# Calvin on Instruments in worship at Heidelblog



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 1, 2009)

fyi.
Calvin on Instruments: “Stupid Imitation” Heidelblog


----------



## bookslover (Mar 1, 2009)

Proof that Calvin wasn't _always_ right!


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 1, 2009)

bookslover said:


> Proof that Calvin wasn't _always_ right!



I agree. Though this isn't one of those times.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 1, 2009)

JohnGill said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Proof that Calvin wasn't _always_ right!
> ...



Proof that _you're_ not always right, either!


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 1, 2009)

bookslover said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



Nope, you've only proven that you're not always right.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 1, 2009)

JohnGill said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > JohnGill said:
> ...



Well, I _know_ that I'm not always right, because I'm such a naturally humble guy! On this topic, however, I'm right. 

(How could I be wrong? I live in California!!)


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 1, 2009)

bookslover said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



I believe there was a study done on a "Correlation Between Living in California and the Problem of Self-Deception".

Basically it proves you're self-deceived on this issue because you live in California.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 1, 2009)

JohnGill said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > JohnGill said:
> ...



Ya know, I saw that study. I _think_ I disagreed with it...

-----Added 3/1/2009 at 09:42:24 EST-----

Now that we've totally hijacked this thread...


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 1, 2009)

bookslover said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



I thought there was more we could do to go


----------



## bookslover (Mar 2, 2009)

Back to responding to the OP: I think Calvin would have a hard time proving his point from Scripture. Just to take the quotation from Psalm 150:3 - Calvin makes an assertion, and expands his opinion slightly, but doesn't prove his point, in my opinion, from Scripture. He just assumes that musical instruments are strictly an Old Testament phenomenon.

But, we've been down this road before here (several times) on the PB.


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 2, 2009)

This is one point on which I disagree with Calvin.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 2, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> This is one point on which I disagree with Calvin.



Since most Christians sing hymns, etc. in their worship services, I'd say most Christians disagree with Calvin. And that's a _good_ thing, in this instance...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 2, 2009)

It's not as simple as disagreeing with poor Calvin on this issue. Pick any Presbyterian you like from circa 1850 and before and they held the position of Calvin; pick *any* member of the Westminster Assembly who drafted the historic documents of Presbyterianism, and they held this position. We have much of the worship we have now in Presbyterianism because of the decline of Presbyterianism into liberalism and the failure of any conservative movement to roll back all the declension. I'll stick with Calvin, Knox, the Westminster Divines (and practically any Puritan), Samuel Miller, Thornwell, Dabney, John Murray, and many many others. Not bad company.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 3, 2009)

What he said.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 3, 2009)

What is sinful about having instruments in worship? We use OT Scripture to get much of our doctrine on the RP of worship and if the OT used instruments then I don't see why we cannot incorporate them into our worship.

-----Added 3/3/2009 at 05:40:23 EST-----

Just one more thing with which I disagree with Calvin. Good thing they are small matters.


----------



## Tim (Mar 3, 2009)

sjonee said:


> What is sinful about having instruments in worship? We use OT Scripture to get much of our doctrine on the RP of worship and if the OT used instruments then I don't see why we cannot incorporate them into our worship.



Musical instruments in corporate worship were commanded by God and were only used by the Levites. The whole Levitical priesthood has passed away; taking with it the instruments. If we use the argument that simply because something was done in worship in the OT, then we would also be okay to also have incense. But most people would reject that as merely a shadow of things to come (i.e., incense = prayers, if I am not mistaken). 

-----Added 3/3/2009 at 05:40:23 EST-----



> Just one more thing with which I disagree with Calvin. Good thing they are small matters.



With respect, Sarah, this is not a small matter. If the non-instrumental position is Biblical, then those who use instruments in public worship are guilty of offering worship to God that is not commanded. Nadab and Abihu were put to death by God for such an infraction.

No matter what your position is, the manner in which you approach the Lord God Almighty in worship is always a big deal.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 3, 2009)

Tim said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > What is sinful about having instruments in worship? We use OT Scripture to get much of our doctrine on the RP of worship and if the OT used instruments then I don't see why we cannot incorporate them into our worship.
> ...



You are right that the way we approach God in worship is a big deal and I didn't mean to sound differently. I just disagree with people when they say that instruments cannot be used... that's what I think is a small matter...the notion of this thinking.


----------



## Tim (Mar 3, 2009)

Yes, I understand that according to your position, it would be a small matter whether instruments would be used or not. But I guess my question is, given the testimony of the great number of theologians listed by Chris Coldwell, above, does it _really_ seem like such a small matter, if they are saying that instruments are not Biblically permitted?

Basically, we have here some of the greatest theologians posthumously warning the vast majority of the modern church that it is worshipping God in a way that is not commanded. We ought to be saying, hey, this is a _really _important issue. We _have_ to come to the right understanding on this one. This is one where we _definitely _don't want to get wrong.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 3, 2009)

Tim said:


> Yes, I understand that according to your position, it would be a small matter whether instruments would be used or not. But I guess my question is, given the testimony of the great number of theologians listed by Chris Coldwell, above, does it _really_ seem like such a small matter, if they are saying that instruments are not Biblically permitted?
> 
> Basically, we have here some of the greatest theologians posthumously warning the vast majority of the modern church that it is worshipping God in a way that is not commanded. We ought to be saying, hey, this is a _really _important issue. We _have_ to come to the right understanding on this one. This is one where we _definitely _don't want to get wrong.



