# Paedobaptism, Music, and Covenant Succession



## biblelighthouse (May 25, 2005)

I had an interesting conversation with my pastor the other day. I mentioned my disagreement with those who disallow musical instruments in Church, based on the dispensational argument that "it's not specifically mentioned in the New Testament." I mentioned clear passages like Psalms 150, where instrumental music is _commanded_ for the worship of God, and noted the fact that instrumental worship is _never abrogated_ in the New Testament.

My pastor then made a very apropos comment. He said that the New Testament commands us to sing the Psalms, and that it would be pretty hard to _sing_ the Psalms if we weren't also supposed to _obey_ what we found in them!

Consider these passages in Colossians and Ephesians:

Colossians 3:
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you *teach and admonish one another* with all wisdom, and *as you sing psalms*, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. 

Ephesians 5:
19 *Speak to one another with psalms*, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 
20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Note that we aren't only commanded to _sing_ Psalms; we are also commanded to "speak to one another with Psalms."


Now let's look at 3 particular passages from the Psalms:


Psalm 100:
5 For the LORD is good and his love endures forever; *his faithfulness continues through all generations.*


Psalm 102:
28 The children of your servants will live in your presence; *their descendants will be established before you.*"


Psalm 103:
17 But from everlasting to everlasting the LORD's love is with those who fear him, *and his righteousness with their children's children* 


Now, in the same vein as my pastor's comment about musical instruments, I ask a question regarding covenantal succession (and therefore paedobaptism):

_"If the New Testament commands us to sing the Psalms and to speak the Psalms, then shouldn't we be mindful of the application of these Psalms today in the Church?"_

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by biblelighthouse]

[abbreviated title of thread]

[Edited on 5-26-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

GOOOoooo, Joseph! 

Psalm 22:27
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD,and all the *families* of the nations shall worship before you. 

Psalm 96:7
Ascribe to the LORD, O *families* of the peoples,ascribe to the LORD glory and strength! 

Psalm 107:41
but he raises up the needy out of affliction and *makes their families like flocks* 

Robin


----------



## wsw201 (May 25, 2005)

Quick question, do you define covenant succession as Robert Rayburn does?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

If we use the Psalms and the pattern of worship they describe in New Covenant worship, we will be apostates, according to the Book of Hebrews. We can sing the Psalms, as commanded alone in the NT for praise and worship, but we must understand Christ's fulfillment of so much of the Psalms just as with the Law and the Prophets.

I don't think any of us are about to justify the need of a priest offering a burnt offering to the Lord upon an altar or sacrificing a calf during a New Covenant worship service, no more should we allow the burning of incense, clapping of hands, or use of instruments, as they all belong within and are tied to the Old Covenant ceremonial Temple worship system.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 25, 2005)

Joseph,

To protect your argument from reductio ad absurdum, you will need to deal with texts like Ps. 84:1-4, 10; 122:1-5, and others, which deal with the offering of Old Covenant sacrifices. In other words, if you read some Psalms as prescriptive for the Church, why not all Psalms? I realize you read these texts (the ones mentined above) redemptive-hisotircally, and rightly so! But, I also think you may run into problems going from Col. 3 and Eph. 5 directly to the Psalms and reading them and applying them as is. I am sure other paedobaptists have worked this out in detail. For instance, the Chief Musician of the Psalms, and those who accompanied him, were probably references to Levitical priests appointed for OC temple worship (1 Chron. 15:16; 23:5). Some of the contexts in which musical instruments were employed in the Psalms involved public, civil celebrations of victory in war.

Your friend,


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)




----------



## biblelighthouse (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Quick question, do you define covenant succession as Robert Rayburn does?



I don't know how he defines it. I'm just thinking about standard covenant inclusion, paedobaptism, etc.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If we use the Psalms and the pattern of worship they describe in New Covenant worship, we will be apostates, according to the Book of Hebrews. We can sing the Psalms, as commanded alone in the NT for praise and worship, but we must understand Christ's fulfillment of so much of the Psalms just as with the Law and the Prophets.
> 
> I don't think any of us are about to justify the need of a priest offering a burnt offering to the Lord upon an altar or sacrificing a calf during a New Covenant worship service, no more should we allow the burning of incense, clapping of hands, or use of instruments, as they all belong within and are tied to the Old Covenant ceremonial Temple worship system.



My original post was not meant to cover all the bases. To do that, I would have to write a book.

Tecnically, we are still under a sacrificial system, we just understand that Christ Himself is our perfect sacrifice, so the sacrifice of animals no longer is performed . . . having been *explicitly* fulfilled per the book of Hebrews.

You are completely incorrect regarding the use of musical instruments in worship. As I pointed out, the New Testament points out *explicitly* that Christ is the perfect sacrifice, and that we are no longer to perform animal sacrifices. But I challenge you to show me anywhere that the New Testament abrogates instrumental worship. There are harps in Heaven in Revelation, for goodness sakes. Are you suggesting that God wanted musical instruments in the Old Testament, and in Paradise, but just not in between? Give me a break.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> Joseph,
> 
> To protect your argument from reductio ad absurdum, you will need to deal with texts like Ps. 84:1-4, 10; 122:1-5, and others, which deal with the offering of Old Covenant sacrifices. In other words, if you read some Psalms as prescriptive for the Church, why not all Psalms? I realize you read these texts (the ones mentined above) redemptive-hisotircally, and rightly so! But, I also think you may run into problems going from Col. 3 and Eph. 5 directly to the Psalms and reading them and applying them as is. I am sure other paedobaptists have worked this out in detail. For instance, the Chief Musician of the Psalms, and those who accompanied him, were probably references to Levitical priests appointed for OC temple worship (1 Chron. 15:16; 23:5). Some of the contexts in which musical instruments were employed in the Psalms involved public, civil celebrations of victory in war.
> ...



I agree that we have to look at everything, including the Psalms, in a redemptive/historical way. 

Christ is our perfect sacrifice, so animal sacrifices are no longer needed. The New Testament *explicitly* tells us this.

But where does the New Testament do away with musical instruments?

Where does the New Testament do away with the covenant inclusion of children?

Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 are just simple reminders that the Psalms still apply to us today. Do we need to run them through the redemptive/historical filter of the New Testament? Certainly! And the NT does change how we think about sacrifices. But the New Testament says nothing to change how we should think about music in worship, or about the covenantal inclusion of children.

Like I said in a previous post, I realize that my original post was just a "quickie" . . . to fully deal with all of the questions that can be raised, I would have to write a whole lot more than I did.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 25, 2005)

In essense, I'm just saying this:

Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 are simple reminders that the Psalms are still valid for the church.

Now, *HOW* they apply is a more complex question. Should we still use musical instruments? Of course we should. Should we still practice covenant inclusion of children? Of course we should. Should we practice animal sacrifices? No, because the New Testament makes explicit statements against it.

In short, stuff in the Psalms can certainly be abrogated by the NT. But the burden of proof is on the person that is doing the abrogation. Can we show in the New Testament that the use of musical instruments in worship has been outlawed? No, we cannot. Can we show that the NT has abrogated the covenant-inclusion of children? No, we cannot.

