# RPW and contemporary music styles?



## jwright82 (Nov 12, 2011)

I fully affirm the RPW and I believe that done right you may incorperate both hymns and more contemporary styles of worship. I have been studying this issue latley and was curious as to what the arguments are for the RPW allowing the proper use of contemporary styles of music, to a degree of course. Guitars are one thing heavy metal another entierly.

I am reading Hart and Muether's book _With Reverance and Awe_ and it is very good. I am not qualified to argue for any position other than the RPW. But what are the scriptual and confessional arguments employed by people like Frame to defend the use of more contemporary styles of worship?


----------



## KMK (Nov 12, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> contemporary styles of music



You might need to clarify what you mean by 'contemporary styles'. Around here 'contemporary' can mean many things.


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 12, 2011)

KMK said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > contemporary styles of music
> ...



I love your avetar by the way, very funny, is that your daughter? I mean the use of drums (in certian ways), guitars (bass and otherwise), the use of modern praise songs (that are theologically sound of course). You know the normal reguler meaning of the term in Reformed circles.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 13, 2011)

Why not read Frame's _Worship in Spirit and Truth_?


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Nov 14, 2011)

KMK said:


> Around here 'contemporary' can mean many things.


 Like Contemporvant?

[video=youtube;ys4Nx0rNlAM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys4Nx0rNlAM&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## Zach (Nov 14, 2011)

MLCOPE2 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Around here 'contemporary' can mean many things.
> ...



The saddest thing about Sunday's Coming is that it is so true...but still pretty funny!


----------



## Moireach (Nov 14, 2011)

From an RPW perspective, I'm afraid I'd agree that one who believes the Bible commands the use of instrumental music and songs of human composition in worship cannot argue against what you define as contemporary worship. 

If an acoustic guitar is lawful, so is an electric and base guitar. The same goes when it comes to songs of human composition. So long as the doctrine is Biblical there can be no strong argument based on the RPW made against it. Those who claim the Bible commands the use of 'traditional' songs of human composition exlusively are, in my opinion, mistaken. Either the Bible commands the use of the book of Psalms only, or it commands the use of the book of Psalms and songs of human composition that are of Biblical doctrine. Full stop. There is no Biblical way to decide how much theology has to be present in the the song written by man. Because mysteriously, the New Testament says nothing about composing songs for worship. There are no instructions whatsoever on how to compose and what is and isn't acceptable. 

To take an example, Hillsong have a 6 minute long song and these are the only lyrics,

_Our God is an awesome God
He reigns from heaven above
With wisdom, power and love
Our God is an awesome God_

I'm sorry, but as far as the RPW is concerned, in my opinion you cannot argue that it is commanded to sing songs like Amazing Grace but that this kind of song is unnacceptable. To be an advocate of songs of human composition, you have to accept that the quality of the worship songs of God's people are wholly dependent on the state of the church. 

So to sum up my view, I believe that the Bible commands the use of the book of Psalms in the worship of a church and that there is no command for any other songs or the use of instrumental music.
I also believe that one who believes the Bible commands the use of songs of human composition cannot make a strong RPW argument against contemporary styles of worship, whether that's content of the songs or the instruments used.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 14, 2011)

SRoper said:


> Why not read Frame's Worship in Spirit and Truth?



Why would you? It doesn't put forth the RPW at all, but denies it! 

Also, worship is to be reverent and orderly. The question then can be asked is 'contemporary music styles' reverent and orderly.


----------



## Philip (Nov 14, 2011)

Moireach said:


> To take an example, Hillsong have a 6 minute long song and these are the only lyrics,
> 
> Our God is an awesome God
> He reigns from heaven above
> ...



This is actually a Rich Mullins song which has verses---however, the song wasn't meant for corporate worship.



Romans922 said:


> Also, worship is to be reverent and orderly. The question then can be asked is 'contemporary music styles' reverent and orderly.



Reverence and orderliness vary from culture to culture. The orderliness and reverence of a Black Gospel worship service look different from that of most of the churches most of us attend.



Moireach said:


> If an acoustic guitar is lawful, so is an electric and base guitar. The same goes when it comes to songs of human composition. So long as the doctrine is Biblical there can be no strong argument based on the RPW made against it.



I would agree with this. The arguments made are aesthetic, not Biblical.



Moireach said:


> I also believe that one who believes the Bible commands the use of songs of human composition cannot make a strong RPW argument against contemporary styles of worship, whether that's content of the songs or the instruments used.



I would not make that argument on any grounds except personal preference, tradition, and aesthetic concerns (which I am not trying to minimize---they are, in fact, valid: I just wish people would quit wrapping them up in Biblical language).


----------



## SRoper (Nov 14, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > Why not read Frame's Worship in Spirit and Truth?
> ...



James specifically asked "what are the scriptual and confessional arguments employed by people like Frame to defend the use of more contemporary styles of worship?" Do you have a better idea where he might find Frame's arguments?

I agree with you that Frame denies the RPW. I wasn't endorsing the book.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 14, 2011)

Sorry. I didn't see that or glanced over it.


----------