However, if you think about it...the OT didn't give us directions to say our creeds in the worship service, it didn't tell us which songs to sing, it didn't tell us to say the Lord's Prayer etc. Those things are just known to be of God and David in the Psalms states for us to use many instruments. He wasn't of the Levitical Priesthood.


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2009)

> With respect, Sarah, this is not a small matter. If the non-instrumental position is Biblical, then those who use instruments in public worship are guilty of offering worship to God that is not commanded. Nadab and Abihu were put to death by God for such an infraction.



And just like the extreme AVers, building a case in that way leaves the rest of us charged with having our name blotted out of the Book of Life, or put to death, etc...

Perhaps we should start a "does one need to take an exception to the WCF if one allows a piano to be played in church" thread. Then we can play out the practical ramifications of whether the rest of us are offering strange fire and are in danger of going to Hell for it.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 3, 2009)

Would really need more context to fairly assess both the issue and Mr. Calvin's comments.


----------



## Tim (Mar 3, 2009)

TimV said:


> > With respect, Sarah, this is not a small matter. If the non-instrumental position is Biblical, then those who use instruments in public worship are guilty of offering worship to God that is not commanded. Nadab and Abihu were put to death by God for such an infraction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With which of my three sentences do you disagree, Tim?

I never said anything about Hell.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 3, 2009)

Sean's post gives more Calvin to read on the subject.
Calvin on Instruments: “Stupid Imitation” Heidelblog
Also Psalm 81:2: “with respect to the tabret, harp, and psaltery, we have formerly observed, and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark, that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were as yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time.”



Scott1 said:


> Would really need more context to fairly assess both the issue and Mr. Calvin's comments.





No; we won't. It is not a confessional issue addressed directly by the Westminster Standards. 


TimV said:


> Perhaps we should start a "does one need to take an exception to the WCF if one allows a piano to be played in church" thread. Then we can play out the practical ramifications of whether the rest of us are offering strange fire and are in danger of going to Hell for it.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 3, 2009)

I do wonder, sincerely, why we would not have been explicitly told, "You are to no longer use instruments in worship. It was for the Levites alone." Also, I would think at least one church that Paul was writing to would have issue with this, but there hasn't been a word. 
You guys may be right. And I am not blaming God for my misunderstanding--at all! But I do wish that we would have had a clear line on this issue, if there is such a clear line. How can so many faithful men and women not be clear on this?
Does the priesthood of all believers make us all into the Levites, or some other kind of priest? 
I definitely do not think it is wrong to sing Psalms. Even to sing Psalms exclusively. If this is not really a law for our worship, though, I do think it would be wrong to call it one. 

And why do some Psalms have,"...With stringed instruments," in the heading. That looks, to me, like directions.

And were the Levites the only ones that sang? Or were they just the only ones who played instruments while others sang?

OK. I think those are my only questions. Thanks. And please do not think I'm being rhetorical or even argumentative. These are real questions.♥


----------



## William Price (Mar 3, 2009)

I have a hard time contemplating this issue. Calvin speaks against the use of musical instruments within the Church setting for means of worship? Well, if this is so, then we must understand then how we should worship God under the New Covenant. Should we no longer sing as well? Singing was done in accompaniment with the use of musical instruments.

To me, and I may be wrong in this, the Bible gives us types and shadows of how we should do things, from Old to New Testament. They used instruments in the Old Testament, and this was also done prior to the establishment of the Levitical priesthood, when Miraim and others sung and played the tamborine unto the Lord.

On this issue, I have to disagree with Calvin's interpretation.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Mar 3, 2009)

he beholds said:


> I do wonder, sincerely, why we would not have been explicitly told, "You are to no longer use instruments in worship. It was for the Levites alone." Also, I would think at least one church that Paul was writing to would have issue with this, but there hasn't been a word.



It is my understanding that a cappella singing was the status quo for synagogue worship at the time. This would explain the absence of controversies over this matter in the NT witness.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 3, 2009)

A non exhaustive and brief overview of musical instruments (choirs and psalmody etc.) can be found in the article below; it addresses scriptures such as Exodus 15:20.
Worship Song Regulated by Scripture: A Review of Benjamin Shaw's monograph _Studies in Church Music

_From: http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner2-12.pdf


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2009)

> No; we won't. It is not a confessional issue addressed directly by the Westminster Standards.



Exactly my point. And I couldn't help but notice that the first person to in this thread to show approval for the quote hold beliefs that would keep him from being even a Deacon in a church that subscribes to the opinions of



> pick any member of the Westminster Assembly who drafted the historic documents of Presbyterianism, and they held this position.