I'm really not saying much of anything different from what millions have already said about OT/NT continuity. I merely used Col. 3 and Eph. 5 as a simple reminder that the argument works for the Psalms in particular.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 25, 2005)

A brief tract on why we no longer are to use musical instrumentation in worship is here: http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/mdonald.htm
A book length treatment by John L. Girardeau is here:
http://www.fpcr.org/girardeau/Girardeau on Instrumental Music.htm
and a short article dealing with Psalms like Psalm 150 is here:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/psalm150.htm
A 19th century debate (including a young Robert L. Dabney), their equivalent to a discussion board I guess, pro and con musical instruments in worship is at this link.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/org1.htm


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

The instruments and commands related to instruments were given to the Levites and the Levitical priesthood. Hebrews tells us we are no longer under the Levitical priesthood, and that with a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the ceremonial law as well.

Anything spoken of in the Psalms related to the sacrificial/ceremonial system of the Temple doesn't apply to us today, except for the fact that Christ fulfilled these things with His sacrifice, and we are to rejoice in this fact when we read or sing these lines contained in the Book of Psalms.

The abrogation of instruments of David is synonymous with the abrogation of the Temple worship. Find any Old Testament reference to the instruments of David where they are used in a situation OTHER THAN Temple worship, warfare, or feast days. 2 Chronicles 29 makes it clear that the instruments were used during burn offering ONLY, and the _acappella_ singing of the Psalms followed after this. When the Jews began to worship in synagogues instead of the Temple (which is what our NT worship is patterned after, as a continuation in the early Church), they did not use instruments at all, with the exception of trumpets sounding the feast days. There is no mention of instruments in any of the cases of worship by singing in the New Testament, including the institution of the Lord's Supper by Christ (where they sang Psalms alone, _acappella_). Any mentioning of the Book of Revelation as a pattern of worship is not worth discussing or refuting. It is not a pattern of earthly worship, and contains highly symbolic imagery. If it were a pattern of worship, why did the Apostle John not join in or make it clear such things were to be followed by us? I don't think you are going to argue that we should, as in Revelation, include in our worship the casting of crowns, dramatic presentation, burnt offerings, sacrifices, etc. all over again, are you?

Back to the subject at hand, you cannot use the Book of Psalms and what it speaks of as a normal pattern of New Covenant worship (just like you couldn't use it for Old Covenant worship either, it leaves many things out). We don't have to subjectively pick what applies and what doesn't, either. There are clear liturgial and musical instructions given within the Psalter that no longer apply, as they were done by the Levites alone, and have been abrogated in light of Christ's sacrifice.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 25, 2005)

Man . . . this is deja' vu from discussions I had with Church of Christ guys several years ago . . . 

And to think that I complain about my church only having a piano and acoustic guitar! 

If I ever experience a Sunday morning service in any church that leaves out musical instruments altogether (thereby giving God less than the best possible worship), it will probably be my last Sunday there too, because it would be unlikely that I would want to go back. 

I took a look at a couple of the articles posted above. It would be nice if some of what was written in them was actually based on statements directly from Scripture. But it's funny, isn't it, that 2 Chronicles 29 does NOT say "instruments are ONLY to be used during sacrifices". (Two things happening at the same time does not mean that they ALWAYS have to go together. --- My grandpa dying when there's a full moon does not mean that full moons cause grandpas to die.) It's also funny that Psalm 150 says nothing whatsoever about animal sacrifices. The entire Psalm is simply built around PRAISE . . . not sacrifices.

I made the original post as a small comment regarding the topic of paedobaptism. I did not intend to start any discussion about musical instruments, because I thought that it was a given.

It's sad. I really thought I left this discussion in the dust when I left behind discussions with those in the Church of Christ. But it looks like there are those in the Reformed world too, who have been tricked out of offering the best quality of praise and worship that can be offered to our Lord.

I don't want to settle for second-best worship of my God. I will praise Him with my voice AND with my guitar, piano, mandolin, mandola, and various other musical instruments that I play for HIS glory. And I'll gladly clap my hands for Him too. I don't think He would have it any other way.

So are we supposed to just throw our musical instruments away? Or are musical instruments fine for secular music, but just not worship? (That would be very odd . . . it's ok to play love songs and silly songs, but it's not ok to praise God with my guitar? You've got to be kidding.)

(This post has gone WAY off track . . . let's please make any additional posts in this thread about baptism . . . if we want to continue the music discussion, then I guess we need to start a new thread under some other forum heading. --- Which heading would that be, anyway? Is there some place on this board for talking about music instruments in church?)


----------



## Poimen (May 25, 2005)

Joseph:

I'll offer this as a correction. Rightly or wrongly, the Reformers and Puritans were united against using instruments in the churches during worship services. So you should be more careful in dismissing the arguments laid out by others since they are supported by our common church history. In other words you are indirectly condemning those men with whom you claim to stand concerning our Reformed heritage.

Also, have you read the papers that Chris cited? I invite you to do so before you make statements such as that above. With respect, your arguments seem to be based more on emotion than biblical evidence.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 25, 2005)

Joseph,

FYI, and in case you did not know, there are whole Reformed denominations which deny the legitimacy of instrumental accompaniment.

Sorry for breaking your rule above. I thought, in case you did not know, this might help.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Joseph: <snip>
> With respect, your arguments seem to be based more on emotion than biblical evidence.


----------



## Robin (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Well somebody needs to help me here.....our church (United Reformed) uses instruments....and hold the Psalms and traditional hymns in honor; the music is not in "entertainment mode" but expressed in order, focused on God's Truth.

I don't think for one minute we confuse the use of Psalms....

Being a musician, I suppose I'm a bit biased. (I'm not on a "worship" team nor think worship is primarily music making....)

Revelation 14:2-3 
And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps, and they were singing a new song before the throne...

I'll stand with Joseph on this one.....I think I know where he's coming from....

Be careful, I have a HARP and I know how to use it!

Robin 

PS. Uh-oh....this is probably another thread...poor, Joseph! I was pointing to his discovery of the many evidences for P/B in the Old Testament.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Robin]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 25, 2005)

I stand with Calvin on this.
"In a word, the musical instruments were in the same class as sacrifices, candelabra, lamps and similar things. Calvin, "The True Worship of God," in_ Sermons on Second Samuel,_ p. 241.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Joseph:
> 
> I'll offer this as a correction. Rightly or wrongly, the Reformers and Puritans were united against using instruments in the churches during worship services. So you should be more careful in dismissing the arguments laid out by others since they are supported by our common church history. In other words you are indirectly condemning those men with whom you claim to stand concerning our Reformed heritage.
> ...



I stand with the Reformers and Puritans regarding the Sovereignty of God, Covenant Theology, and numerous other points. I side with probably 98% of what is in the WCF.

But I have never made any claims to stand with them in regard to musical instruments. Every major religious movement, whether good or bad, tends to swing like a pendulum in reaction to the errors of the day. And quite often, they swing too far in one way or another. The abolition of musical instruments in worship is the one glaring instance in which the "pendulum" of the reformers and puritans swung too far. They threw out a lot of Catholic bathwater. But they threw a baby out too. --- It's not unlike the baptists whose "pendulum" swung too far, so that they threw out paedobaptism and infant covenantal inclusion.

