used with congregational singing. Singing is the required element for certain. But its also a simple fact, and I'm sure it was the same back then, that some simply are not gifted with singing. They need help to guide their melody. The whole "just make a joyful noise" argument in my mind simply doesn't work. Bad singing is distruptive. Granted people can improve with practice. But the aid of an instrument sure helps.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 28, 2006)

Those of you who hold that instruments in worship are merely circumstantial in the new dispensation:

What would you tell the Catholic who said that images of Christ aided him in prayer/worship? How would you go about convincing him that images were wrong (using a method consistent with your position on instruments)?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Those of you who hold that instruments in worship are merely circumstantial in the new dispensation:
> 
> What would you tell the Catholic who said that images of Christ aided him in prayer/worship? How would you go about convincing him that images were wrong (using a method consistent with your position on instruments)?



"Thou shalt not make any graven images..."


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 28, 2006)

Bruce,
My suspicion is that if you were to put that position into practice, or try to, that in 99.9% of PCA churches, you might as well be in the a cappella camp for the reaction you'd get. What, my Sally can't play the offertory!...



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I'm all for ditching instrumental music as "filler"; we don't need "leaders in worship" (often women, unlawful) who are making *spectators* out of the assembly. There are good reasons to question the legitmacy of "instrumental sacrifices" under this administration. But I have a hard time even reducing accompaniment to a single instrument, when Psalm 150 practically explodes with orchestration. So, I don't see a place in NT worship for instruments alone, or drowning-out or upstaging the singing. But to me, they belong as accompaniment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...


Just to add on, I would preach the Gospel to convert the heart. Idolatry flows out of the heart. It is not for a lack of precepts that the Roman Catholic Church is idolatrous.

I addressed this question earlier when I mentioned elders and the _prudent_ application of liberty. There are many different circumstancial ways that leaders can be unwise even in the circumstances that are undisputed among us.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 28, 2006)

Yeeeeess, that's for sure, Chris. I'm just stating my druthers, as someone who takes a high view of the RPW, in a RPW church. I do not like choirs either, and yet (!) we do have a children's choir on occasion.

I admit to humming along frequently to a tune being played for offertory. I'm not unappreciative of the work these folks put into it, and they do make the "break" pleasant. I also find it a bit tedious when I'm leading worship to wait for it to be over. The collection takes about 2 minutes, max, in this small church. The music often takes 3 minutes or more. What are we all just waiting for... ?!? The music has become the purpose for those minutes.

Someone who thinks _instrument*als*_ are no big deal, even praiseworthy, it never even occurs to them, I suppose. But since I have a conscientious objection, I just endure it (although someimes it doesn't seem to bother me). Semper Reformanda.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 30, 2006)

Thanks to all who contributed to this. I'm very gratified, as Bruce noted earlier, that this thread was so gracious considering how uncompromising both positions were. I really appreciate my EP brothers on this thread who displayed the mind of Christ and that, where we disagreed, it was expressed with love. I have to admit I'm sometimes the chief of sinners in my impatience.

I know this didn't settle anything or even break new ground but I learned a lot as we didn't have to spend all our time responding to _ad hominem_ arguments.

Thanks to all for your patience and participation. I have learned much from this thread but especially from this Board in general.

[Edited on 4-30-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 4, 2006)

If instruments were only allowed in temple worship then why does Nehemiah use the "instruments of David" (Neh. 12:36) at the dedication of the rebuilt wall (i.e. not in the temple)?


----------