Those people were equally familiar with Baptists and Organs. Those people knew for a fact that organs were being played in Catholic churches, and if I'm not mistaken in Lutheran churches as well, and they didn't say a word in condemnation about them when they put together the WCF. They judged it a matter of Christian liberty.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

Tim,

1. I am not EP.

2. I believe it is historically dishonest to state that leaving something out of a Constituional document implies that it is a matter of liberty. That's like saying that the founding fathers of the Constitution knew about infanticide and left it out of the Constitution with a clear eye to it being a matter of liberty. I take exception to the WCF on this point because I disagree with the WCF's intent on that point.

3. You will refrain from using insulting language to those who have scruples regarding this issue as a matter of conscience on the basis of their interpretation of the Scriptures. Referring to the EP position as "extreme" is unwarranted given it's historical position in Presbyterianism. This issue is a matter of exegetical disagreement. If you disagree then state your disagreements respectfully even as I require it out of those who hold to original intent.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 3, 2009)

You need to unpack the first statement for me; I'm not following. As to the second, you are mistaken. The Westminster Assembly did not address the issue because it was the default position of the church; hence the goal to have the organs torn out of Westminster and St. Paul. If you had been there and asked if it was a matter of Christian Liberty, to a man I'm sure they would have said no. 



TimV said:


> > No; we won't. It is not a confessional issue addressed directly by the Westminster Standards.
> 
> 
> Exactly my point. And I couldn't help but notice that the first person to in this thread to show approval for the quote hold beliefs that would keep him from being even a Deacon in a church that subscribes to the opinions of
> ...


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2009)

> Referring to the EP position as "extreme" is unwarranted given it's historical position in Presbyterianism.



Thanks Rich, and I'm sorry for the way I wrote my response. I was referring specifically to the implications of playing a piano being equivalent to offering strange fire in post 16, but I crossed a line.



> Lev 10:1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them.
> Lev 10:2 And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.





> You need to unpack the first statement for me; I'm not following. As to the second, you are mistaken. The Westminster Assembly did not address the issue because it was the default position of the church; hence the goal to have the organs torn out of Westminster and St. Paul. If you had been there and asked if it was a matter of Christian Liberty, to a man I'm sure they would have said no.



Chris, organs had been used in a greater or lesser extent for at least 200 years in the RC church prior to the WA. They all knew about them.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 3, 2009)

TimV said:


> Chris, organs had been used in a greater or lesser extent for at least 200 years in the RC church prior to the WA. They all knew about them.


Okay; of course they did; and they zero'd in on the organs at St. Paul and Westminster as soon as they had any influence to do so.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 3, 2009)

Tim,

I believe (at least) that there is a fundamental difference between scruples with respect to something like the preservation of Scripture (e.g. the TR threads) and whether instruments are a circumstance or element of worship. I can respect my non-instrumental brethren, agree with them that the Confession was at least written in a context of non-instruments (although unlike, Exclusive Psalmody, there is no explicit confessional reference), and myself take exception to that point (if required) without any real heartburn.

I don't see that exception preventing one man from being an officer, at least in 98% of the Reformed world. At the same time, I don't think it would be right to bind the conscience of the non-instrumentalist.

No need for inflammatory language. Blessings,


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2009)

> Okay; of course they did; and they zero'd in on the organs at St. Paul and Westminster as soon as they had any influence to do so.



Chris, you said that having no musical instruments in church was the default position in the church, and that simply isn't true. By the late 1200's most major churches in Europe had organs. And when the Reformation came, Anglicans and Lutherans kept the practice. And yes, naturally we enter the realm of conjecture, but do you really think dozens of superbly well educated and well travelled men didn't think about the subject when so many other things were addressed in such minute detail? When most or all of them had attended churches with organs?

-----Added 3/3/2009 at 10:19:46 EST-----



> I don't see that exception preventing one man from being an officer, at least in 98% of the Reformed world. At the same time, I don't think it would be right to bind the conscience of the non-instrumentalist.
> 
> No need for inflammatory language. Blessings,



You are exactly right, thanks!


----------



## Albatross (Mar 3, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> It's not as simple as disagreeing with poor Calvin on this issue. Pick any Presbyterian you like from circa 1850 and before and they held the position of Calvin; pick *any* member of the Westminster Assembly who drafted the historic documents of Presbyterianism, and they held this position. We have much of the worship we have now in Presbyterianism because of the decline of Presbyterianism into liberalism and the failure of any conservative movement to roll back all the declension. I'll stick with Calvin, Knox, the Westminster Divines (and practically any Puritan), Samuel Miller, Thornwell, Dabney, John Murray, and many many others. Not bad company.



Clarification question......Are you saying musical instruments in worship are a result of liberalism invading Presbyterianism? Does this not go back to whether musical instruments are inherently sinful?

Also, I'm cautious to agree with an idea based on the number of individuals in history who have held a certain position. No matter the list, it does not guarantee truth or accuracy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Tim,
> 
> I believe (at least) that there is a fundamental difference between scruples with respect to something like the preservation of Scripture (e.g. the TR threads) and whether instruments are a circumstance or element of worship. I can respect my non-instrumental brethren, agree with them that the Confession was at least written in a context of non-instruments (although unlike, Exclusive Psalmody, there is no explicit confessional reference), and myself take exception to that point (if required) without any real heartburn.
> 
> ...