I did read two of the articles Chris posted above. I was not planning on commenting further on them. But since you specifically asked me, I can tell you that they are embarrassing excuses for articles. Like I pointed out, it takes a whole lot more than showing two things happening at the same time (sacrifices and instrument-playing) to establish a *necessary* link between the two. That is such elementary logic that it's hardly worth responding to. And Psalm 150 says nothing whatsoever about animal sacrifices. It does, however, say a lot about PRAISE. Or are we no longer supposed to do that either, since it was done in connection with musical instruments? Good grief.




> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> I stand with Calvin on this.
> "In a word, the musical instruments were in the same class as sacrifices, candelabra, lamps and similar things. Calvin, "The True Worship of God," in_ Sermons on Second Samuel,_ p. 241.



That's funny . . . your church doesn't have any lamps? How about lightbulbs?

That just goes to show that no one is perfect . . . not even John Calvin.
--- I remember a joke about Spurgeon, pointing out what a wonderful preacher and Biblical expositor he was . . . But God didn't want people to think he was perfect, so He made him . . . a baptist. :bigsmile: 
--- Well, God didn't want us to think Calvin was perfect, so He made him a non-musical-instrument guy.

Leaving musical instruments out of worship is a form of dispensationalism, pure and simple. It doesn't make any difference how many Reformers or Puritans believed in it. It ranks right up there with credo-baptism. Can we all get along and work side by side to spread the Gospel? Of course. But it is still a way of sneaking a little bit of dispensationalism in the back door. And it is still wrong. 

I do not think that a church *commits* sin to leave instruments out of worship.

Rather, I would call it a sin of *omission*. . . . They fail to offer God the level and quality of praise that He deserves. And what does He deserve? At the very *least*, He deserves the absolute BEST that we can give Him.

I'm reminded of a story in the minor prophets about men bringing blind and lame sheep for sacrifices. Yet they saved the good sheep for themselves. Was God pleased with their offerings? Of course not! God demands the best!

And yet when we say that musical instruments are good for everything *except* worshipping God, how are we any different? We are saving the best music for our own personal pleasure. But for the worship of our God, we only offer our second-best or third-best. It's like sacrificing blind and lame sheep to Him.

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> 
> FYI, and in case you did not know, there are whole Reformed denominations which deny the legitimacy of instrumental accompaniment.



That is sad indeed. I knew the Puritans had that problem. But I didn't realize that such an upsetting practice continued today to that extent. . . . I thought that the Church of Christ pretty much had a corner on that market. 

Entire denominations offering less than the best worship to God. . . . that is sad news indeed.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

> But I have never made any claims to stand with them in regard to musical instruments. Every major religious movement, whether good or bad, tends to swing like a pendulum in reaction to the errors of the day. And quite often, they swing too far in one way or another. The abolition of musical instruments in worship is the one glaring instance in which the "pendulum" of the reformers and puritans swung too far. They threw out a lot of Catholic bathwater. But they threw a baby out too.



First, I must say that I believe you are very much making this an emotional argument, and your attitude towards myself and others who hold this conviction is not only offensive but very much unwelcome. I love you as a brother in Christ, but you are really starting to upset me with your constant _ad hominem_ and casual dismissal of 2,000 years of Church history supporting this BIBLICAL conviction (to some extent, there have been high points and low points where this was normative within the true visible Church).

Secondly, this statement of yours I just quoted is complete nonsense. Even Roman Catholic theologians have been opposed to the use of instruments in worship (i.e. Thomas Aquinas), and this is definitely *not* a doctrine that was invented in the Reformation and post-Reformation era like "believer's baptism" was. They are not even close.

Thirdly, this is not an issue to break fellowship over, but you are making it one with your insulting remarks and refusal to acknowledge this as a credible, Biblical conviction, especially considering you have done nothing to disprove the exegetical work that points to making credible this conviction. Simply because you don't see the connection in places like 2 Chronicles 29 does nothing to refute our conviction. You must come up with something that directly refutes it before you can really have any place to stand, Biblically. Like I said already, find and show me one example where we find the instruments of David being used in the Old Testament in the context of something OTHER THAN sacrifice, burnt offerings, feasts, or battle. The burden of proof rests on you to do this, brother, and then I will examine it with all sincerity and reexamine my position as being Scripturally sound.

Finally, this position is not a cultic or sectarian position, it is one that has found its place among the orthodox throughout the entire history of the Church. In fact, it was the NORM after the Reformation among Reformed churches until the American Church took everything to the toilet, with religious freedom and tolerance, spawning 6,721 denominations a week with varying beliefs and no one holding anyone accountable except opinions and emotions. Take, for example, the Eastern Orthodox Church, who has not been influenced by the Americanized religion: For 2,000 years, without exception, they have sung the Psalms in their worship services _acappella_. This is very significant. On top of all this, there have been a great deal of varying types of denominations and churches that have been opposed to instrumentation in worship, including Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian/Reformed, Church of Christ, and so forth. Between these groups of the visible Church, there is - and this is highly significant again - VERY LITTLE IF ANYTHING that ALL of these churches would agree on, wholeheartedly, with the exception of maybe portions of the Apostles' or Nicene Creeds! That is a huge testimony to the catholicity of this doctrine and conviction, definitely something that would not be done without a sound Biblical conviction and good reason.

The New Testament pattern of worship seems to be largely based on simple, loving obedience, and the singing of Psalms. We are told that our worship is a sacrifice of praise and the fruit of our lips *alone*, not our lips + instruments (Heb 13). We are also told to make melodies with grace in our hearts, not instruments (Col 3; Eph 5). Why would we be exhorted to "be filled with the Spirit" and "let the word of Christ dwell in us" right before being told to sing uninspired (by the Holy Spirit) songs? That makes very little sense.

I have probably posted these several times on this board before, but here again are quotes from leading theologians from various denominational and historical backgrounds, at various points in time within Church history, who have held this conviction:



> John Chrysostom, 4th Century Bishop - "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.)
> 
> Thomas Aquinas, Catholic Theologian; 13th century - "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize."
> ...



Joseph, please reconsider how you approach this issue and discuss it, especially with your brothers and sisters in Christ who hold this conviction seriously, and because of strong Biblical conviction. If anyone should be opposed to this doctrinal position, it should be me. I was Southern Baptist my whole life and grew up in the youth group helping to lead worship by singing and playing guitar. I played in bands for many years of my high school and college life. I love music, and definitely enjoy music that is not found in a church like my own. But, I hold this conviction because I am 100% convinced and convicted that it is what the Holy Scriptures teach, not because of personal preference. When my opinions start to influence how I believe, I know I am down the quick road to heresy and false teaching. I know I can get very heated on this issue, and have in the past, but I am trying my hardest not to take your attacks on this doctrine personally, as I often do. Please tone it down somewhat, brother. I love you in Christ Jesus and pray that you would reconsider how you are dealing with this issue, for the glory of God.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> That is sad indeed. I knew the Puritans had that problem. But I didn't realize that such an upsetting practice continued today to that extent. . . . I thought that the Church of Christ pretty much had a corner on that market.
> 
> Entire denominations offering less than the best worship to God. . . . that is sad news indeed.