I agree. I was going to say the same thing but prefer to avoid TR debates now. EP is, fundamentally, a matter of exegesis like Baptism or the Lord's Supper.

I know there are those that use "strange fire" when referring to the use of instruments. Like baptism debates here we could just have "You're sinning...", "Oh no I'm not...", "Yes, you are..." discussions or we can have discussions that will serve some edifying purpose.

I realize many reading on may never have really interacted on this but it comes down to the issue of whether or not instruments are an element of worship. If they are an element of Temple worship (as EP advocates argue) then they "pass away" with the Temple. Hence, re-introducing them is viewed as introducing OT ritual into the NT Church. Put another way, they foreshadowed something that was fulfilled and it would be introducing something from a period of immaturity to a period of maturity.

It really needs to be interacted with on a more substantive level than "Calvin was wrong." He wasn't right on everything but, one thing you can't accuse that man of, is being simplistic. If the best response a person can offer is "...well, I guess we shouldn't sing either..." then you really haven't wrestled with the issue.

This is not something that lends itself to a "fly by" analysis if you've never been exposed to it before.


----------



## Tripel (Mar 3, 2009)

Just curious, but is calling a position "extreme" generally looked down upon here? Is it considered insulting? 

It's such a subjective term--there are positions I hold that are extreme in the eyes of many, and I'm fine with that. Not only am I "extreme" in many regards, I like to think I'm extremely right!


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2009)

> Just curious, but is calling a position "extreme" generally looked down upon here? Is it considered insulting?



I, uh, have a history if inflammatory writing, and that's what they were reminding me of, not the word extreme.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

Tripel said:


> Just curious, but is calling a position "extreme" generally looked down upon here? Is it considered insulting?
> 
> It's such a subjective term--there are positions I hold that are extreme in the eyes of many, and I'm fine with that. Not only am I "extreme" in many regards, I like to think I'm extremely right!



Yes, it is _always_ wrong to be extreme on this board. In _no instances_ is it OK to be extreme. We simply do not permit _under any circumstances_, a person to hold to an extreme position here.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 3, 2009)

Tim,
By default I was not speaking of the church prior be it the RCC or Anglican, but the consensus view of the church as it was at the time as the Puritans were trying re establish it. As far as the RCC, many cathedrals had organs certainly, and I repeat, the Puritans moved to tear out the organs of St. Paul and Westminster not long after the Westminster Assembly sat. It very clearly was the default position of Puritanism, of the Westminster men, and of Presbyterians until the latter half of the 19th century. That is not conjecture.



TimV said:


> > Okay; of course they did; and they zero'd in on the organs at St. Paul and Westminster as soon as they had any influence to do so.
> 
> 
> Chris, you said that having no musical instruments in church was the default position in the church, and that simply isn't true. By the late 1200's most major churches in Europe had organs. And when the Reformation came, Anglicans and Lutherans kept the practice. And yes, naturally we enter the realm of conjecture, but do you really think dozens of superbly well educated and well travelled men didn't think about the subject when so many other things were addressed in such minute detail? When most or all of them had attended churches with organs?
> ...


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 3, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, but is calling a position "extreme" generally looked down upon here? Is it considered insulting?
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 3, 2009)

Rich, I categorically denounce your *EXTREME* position.

Oh, and ANYONE who derails this thread should be taken out and shot.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 3, 2009)

Probably not that simply. Dabney chalked it up to a growing worldliness in the church at the time and that was in conjunction with the steady spiral into liberalism. But I'm not prepared to do a dissertation on it. Musical instruments are not inherently sinful; not sure where that is coming from. But they are as unlawful in the worship of God as liturigical dancing where you'd get far less disagreement on this board. 


Albatross said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > It's not as simple as disagreeing with poor Calvin on this issue. Pick any Presbyterian you like from circa 1850 and before and they held the position of Calvin; pick *any* member of the Westminster Assembly who drafted the historic documents of Presbyterianism, and they held this position. We have much of the worship we have now in Presbyterianism because of the decline of Presbyterianism into liberalism and the failure of any conservative movement to roll back all the declension. I'll stick with Calvin, Knox, the Westminster Divines (and practically any Puritan), Samuel Miller, Thornwell, Dabney, John Murray, and many many others. Not bad company.
> ...


----------



## William Price (Mar 3, 2009)

I think I lost track of this thread some 10 posts back... but what else is new with that about me?! 

I'll just go to work and be *extreme *in the cleaning of the offices, library, clinic, and restrooms at my school.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 3, 2009)

Dearly Bought said:


> It is my understanding that a cappella singing was the status quo for synagogue worship at the time. This would explain the absence of controversies over this matter in the NT witness.



How did it become the status quo, if their history did use instruments? How do we know that this was the Jewish custom at the time of Christ to no longer use instruments in the synagogues?

So they were being unfaithful to the way God set up for them to worship,
since the Jews were supposed to worship with instruments as a shadow of Messiah's coming--which they did not believe happened yet? Basically, the Jewish people _should_ have still been using instruments, b/c the reason to stop was that the Messiah has come, and they did not believe that the Messiah had yet come--and thus, their need for instruments would have been continued, at least in their minds?


And how did the Jews who became Christians know not to use instruments if they weren't taught?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

Jessi,

The Talmudic literature suggests that instruments were viewed by the Jews as belonging to Temple worship and, therefore, not approrpriate for Synagogue worship. Instruments were introduced into Temple worship by David at the command of God. Prior to that, in the Scriptures, there is no command for the use of instruments in the Tabernacle.

I'm not arguing for the position but I want to make sure you understand the "why".


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 3, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, but is calling a position "extreme" generally looked down upon here? Is it considered insulting?
> ...




How "moderate" and unextreme of you.


----------



## uberkermit (Mar 3, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Tripel said:
> ...



I was thinking that he wasn't quite extreme enough, as it took a second to realise that he was being humorous. Now Pastor Buchanan's post is _very _clear. Maybe Rich should study his technique.  

BTW, I haven't derailed this post, have I?


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Mar 3, 2009)

Am I to understand Calvin here is saying it is against the Law to play organs and such, or is it *for* the Law to play them?

I mean, when does it become a Commandment to NOT play instruments? I mean, doesn't seem to make sense to some degree. 

I have studies up on this, and I STILL have questions about it.

How does one sing a Psalm that David (under the inspiration of the Spirit) wrote, and included the playing of instruments in accompaniment...??? Anyone get that question? 

If while singing a song, I am singing "Play the timbral and the stringed instruments" etc...am I not contradicting by saying that I will not play them?

Anyway, will offerings were also allowed under the Law...and wouldn't playing an instrument to accompany worship be considered a "will offering"?


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 3, 2009)

Hey Duane: Haven't seen you around in a while. Good to see you.

I'm not quite sure I understand your distinction. We would say that part of the Law (the first two commandments of the decalogue) claim that God is to be worshiped as he commands. Thus, the circumstantial "positive" or "arbitrary" law of how worship is to be conducted in different times falls under the moral or "natural" law in this sense. Thus, while the law considered strictly does not forbid or command the use of instruments in worship, the law _circumstantially considered_ does: for, we argue, since all ceremonial worship is based upon the contingent and positive will of God, and since we lack such ordinance under this testament, it thus becomes against the Decalogue to use instruments in public worship, though it was certainly not against the Decalogue, and indeed was circumstantially commanded by the Decalogue under the Mosaic administration.

Regarding will-offerings: that was an issue that was prescribed and for which direction was given in the Mosaic covenant; it is not parallel to the introduction of new _forms_ of worship under any testament. We are also commanded to bring will offerings: sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 3, 2009)

Hebrews tells us what that sacrifice of praise is to be.

Hebrews 13:15
By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, _that is_, *the fruit of our lips* giving thanks to his name.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 3, 2009)

he beholds said:


> I do wonder, sincerely, why we would not have been explicitly told, "You are to no longer use instruments in worship. It was for the Levites alone." Also, I would think at least one church that Paul was writing to would have issue with this, but there hasn't been a word.
> You guys may be right. And I am not blaming God for my misunderstanding--at all! But I do wish that we would have had a clear line on this issue, if there is such a clear line. How can so many faithful men and women not be clear on this?
> Does the priesthood of all believers make us all into the Levites, or some other kind of priest?
> I definitely do not think it is wrong to sing Psalms. Even to sing Psalms exclusively. If this is not really a law for our worship, though, I do think it would be wrong to call it one.
> ...



Jessica,
I think you have a very valid point here. If it were only the Levites who played instruments and they were done away with when Christ came and made us a royal priesthood, then it would be His command for His children to continue to worship Him with instruments as He commanded the Levites. Thanks for your insight!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

sjonee said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > I do wonder, sincerely, why we would not have been explicitly told, "You are to no longer use instruments in worship. It was for the Levites alone." Also, I would think at least one church that Paul was writing to would have issue with this, but there hasn't been a word.
> ...



Sarah,

That is an incorrect inference you are drawing. You need to be careful about shooting from the hip on this. Reformed believers that argue for the use of musical instruments do not argue for them on the basis that they still have ceremonial function. The Book of Hebrews is quite explicit on the passing away of ceremonial types and shadows. We are not fulfilling a New Testament "Levetical" role.

If instruments are permitted in the public worship of God it is because they are a circumstance of worship that facilitates a prescribed element - in this case singing. While I agree that instruments were an element in OT worship, I am not convinced that makes them one in NT worship. If I did, I would be for a capella singing as well. One thing that is perilous, however, is to try to make an inference from the priesthood of all believers and carry over elements from the types and shadows to the fulfillment.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 3, 2009)

sjonee said:


> Jessica,
> I think you have a very valid point here. If it were only the Levites who played instruments and they were done away with when Christ came and made us a royal priesthood, then it would be His command for His children to continue to worship Him with instruments as He commanded the Levites. Thanks for your insight!