 You should know better than to say something like this, Joseph. This is disappointing.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 26, 2005)

The issue seems to be, in my puny mind, whether or not instrumental accompaniment is a thing indifferent or not - i.e., adiaphora. Going to the Psalms as prescrpitve genre for the New Covenant Church has many problems, in my opinion. Viewing instrumental accompaniment as adiaphora sure seems to allow for a variety of expressions of worship, while maintaining the elements of worship, according to the RPW. This may well fit into the larger scheme of the universality of the gospel under the New Covenant - i.e., some from every...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 26, 2005)

> hat just goes to show that no one is perfect . . . not even John Calvin.
> --- I remember a joke about Spurgeon, pointing out what a wonderful preacher and Biblical expositor he was . . . But God didn't want people to think he was perfect, so He made him . . . a baptist.
> --- Well, God didn't want us to think Calvin was perfect, so He made him a non-musical-instrument guy.



Spurgeon was a "non-instrument guy" as well, buddy.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 26, 2005)

I think Spurgeon said someting like, God has given us an organ to sing with; why settle for something artificial, or something like that.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> I think Spurgeon said someting like, God has given us an organ to sing with; why settle for something artificial, or something like that.



I quoted him above. He said:



> Charles Spurgeon, Baptist Author/Pastor - "We might as well pray by machinery as sing by it" and "Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes... we do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto Him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice."
> (Charles Spurgeon, Commentary on Psalm 42.)


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 26, 2005)

That's what I meant. Thanks!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

Sounds rather dispensational to me.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 26, 2005)

Dispensational? Not if you lump the entirety of OC worship together. I think this is exactly how Owen treats of the Old Covenant in his Hebrews commentary - i.e., Hebrews 8; since the OC is gone, all forms and elements of OC worship are gone. This view does not allow for instrumental accompaniment as adiophora. It demands positive, NC elements to be revealed via Christ and His Apostles.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

Does that include prayers and singing of the Psalms or the reading and declaration of the Word?
Erase that last blunder....
Sorry Rich, I didn't understand What your wrote before. I reread it. My comment was wrong. 

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

Exclusive Psalmody is a whole different issue apart, from the instrument issue. I use to be a Reformed Presbyterian before I married. I am looking for a paper we did on the subject as we write. The paper refuted the Exclusive Psalmody doctrine. 

By the way. Hey Rich.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 26, 2005)

Hey Randy!


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > But I have never made any claims to stand with them in regard to musical instruments. Every major religious movement, whether good or bad, tends to swing like a pendulum in reaction to the errors of the day. And quite often, they swing too far in one way or another. The abolition of musical instruments in worship is the one glaring instance in which the "pendulum" of the reformers and puritans swung too far. They threw out a lot of Catholic bathwater. But they threw a baby out too.
> ...



 Well done!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

I am having problems finding the paper. It has been about 15 years ago. It seems to me, in my studies, that portions of the New Testament were sung by the early church in worship. They probably used instruments since it was engrained in their culture and worship. I will look for it and respond later. 

My dispensational comment was geared toward the fact that intruments supposedly ended. Other Credo-Baptists have been accused of being dispensational because they don't believe in infant baptism even though they hold to CT.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 26, 2005)

Nice pic of Keach! Coxe was a much better theologian, though.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 26, 2005)

There is nothing dispensational going on here, beloved. The early Church simply continued the Old Covenant practice of praising the Lord with the Book of Psalms, _acappella_, as we see demonstrated in 2 Chronicles 29 and recorded historically for us in any number of studies and writings done on Synagogue worship (which NT worship is patterned after and a continuation of). They did not use instruments in the synagogues because they were not in the Temple engaged in sacrifice or burnt offering. John Girardeau, who wrote extensively on this subject writes:



> "The writers who have most carefully investigated Jewish antiquities, and have written learnedly and elaborately in regard to the synagogue, concur in showing its worship was destitute of instrumental music."
> (_Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church_, p. 39)




In fact, it is nothing but complete covenantal continuity to be singing praise to God in the form of unaccompanied Psalms. We see this made as an example for us in the aforementioned passage:



> 2 Chronicles 29:29 When the offering was finished, the king and all who were present with him bowed themselves and worshiped. 30 And Hezekiah the king and the officials commanded the Levites to sing praises to the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed down and worshiped.




Early Church believers loved the Psalms a great deal and made much use of them. Jerome says, 



> "Wherever you turn, the laborer at the plough sings Alleluia: the toiling reaper beguiles his work with Psalms: the vinedresser as he prunes the vine with his curved pruning hook sings something of David's. These are the songs of this province: these are the laborer's instruments."




The Council of Laodicea, about A.D. 381, prohibited the ecclesiastical use of uninspired or "private psalms." The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 confirmed this decree. Apparently this decree did not prevent hymnographers from expressing their religious ideas in the form of poetry, so it was renewed in a more precise but less rigorous form by the Council of Braga (A.D. 561) which decreed that poetic compositions were not to be used in the service of praise. The fourth Synod of Toledo in the 7th century reiterated the same proscription.

Hymns, on the other hand, were used by the heretics to spread their filth. Valentius and Marcion brought new hymns to Rome to spread their Gnostic heresy. The Arian heresy was also propagated by hymns. Augustine reproached the Donatists for "singing psalms of human composition, which arouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet of the battlefield."

Athanasias (A.D. 367) says of the Psalter (after naming the 27 books of the New Testament for the first time):



> "I believe that a man can find nothing more glorious than these Psalms: for they embrace the whole life of man, the affections of his mind, and the motions of his soul. To praise and glorify God he can select a psalm suited to every occasion, and thus will find they were written for him."




Ambrose (A.D. 385), one of the strongest early Church leaders, says:



> "The Law instructs, history informs, prophecy predicts, correction censures and morals exhort. In the Book of Psalms you find all of these. The Psalter deserves to be called the praise of God, the glory of man, the voice of the Church, and the most beneficial confession of faith."




As far as instruments being used in worship, when did this actually begin to be practiced within the Church? The earliest account of it is in the case of an organ being introduced into church music by Pope Vitalian I in A.D. 666. Another organ was sent to Pepin, king of the Franks, by the Byzantine emperor Constantine Copronymus and placed in the church of St. Corneille at Compiegne in A.D. 757. Soon after Charlemagne's time (A.D. 768-814), organs became common. However, as already mentioned above, in the Greek Church, instruments never came into use.

It is clear that musical instruments were not used in the worship of the New Testament Church until at least six centuries after Christ. Church historians, such as Eusebius, Neander, Mosheim, Schaff, and Fisher, make no mention of it for hundreds of years after Christ. And it appears that it was introduced by emperors, but was always met with opposition from the theologians. Oscar Cullmann wrote a book entitled, _Early Christian Worship_, and though he covers the subject rather thoroughly he does not once mention instrumental music in worship.



> "Therefore, by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His Name"
> (Hebrews 13:15)



The sacrifices were carefully prescribed by God, and nothing was to be added which was not prescribed by God. In this passage God prescribes *the fruit of our lips* as the praise that He desires.