You would have to demonstrate this exegetically.

But I'm not sure that is a road we really want to go down: if we are priests, are we to take over all the duties of the Levites, i.e., tending to the worship of the temple?

I think the moratorium is still in effect on the topic, so I don't want to talk too much about it, but it's just not as simple as that post suggests.

*Edit*
Oops. Sorry for the double-posting. Rich's post is good -- read his instead.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 3, 2009)

Certainly if one doesn't try to argue on the basis of circumstance, then one is left not with the permissibility of musical instruments circumstantially as they may aid singing which is an element of worship, but a requirement to use them in public worship.



Semper Fidelis said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > he beholds said:
> ...


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 3, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> > he beholds said:
> ...



I understand your caution because we are not to do everything the Levites did like animal sacrifice etc. But those things were definitely a shadow of Christ and when He came they were done away with. However, I don't understand how instruments could be a shadow of Christ. If the Levites brought sacrifices and worship to God and Christ did away with the sacrifices because He is the Sacrifice but He did not get rid of worship, then how is it wrong to say that we are now the royal priesthood who still carry out some of the things that the Levites did. Would you not agree that not everything that the Levites did was done away with? That's an honest question...maybe I'm mistaken and everything was done away with.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 3, 2009)

Correct. For the Reformed instrumentalist, instruments are like light bulbs, or air conditioning, or the time of the service. They assist what is commanded, but in themselves are indifferent (e.g. you could keep the light bulbs off if there was sufficient natural light from the windows).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Certainly if one doesn't try to argue on the basis of circumstance, then one is left not with the permissibility of musical instruments circumstantially as they may aid singing which is an element of worship, but a requirement to use them in public worship.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right Chris. Good underlining of what the nature of the RPW is: You may only perform those elements in worship that God has commanded.

Asking where God has forbidden instruments (if you agree they are an element) is a Lutheran question but not a Reformed one.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 3, 2009)

Hey Sarah,

You're right: it is hard to see how instruments themselves serve as a shadow of Christ; but we can't separate the instruments from their use: they weren't used "willy-nilly" by the Levites whenever they felt like it, but rather they were a commanded part of the temple worship. Just as "sea-cow" skins aren't _themselves_ a shadow of Christ, but the tabernacle of which they were a part _was_: so instruments might not shadow Christ forth in themselves, but they were a commanded, subservient part of the temple worship, and in that they were a shadow of Christ.

Like Rich and Chris said: the only way a reformed person can argue for the use of instruments in worship is as a circumstantial aid to the element of singing; if we make instruments a _part_ or an element of worship...well, we probably don't want to go there.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 3, 2009)

Rich I hope you will answer my question above...thanks if you do. Also, if instruments are not apart of the worship but are as light bulbs or air conditioning, then would it be ok for us to use electric guitars and drums and really rock out the hymns? At what point do we draw the line? My not trying to be incredulous just trying to figure out why instruments are only apart of the worship in a light bulb needing manner


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 3, 2009)

You asked if everything is thrown out which was done by the Levites: well (speaking strictly of prescribed, public worship), if by "everything" you simply mean the worship of God, then no, that of course is still done; but the form of the worship, or its elements, are different. The elements of worship for the Levites included administering the covenant seal (circumcision), sacrifices, musical instruments, the singing of Psalms, feasts and festivals, purity laws, etc., and these _had_ to be done; the elements of New Testament worship are administration of the covenant seal (baptism), the Supper, prayer, singing of Psalms, preaching the word, etc., and these also must be done (we are commanded to do them). The only way in which an adherent of the RPW can allow for instruments in this form of worship is to argue that they are circumstantial, a help to the element of singing (the element, singing, must be done; but the circumstance, the instrument, is optional -- just as the light-bulb or air conditioner above); this is their only course of argument.

-----Added 3/3/2009 at 06:25:26 EST-----



sjonee said:


> Also, if instruments are not apart of the worship but are as light bulbs or air conditioning, then would it be ok for us to use electric guitars and drums and really rock out the hymns?



I think it would be hard to argue such circumstances as helpfully contributing in simplicity to the element of singing. Someone playing the tune on a piano so all can hear and sing the same thing is much easier to explain than a band with multiple guitars, a keyboard and drums.

_Moderators: if I am getting too close to EP debates, please let me know_


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 3, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> You asked if everything is thrown out which was done by the Levites: well (speaking strictly of prescribed, public worship), if by "everything" you simply mean the worship of God, then no, that of course is still done; but the form of the worship, or its elements, are different. The elements of worship for the Levites included administering the covenant seal (circumcision), sacrifices, musical instruments, the singing of Psalms, feasts and festivals, purity laws, etc., and these _had_ to be done; the elements of New Testament worship are administration of the covenant seal (baptism), the Supper, prayer, singing of Psalms, preaching the word, etc., and these also must be done (we are commanded to do them). The only way in which an adherent of the RPW can allow for instruments in this form of worship is to argue that they are circumstantial, a help to the element of singing (the element, singing, must be done; but the circumstance, the instrument, is optional -- just as the light-bulb or air conditioner above); this is their only course of argument.



Just wanted to add that though I haven't understood all of this in the past so clearly, that is the course of argument I would have taken -- when we were in Mexico I would have dearly loved to be of the persuasion that no musical instruments were allowed in worship as I almost passed out every time I had to play the piano (I am no musician); but without the piano the people had no idea what melody line they were supposed to be on: it was a necessary aid to the learning of new psalms and hymns and to us all singing the same tune.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 3, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> You asked if everything is thrown out which was done by the Levites: well (speaking strictly of prescribed, public worship), if by "everything" you simply mean the worship of God, then no, that of course is still done; but the form of the worship, or its elements, are different. The elements of worship for the Levites included administering the covenant seal (circumcision), sacrifices, musical instruments, the singing of Psalms, feasts and festivals, purity laws, etc., and these _had_ to be done; the elements of New Testament worship are administration of the covenant seal (baptism), the Supper, prayer, singing of Psalms, preaching the word, etc., and these also must be done (we are commanded to do them). The only way in which an adherent of the RPW can allow for instruments in this form of worship is to argue that they are circumstantial, a help to the element of singing (the element, singing, must be done; but the circumstance, the instrument, is optional -- just as the light-bulb or air conditioner above); this is their only course of argument.
> 
> -----Added 3/3/2009 at 06:25:26 EST-----
> 
> ...



So basically we are cherry picking. I don't see any Scriptural support for this kind of thinking on either side. The Levites worshipped so we worshipped....the Levites used instruments but we cannot....or....we can but only to help aid singing. This is called cherry picking unless there is a command to stop using instruments or a command to use instruments but only for an aid. Why do we take worship from the Levites and say it is apart of the RP of worship but not instruments when instruments are not apart of the shadows of Christ? I've never had to think about this because our church believes that we can use instruments and I don't remember my pastor saying it was like using light bulbs. He might think this and I'm just not aware of it. I've never brought it up.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 3, 2009)

For Pastor Greco, Rich, and others who (like myself) are instrumentalists, do you think that Calvin's understanding, along with that of the Westminster Divines, was perhaps influenced by the excesses of the RCC? In other words, if the Catholics hadn't been as out of control as they were in worship, would Calvin and others have had the same response (particularly to instruments)? I'm not saying they didn't examine this issue with careful exegesis, just that their understanding may have been influenced by the perverted worship of the RCC perhaps?


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 3, 2009)

sjonee said:


> So basically we are cherry picking. I don't see any Scriptural support for this kind of thinking on either side. The Levites worshipped so we worshipped....the Levites used instruments but we cannot....or....we can but only to help aid singing. This is called cherry picking unless there is a command to stop using instruments or a command to use instruments but only for an aid. Why do we take worship from the Levites and say it is apart of the RP of worship but not instruments when instruments are not apart of the shadows of Christ? I've never had to think about this because our church believes that we can use instruments and I don't remember my pastor saying it was like using light bulbs. He might think this and I'm just not aware of it. I've never brought it up.



Not at all. We _don't_ take worship from the Levites: worship is simply what we are commanded to do as part of God's moral law: and as such, in each age God has given directions for _how_ he is to be worshiped. The fact that both we and the Levites worship, does not mean we got the idea from them.

We're not cherry-picking. You said we are unless there is a clear command to _stop_ using instruments; the fundamental question, however, which you are asking is different than how the Reformed ask it -- we ask, instead, "Where is our command _to use instruments_. The Levites had a command to use them that pertained to the temple sacrifices; we don't have a command, so we don't introduce them." Nevertheless, if instruments were a specific part of the Mosaic law, and this has expired, then we can say we have been commanded to stop using them in worship until further positive command has been given to take up the practice. 

Also, I'm sure your pastor does think that. I doubt any OPC pastors consider instruments to be an element.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 3, 2009)

I'm disqualified to answer, but my suspicion would be the Reformers were far more influenced by the church fathers and the general opposition against instruments even in the RCC by such as Aquinas, than by mere abuse at the time of the Reformation. 



ColdSilverMoon said:


> For Pastor Greco, Rich, and others who (like myself) are instrumentalists, do you think that Calvin's understanding, along with that of the Westminster Divines, was perhaps influenced by the excesses of the RCC? In other words, if the Catholics hadn't been as out of control as they were in worship, would Calvin and others have had the same response (particularly to instruments)? I'm not saying they didn't examine this issue with careful exegesis, just that their understanding may have been influenced by the perverted worship of the RCC perhaps?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> For Pastor Greco, Rich, and others who (like myself) are instrumentalists, do you think that Calvin's understanding, along with that of the Westminster Divines, was perhaps influenced by the excesses of the RCC? In other words, if the Catholics hadn't been as out of control as they were in worship, would Calvin and others have had the same response (particularly to instruments)? I'm not saying they didn't examine this issue with careful exegesis, just that their understanding may have been influenced by the perverted worship of the RCC perhaps?