(A great deal of this post involves material from Gene W. Spear's booklet _Christian Worship_ and my own reflection and interaction.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

I was being playful and a little pointed concerning the Dispensational thing Gabe. 

Concerning the exclusive psalmody thing. I am going to have to redo my research. I do remember coming up with other scriptures in the Bible that were recorded as being songs sang. They were outside of the 150 psalms. They are scripture and were sang. There is a New Song that probably is not recorded in the original 150 that we are going to sing. 

As we can quote the Westminster or London Baptist Confession of Faith in our worship service I believe we can sing a doctinally correct song and glorify God in truth and spirit. Please don't tell me you believe the WCF to be inspired. Yet we use it to learn from.

As I said I am going to have to redo my research. I appreciate the links.


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

Joseph:

I shouldn't have assumed that you had not read the articles that Chris cited. I apologize. However, as Gabriel has pointed out, I think you need to be more respectful to those with whom you disagree. And as I said, the Reformers and Puritans were united on this point. So you need to stop dismissing this conviction as esoteric. 
I realize that you don't agree with this principle, but I think you need to put more effort into your arguments than simply dismissing that which you disagree with.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Joseph:
> 
> I shouldn't have assumed that you had not read the articles that Chris cited. I apologize. However, as Gabriel has pointed out, I think you need to be more respectful to those with whom you disagree. And as I said, the Reformers and Puritans were united on this point. So you need to stop dismissing this conviction as esoteric.
> I realize that you don't agree with this principle, but I think you need to put more effort into your arguments than simply dismissing that which you disagree with.



How have I been disrespectful? I thought this forum was for debate & discussion, even on subjects where there is strong disagreement.

As far as I know, all the paedobaptists on this board think that the credobaptists are sinning by failing to practice infant covenant inclusion, just like the Scriptures command. On the other hand all the credobaptists on this board think that the paedobaptists are sinning when they baptize infants, because "only professing believers should be baptized". In fact, I recently read statements to that effect in a thread on the baptism section of this board. --- i.e. we are not talking about *willful* sins. --- I do not think that any baptist is intentionally doing anything against God. And I don't think that any baptist on here would accuse a paedobaptist of intentionally doing anything against God. --- We are all able to disagree strongly, and yet still get along.

Similarly, I do think it is sinful to *require* musical instruments to be left out of worship. But I do not think it is an *intentional* sin. --- We should all be able to strongly disagree, and yet still get along, since we all are genuinely *trying* to serve God the best we can.

Would Charles Spurgeon or Fred Malone say that Martin Luther and John Calvin were unintentionally violating God's will when they baptized infants? Of course.

Would I say that Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther, and John Calvin were unintentionally violating God's will when they refused to praise God with musical instruments? Of course.

I don't dismiss your position as esoteric any more than I dismiss credobaptism as esoteric. But the fact remains that both of them are wrong. "Popular" does not equal "Godly" . . . even in church history.

The Reformers and the Puritans were very godly, in my opinion. They were very, very excellent with their Theology. But they were not perfect. Music happens to be one area of severe Biblical weakness for them, where they frankly just can't find Biblical support for their views, and have to reach _really_ hard to manufacture it.

I really don't appreciate this accusation: You said, "I think you need to put more effort into your arguments than simply dismissing that which you disagree with."

If you would go back and read my posts more closely, you would see that I did this, and that I did not merely "simply dismiss" that which I disagree with. --- Maybe it seems that way to you because my Biblical responses were so short. But for goodness sakes, there's just not much to say in response to the two articles I read! At least the credo/paedo argument is *interesting* . . . there are strong arguments on both sides. But I have yet to see any "strong arguments" that require much interaction. Nevertheless, I *have* already interacted with the argument to some extent. I already said this twice, but I'll say it a third time:

1) I have looked at 2 Chronicles 29. There are animal sacrifices. And there is the playing of musical instruments. But the text *never* says that instruments are *only* used in that context. The burden of proof in on you to prove that it does.

2) Psalm 150 connects *praise* with musical instruments. Animal sacrifices are never mentioned. Again, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that instruments are actually more connected to bloody sacrifices, rather than with the pure praise of God.


I love you guys as my brothers in Christ. I do not think that you are intentionally doing anything wrong. (I don't think baptists are intentionally doing anything wrong, either.) But I do think it violates God's will to offer him substandard worship, just like I think it violates His will to deny that our children are part of His covenant. --- Both are strong disagreements. --- But neither are reasons for breaking fellowship. We can all work together side by side, for we agree on much. 

As far as the Reformers and Puritans are concerned, it is clear that they are on your side, and that I am the one who disagrees. So be it. I am more than willing to say that the Reformers and Puritans were virtually unanimously wrong on this point. And I'm not about to jump on their bandwagon here, just because I agree with them on almost everything else.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 26, 2005)

> 1) I have looked at 2 Chronicles 29. There are animal sacrifices. And there is the playing of musical instruments. But the text *never* says that instruments are *only* used in that context. The burden of proof in on you to prove that it does.



*25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king's seer and of Nathan the prophet, for the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets. 26 The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. 27 Then Hezekiah commanded that the burnt offering be offered on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song to the Lord began also, and the trumpets, accompanied by the instruments of David king of Israel. 28 The whole assembly worshiped, and the singers sang and the trumpeters sounded. All this continued until the burnt offering was finished. 29 When the offering was finished, the king and all who were present with him bowed themselves and worshiped.*


Just because you refuse to see the connection does not mean it isn't there. The Levites are the ONLY PEOPLE using the instruments in Temple worship. The only time they use them in the Temple worship is during a ceremonial offering.

In the New Covenant we no longer have Levites OR ceremonial offerings.

Therefore, all the commands to use the instruments of David, as in this passage and found throughout the Psalms, have been abrogated with the abrogation of the Levitical priesthood, as Hebrews clearly says. Christ has fulfilled these types and aids of worship, which we no longer need, having God's Law written on our hearts and the Spirit of God within us. All we need to make melody is our hearts, grateful to the Lord for our salvation that we did not deserve nor merit.




> Heb 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 *For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well*. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.




You also said:


> Music happens to be one area of severe Biblical weakness for them, where they frankly just can't find Biblical support for their views, and have to reach really hard to manufacture it.



This is nonsense. You have not even attempted to interact with or refute the wealth of Scriptural and historical facts we have presented, defending our position. Until you attempt to do so, and you have quite a bit to do in order to catch up with this discussion, you have proven nothing but your own refusal to acknowledge what the Word of God and godly men throughout the entirety of Church history and across transdenominational boundaries have believed, being convicted by God's Word alone, not tradition or cultural/historical reactions to specific situations.

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Robin (May 26, 2005)

Gabe and Rev. Kok,

I can see in your posts intense emotional fervor about your knowledge and convictions....

Obviously, Joseph is in a different place on the subject.... Remember, his initial post was on a different point entirely - centering on his discovery of the coherence of God's covenant sign/seal.

Is it possible to back-burner the offenses in favor of more gentile and charitable teaching? I'm sure that would honor Christ the best way.

It could be that Joseph (or myself) will someday arrive to the place where you stand? But it's not likely to happen via the "worship wars."

(bump - I felt you guys ignored my Rev. 14:2, too. I'm not offended, but....I do think Calvin was wrong. (gasp!!) There are harps in the heavenly courts!



With courtesy,

Robin


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 26, 2005)

Thank you, Robin. Your kind spirit is appreciated. And I appreciate the support. Revelation 14:2 is good indeed.


----------



## Myshkin (May 26, 2005)

Gabe-

I have a sincere question about Genesis 4:21. 

If instruments are part of the ceremonial law only (as you say), then why are musical instruments seen as an extension of the cultural mandate in _creation_, _prior_ to their use in the ceremonies of the Israel nation and temple? 

Also:
For sure the burnt offerings point to Christ, as you showed in the Psalm you quoted above, and are done away with, but could you please explain how a musical instrument in itself is a typology of Christ's person and work for our salvation. I am not asking for a demonstration that the instruments were commanded to be used, that was obvious again from the Psalm you quoted that they were, what I want to know is what about Christ in His person or work does a musical instrument point to?


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> Just because you refuse to see the connection does not mean it isn't there. The Levites are the ONLY PEOPLE using the instruments in Temple worship. The only time they use them in the Temple worship is during a ceremonial offering.



You mean, the only time *in 2 Chronicles 29* that instruments are used is during a ceremonial offering. 

But nowhere in that chapter (or any other) does Scripture ever say that instruments are only ever used during ceremonial offerings. That's nonsense! They occur together in 2 Chronicles 29, I agree. But nothing is said about ceremonial offerings in Psalms 150, or Revelation 14, etc.




> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> All we need to make melody is our hearts, grateful to the Lord for our salvation that we did not deserve nor merit.



Aha . . . so you only make melody in your heart? Then I guess singing out loud is out of the question then? . . . (reducto ad absurdum)



The burden of proof is on you, brother. You have failed to show me anywhere that Scripture says instruments are ONLY to be used during ceremonial offerings. Showing me that the two happened to coincide in one chapter of the Bible doesn't cut it. You need to show that such times were the ONLY times that instruments were used. And you have not done that.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 26, 2005)

> Is it possible to back-burner the offenses in favor of more gentile and charitable teaching? I'm sure that would honor Christ the best way.



If this is directed at me and not at Joseph then I am completely shocked and infuriated. I have been nothing but patient and charitible towards Joseph and he has been nothing but derogatory, belittling, offensive, and divisive on this issue, hurling insults left and right towards myself, others on this board, and a great majority of the Reformed faith's fathers (not to mention centuries of Church history). To make a post about continuity with the Psalms is one thing, but to - in a very derogatory and insulting manner - dismiss the convictions of many on this board about the use of instruments in the process, which really didn't have any need of being said, is unexcusable. If you can find one place where I have resorted to emotions or opinions to defend my position, as Joseph has, then I gladly repent and recant of all. But, if you read this thread without bias, you will prayerfully see that I have done nothing but interact with Scripture and the topic at hand, never resorting to personal attacks or insults, and never saying that my position is superior to any others, only that it is my Scriptural conviction and seeking to prove it as a just one.




> You mean, the only time in 2 Chronicles 29 that instruments are used is during a ceremonial offering.
> 
> But nowhere in that chapter (or any other) does Scripture ever say that instruments are only ever used during ceremonial offerings. That's nonsense! They occur together in 2 Chronicles 29, I agree. But nothing is said about ceremonial offerings in Psalms 150, or Revelation 14, etc.



Show me another place where it is otherwise. I have asked you to do this multiple times. You have no Scriptural support at all. You are ignoring the context of Psalms 150. 2 Chronicles 29 and other places make it clear who was playing the instruments - the Levites. Period. Revelation doesn't apply, as I already discussed above. It is not a pattern of earthly worship for us to follow, and the apostle John neither participated in this worship celebration nor did he later instruct us to follow it. The Book of Revelation contains symbolic imagery in order to comfort the early Church, it is not prescriptions for earthly worship. If it were, we would be required to ONLY USE the instruments used in Revelation and also include dramatic presentation, the casting of crowns, etc. in our worship. Many of the things described as worship in the Book of Revelation would also require that we apostasize (according to Hebrews) and go back to the Old Covenant way of worship.




> Aha . . . so you only make melody in your heart? Then I guess singing out loud is out of the question then? . . . (reducto ad absurdum)



We make melody in our heart, without the need of the aid of instruments, since the Spirit of God rests within us. We sing with the *fruit of our lips* as Hebrews 13 says, as our sacrifice of praise.




> You need to show that such times were the ONLY times that instruments were used. And you have not done that.



Wrong again. I have shown you the ONLY Scriptural example of Temple worship, which teaches us instruments were only used during a cermonial practice. Unless you can find an example in Scripture where it is otherwise, during Temple worship, then we must go by what the Word of God says. Where is this proof, Joseph?




> For sure the burnt offerings point to Christ, as you showed in the Psalm you quoted above, and are done away with, but could you please explain how a musical instrument in itself is a typology of Christ's person and work for our salvation. I am not asking for a demonstration that the instruments were commanded to be used, that was obvious again from the Psalm you quoted that they were, what I want to know is what about Christ in His person or work does a musical instrument point to?



The instruments, as Spurgeon rightly points out, were aids for the Israelites in worship, helping them to focus on the Lord in song. The New Testament makes it clear that, being filled with the Spirit and the Word of Christ (Col 3; Eph 5), we have no need for anything to aid us into worshipping the Lord in Spirit and in Truth, for the Spirit of God rests within the hearts of believers and we can sing with the Word of Christ by singing the Psalms.




> I have a sincere question about Genesis 4:21.
> 
> If instruments are part of the ceremonial law only (as you say), then why are musical instruments seen as an extension of the cultural mandate in creation, prior to their use in the ceremonies of the Israel nation and temple?



This is a straw-man argument. Nowhere have I said that instruments are only for the purpose of the ceremonial law. I have only stated that they have no place in New Covenant worship, seeing as how in the Old Covenant they were part of the sacrificial/ceremonial laws and served as a type of Christ (as Calvin and a multitude of other great Christian men have believed since the beginning of the Church). To use instruments in worship is to Judaize, according to this Scriptural principle.

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 26, 2005)

> 2 Chronicles 34:12 And the men did the work faithfully. Over them were set Jahath and Obadiah the Levites, of the sons of Merari, and Zechariah and Meshullam, of the sons of the Kohathites, to have oversight. The Levites, all who were skillful with instruments of music, 13 were over the burden-bearers and directed all who did work in every kind of service, and some of the Levites were scribes and officials and gatekeepers.






> Isaiah 38:20 The Lord will save me, and we will play my music on stringed instruments all the days of our lives, at the house of the Lord.






> Ezekiel 40:42 And there were four tables of hewn stone for the burnt offering, a cubit and a half long, and a cubit and a half broad, and one cubit high, on which the instruments were to be laid with which the burnt offerings and the sacrifices were slaughtered.





[Edited on 5-26-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 26, 2005)

> 16 David also commanded the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their brothers as the singers who should play loudly on musical instruments, on harps and lyres and cymbals, to raise sounds of joy. 17 So the Levites appointed Heman the son of Joel; and of his brothers Asaph the son of Berechiah; and of the sons of Merari, their brothers, Ethan the son of Kushaiah; 18 and with them their brothers of the second order, Zechariah, Jaaziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, and Mikneiah, and the gatekeepers Obed-edom and Jeiel. 19 The singers, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, were to sound bronze cymbals; 20 Zechariah, Aziel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Unni, Eliab, Maaseiah, and Benaiah were to play harps according to Alamoth; 21 but Mattithiah, Eliphelehu, Mikneiah, Obed-edom, Jeiel, and Azaziah were to lead with lyres according to the Sheminith. 22 Chenaniah, leader of the Levites in music, should direct the music, for he understood it. 23 Berechiah and Elkanah were to be gatekeepers for the ark. 24 Shebaniah, Joshaphat, Nethanel, Amasai, Zechariah, Benaiah, and Eliezer, the priests, should blow the trumpets before the ark of God. Obed-edom and Jehiah were to be gatekeepers for the ark.
> 
> 25 So David and the elders of Israel and the commanders of thousands went to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord from the house of Obed-edom with rejoicing. 26 And because God helped the Levites who were carrying the ark of the covenant of the Lord, they sacrificed seven bulls and seven rams. 27 David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, as also were all the Levites who were carrying the ark, and the singers and Chenaniah the leader of the music of the singers. And David wore a linen ephod. 28 So all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, to the sound of the horn, trumpets, and cymbals, and made loud music on harps and lyres.



So then, only the Levites and their kind were commanded to use instruments. In this instance, it is for the purpose of carrying the Ark of the Covenant. This is obviously a ceremonial act, as the Law is no longer on tablets of stone carried before us or within a Temple wall, but it is written on our heart.

When the Book of Psalms speaks of playing instruments to the Lord, it is reflection on instances such as these, which David directly took part in. These are reflections on being in the presence of the Lord and offering a proper sacrifice and offering to Him, not commandments for New Covenant worship. We read these passages and can rejoice along with David that Christ has died once-for-all for us.

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> . . . the Law is no longer on tablets of stone carried before us or within a Temple wall, but it is written on our heart.



The law has always been written on men's hearts.
That's not just a New Covenant thing.


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Gabe and Rev. Kok,
> 
> I can see in your posts intense emotional fervor about your knowledge and convictions....
> ...



The sound was LIKE that of a harpist? No doubt the book of Revelation informs us of many worship principles, but to take a figurative example like this and apply it literally to our worship today seems off base to me.

I guess I don't take John's description of heaven literally either; it is an analogy to enable my little mind to understand the glories of heaven now. 

I reproved Joseph because of his attitude; I have nothing to gain to convince him that he is wrong and I am not angry at him. I just want him to calm down a little bit...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> (bump - I felt you guys ignored my Rev. 14:2, too. I'm not offended, but....I do think Calvin was wrong. (gasp!!) There are harps in the heavenly courts!
> 
> 
> ...



Good point Robin.


----------



## Poimen (May 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



I hear you brother. I understand your points. I don't begrudge you mentioning and defending your position. Neither are you  to the Reformers and Puritans. 

But I stand by my earlier posts: I think if you read your initial reaction and even the posts that followed it, you would see that you were being dismissive and, In my humble opinion, disrespectful by equating the Church of Christ with Reformed people today because they both happen to take a similar stance on worship.


----------



## Myshkin (May 26, 2005)

If instruments are part of the ceremonial law only (as you say), then why are musical instruments seen as an extension of the cultural mandate in creation, prior to their use in the ceremonies of the Israel nation and temple?[/quote] 




> This is a straw-man argument. Nowhere have I said that instruments are only for the purpose of the ceremonial law. I have only stated that they have no place in New Covenant worship, seeing as how in the Old Covenant they were part of the sacrificial/ceremonial laws and served as a type of Christ...



Gabe- 
Forgive me if I have misrepresented your argument, but I am not convinced that I have. So I'll retry. 

You say that the ceremonial law is abrogated, and instruments were part of that ceremonial law, therefore instruments are abrogated in NT worship correct? I am asking you to prove that instruments were inherently ceremonial OT law and ceremonial OT law only, because if they are not then they are not abrogated. I referenced Gen. 4:21 as a possible reason as to why we should not think of instruments as inherently for use only in OT ceremonial worship and why they could also be used in NT non-ceremonial worship.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 26, 2005)

> I am asking you to prove that instruments were inherently ceremonial OT law and ceremonial OT law only, because if they are not then they are not abrogated.



Again, I am not trying to prove that. I am saying that, in the context of worshipping the Lord, instruments are a Temple/ceremonial aspect to be done only during burnt offering and sacrifice (cg. Ezek 40:42). That is their purpose in worship, according to the Old Testament.

I guess no one is going to interact with my Scriptural proofs. Okay then, God Bless.


----------



## Robin (May 27, 2005)

Oops....here's something....David plays a harp to console and comfort Saul....
1 Samuel 16:14-23
Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him. And Saul's servants said to him, "Behold now, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is skillful in playing the harp, and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will be well." So Saul said to his servants, "Provide for me a man who can play well and bring him to me." One of the young men answered, "Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the LORD is with him." Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, "Send me David your son, who is with the sheep." And Jesse took a donkey laden with bread and a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them by David his son to Saul. And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, "Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight." And whenever the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the harp and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him. 

Btw, it is a historic tradition for harp to play at the bedside in the relief of the sick...as is my profession. These days, we have scientific evidence of the power of music to comfort and incite healing.

R.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> I guess no one is going to interact with my Scriptural proofs. Okay then, God Bless.



That's because you didn't offer any Scriptural proofs to interact with.

You did quote some verses mentioning that instruments were sometimes used during sacrifices. But none of them say that instruments were *only* used for that purpose. The burden of proof is on you to prove that. And you have failed to do so. 

I repeat: multiple passages about instruments, like Psalm 150 for instance, say nothing about animal sacrifices.

Merely quoting 2 Chronicles 29 and Ezekiel 40 over and over doesn't magically transform those passages into "Scriptural proofs" that I need to deal with. You need to demonstrate where these passages (or any others) say that instruments are ONLY used in a sacrificial context. Pointing out that they were SOMETIMES used in that context proves nothing.

Until you do that, you don't have a Scriptural leg to stand on.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 27, 2005)

If we're going to ignore the Bible in this discussion, I refuse to participate.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If we're going to ignore the Bible in this discussion, I refuse to participate.



Please rephrase your words. If *you're* going to ignore the Bible in this discussion . . .

I have not ignored the Bible at all. I keep repeating Scriptures, and you keep ignoring me.

I have been very clear. Psalm 150 (part of the Bible!) says nothing about sacrifices. 2 Chronicles 29 (part of the Bible!) does not say that instruments are ONLY for sacrifices. Ezekiel 40 (part of the Bible!) does not say that instruments are ONLY for sacrifices.

I continue to make the Bible the CENTER of the discussion.

But if you want to ignore the Bible, then I guess there's not much more that can be said in this discussion.


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > hat just goes to show that no one is perfect . . . not even John Calvin.
> ...



Not quite. He personally funded the purchase of organs for daughter churches. He did not use one himself, however - but it was entirely unneccessary with thousands of voices.

I have read through this whole thread and one thing keeps coming back to me - the question 'what is worship?'. It is my conviction that worship is intelligent words addressed to God. Not the music, nor the strobe lighting, not the dancers or the flag waving. All, all are externals. Only one 'organ' in the room can truly worship, and it is not the organ. It is the human heart.

My rule is simplicity - one instrument if needed to lead the singing, or none at all.

JH


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> 
> I have read through this whole thread and one thing keeps coming back to me - the question 'what is worship?'. It is my conviction that worship is intelligent words addressed to God. Not the music, nor the strobe lighting, not the dancers or the flag waving. All, all are externals. Only one 'organ' in the room can truly worship, and it is not the organ. It is the human heart.
> 
> ...




So music itself (without singing) cannot be worshipful praise to God? Then how do you explain Psalm 150?

150:1 Hallelujah. Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in the firmament of His power. 

150:2 Praise Him for His mighty acts; praise Him according to His abundant greatness. 

150:3 *Praise Him with the blast of the horn; praise Him with the psaltery and harp. *

150:4 *Praise Him with the timbrel *and dance; *praise Him with stringed instruments and the pipe. *

150:5 *Praise Him with the loud-sounding cymbals; praise Him with the clanging cymbals. *

150:6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Hallelujah. 


I agree with you that God can (and should) be praised with our voices.

But Scripturally, it also looks like God can be worshipped with instruments themselves, too.


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 27, 2005)

_God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth_

New Covenant Worship. 

Peter Masters on Psalm 150:



> WHAT ABOUT PSALM 150?
> Does the psalter sanction all kinds of instruments?
> 
> 
> ...



[Edited on 5-27-2005 by JonathanHunt]

I'm not going to say any more on this thread, because sadly it has been characterised by a lack of charity on more than one part. You people need to calm yourselves, seriously.

[on to soapbox]
If you have aspirations for ministry (all of you) you are going to have to be more gentle and reverent as you debate! Speak it quietly, speak it calmly. Don't be dismissive, don't easily take offence.
[off soapbox]

Now breathe. Count to twenty... or something. I am surpised this thread hasn't been locked really. The acrimony is not edifying. C'mon guys, ease up.

JH

[Edited on 5-27-2005 by JonathanHunt]


----------



## Peters (May 27, 2005)

Thicker skin is all we christians need.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 28, 2005)

Jonathan,

Thank you for the interesting article. I have never heard that take on Psalm 150 before. I found these two quotes especially interesting:



> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> 
> The permitted instruments were psaltery, harp, cymbals and trumpet.
> 
> ...



I am willing to accept these statements if they can be demonstrated to be Biblical. 

Please show me in the Bible where it says that "No timbrels or drums were allowed in the Temple", and that the ONLY instruments permitted in the temple were the "psaltery, harp, cymbals and trumpet."

I am not trying to be difficult. I just honestly am not aware of any Bible passages that teach this. But I am willing to accept what the Scriptures say if you point it out to me. --- I have to admit that you have probably researched the subject of music in the Bible more deeply than I have. So I am listening.

Thank you!

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 30, 2005)

> I will offer to you burnt offerings of fattened animals, with the smoke of the sacrifice of rams; I will make an offering of bulls and goats. (Psalm 66:15)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > 2 Chronicles 34:12 And the men did the work faithfully. Over them were set Jahath and Obadiah the Levites, of the sons of Merari, and Zechariah and Meshullam, of the sons of the Kohathites, to have oversight. The Levites, all who were skillful with instruments of music, 13 were over the burden-bearers and directed all who did work in every kind of service, and some of the Levites were scribes and officials and gatekeepers.
> ...


What do you think Hezekiah meant here by "my music" or "my songs" (NKJV)? Clearly he is ordering that his music will be played in the temple all the dyas of "our lives." Did Hezekiah write any psalms? 




> > Ezekiel 40:42 And there were four tables of hewn stone for the burnt offering, a cubit and a half long, and a cubit and a half broad, and one cubit high, on which the instruments were to be laid with which the burnt offerings and the sacrifices were slaughtered.



Gabe, I would ask you read this verse again in context. "Instruments" here does not refer to musical instruments but to the tools used for sacrificing animals. Even if it did refer to musical instruments, you still have another problem with your interpretation. This prophecy in Ezekial is speaking of New Covenant worship and fulfillment. If this verse teaches musical "instruments" are present with the newly instituted sacrificial system in Christ in the new covenant, then you have to answer the question, how are instruments then to be used since they clearly are commanded here?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 31, 2005)

Obviously, that verse doesn't apply so no need to debate over it. But, if Christ is our sacrifice, there is no need to apply anything related to it. It is abolished.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 31, 2005)

Gabe, you never answered Patrick's questions above. Please do so. I think he made some very good arguments.

Also, there is still no one who has responded to my questions above.

Now that I'm listening more closely, and now that Patrick's even addind in some good Scriptural arguments, I'm surprised that Gabe, Daniel, and Chris aren't responding at all. . . . (except for Gabe quoting Psalm 66, and I have no idea what that passage has to do with anything).


[Edited on 5-31-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> I am willing to accept these statements if they can be demonstrated to be Biblical.
> 
> ...



I was quoting an article there by Peter Masters - not my own work. I will have a look at this time permitting in the next few days.

JH


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Gabe, you never answered Patrick's questions above. Please do so. I think he made some very good arguments.
> 
> Also, there is still no one who has responded to my questions above.
> ...



Just to clarify, I am sympathetic to Gabe's convictions, though I'm not convinced completely yet. I just know from experience that when people become dependent on instruments for worship, then they have forgotten what it means to worship. I personally believe that the most spiritual and pure form of worship is acapella, but understand that not all are gifted with music yet, and thus an instrument may be necessary to unite the voices. But I believe the simpler the better. Less is more. But as I have come to no Scriptural conclusions yet I must relegate this to a personal preference and poke holes in both side's arguments until I am convinced one way or the other.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Gabe, you never answered Patrick's questions above. Please do so. I think he made some very good arguments.



Once you respond to my 20+ posts that went ignored and brushed off as nonsense, I'll be a little less apathetic about replying to anyone in this thread at all.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 31, 2005)

*Hezekiah\'s songs*

My pastor recently did a brief explanation of Isaiah 38, from an Exclusive Psalmody perspective regarding Hezekiah's songs of course. The audio is at:
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/OOW/2005/04032005.htm

[Edited on 5-31-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## Poimen (May 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Gabe, you never answered Patrick's questions above. Please do so. I think he made some very good arguments.
> 
> Also, there is still no one who has responded to my questions above.
> ...



I have been away from the Internet for a few days. I think that Chris and Gabe can answer your questions more aptly because I am not an exclusive psalmodist nor do I support the exclusion of instruments from worship per se. However I have read these arguments in the past and I am still willing to be convinced.

My main reason for posting is already apparent and I do not need to repeat the reasons here. Just read my posts again and you will see why I said what I said.


----------