Mason,

I don't think so. I have read some things that indicate that Calvin thought that certain things should be removed from public worship that might be otherwise indifferent if they didn't bring idolatry back to mind but his argument against instrumental worship was not based on excess in a certain context but on the nature of instruments as abrogated with ceremonial worship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

sjonee said:


> I understand your caution because we are not to do everything the Levites did like animal sacrifice etc. But those things were definitely a shadow of Christ and when He came they were done away with. However, I don't understand how instruments could be a shadow of Christ. If the Levites brought sacrifices and worship to God and Christ did away with the sacrifices because He is the Sacrifice but He did not get rid of worship, then how is it wrong to say that we are now the royal priesthood who still carry out some of the things that the Levites did. Would you not agree that not everything that the Levites did was done away with? That's an honest question...maybe I'm mistaken and everything was done away with.



Sarah,

Everything pertaining to the Levitical priesthood was temporary and passing away to be fulfilled by the once-for-all priesthood of Christ. The Levitical priesthood was completely abrogated with the resurrection of Christ as well as any ceremonial functions attending it. New Testament worship is not patterned after Temple worship but after Synagogue worship, which was always distinct from Temple worship.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 3, 2009)

New question, where is synagogue worship introduced? I think if I read that, it would help me see what it was supposed to look like. Reading that would help me with the following questions, as well: 

When are we told that we are to pattern our worship after synagogue worship? 

Why did synagogue worship begin before the ceremonial elements of temple worship were abrogated? Why did those Jews no longer use Temple worship and those elements? 

Does it matter when trying to determine biblical principles what is most easy to understand? 
I know in the headcovering debates, the point might be brought up that a simple reading of the Bible would lead to the wearing of headcoverings. Therefore, with an Occam's Razor-type approach, women would naturally wear headcoverings after reading I Corinthians.

For instruments, are there any Occam's razor-type passages where one would be led to an understanding very easily that instruments have been done away with? 

Does simplicity or a natural reading matter? Maybe it doesn't matter nearly as much as what could be discovered with lots of searching. I do realize that God has not made all things clear and that brings him glory.



> 150:1 Praise the Lord!
> Praise God in his sanctuary;
> praise him in his mighty heavens! [1]
> 2 Praise him for his mighty deeds;
> ...



When reading that, or singing that, my first impression is that we are to be praising God with those things. 

I know that we are to let Scripture interpret Scripture, more so than what our natural reason or impression might be! But do you think it is a sin to read Scripture naively, and when it says, "use cymbals," use cymbals? 
Or would it be very clear to us, even with an uneducated reading of Scripture, if it was a complete one, that clearly those words were only for OT worship? 
As of right now, even having read the whole Bible, I have not come to that understanding, but if it is correct, I want to!!


Gracias!


----------



## bookslover (Mar 3, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'll stick with Calvin, Knox, the Westminster Divines (and practically any Puritan), Samuel Miller, Thornwell, Dabney, John Murray, and many many others. Not bad company.



That's OK. I'll stick with the biblical position. 

By which I mean: The Bible nowhere either states or implies that musical instruments are forbidden in corporate worship. The Levitical sacrificial system has been fulfilled by Christ, but I believe it is wrong to assume (and you have to assume, since the Bible doesn't say so) that musical instruments have been done away with merely because they were used in Old Testament worship. The New Testament rarely mentions instruments (as I've said before) but that doesn't mean that they didn't exist or that they were not used in corporate worship. It's not the burden of the New Testament to discuss these things. The New Testament's burden is to (1) describe the Gospel and its implications, and (2) to describe the spread of the gospel. Whether one uses instruments in worship or not belongs to the adiaphora.


----------



## MW (Mar 4, 2009)

he beholds said:


> For instruments, are there any Occam's razor-type passages where one would be led to an understanding very easily that instruments have been done away with?



The basic argument of the epistle to the Hebrews should demonstrate that the musical instruments used in the service of the temple under the old covenant, that is, under the administration of the covenant of grace under the Law, have been abrogated along with all the other appendages to that service. This principle is well summarised by the very clear statement of Hebrews 8:13, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old."


----------



## Augusta (Mar 4, 2009)

Here is a link to Samuel Miller's _Letters Concerning the Constitution and Order of the Christian Ministry: Addressed to the Members of the Presbyterian Churches in the City of New York. To which is Prefixed, a Letter on the Present Aspect and Bearing of the Episcopal Controversy._ 

It contains a lot of information on how NT churches were patterned directly from Synagogue worship. If you want a verse Leviticus 23:3 commands "holy convocations" in their dwellings on the Sabbath. This is what they continued in which eventually became Synagogues. They sang praise, prayed, and expounded the scriptures.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 4, 2009)

And, the argument goes, since the synagogue had no musical instruments, then our worship should have no instruments. 

Just to land on one aspect - the problem is that the banning of musical instruments from the synagogue was based on a rabbinical (and certainly legalistic) prohibition rationalized around the potential of doing work on the sabbath and the destruction of the temple, so they certainly considered musical instruments to be circumstantial, even if their reasoning for banning was in error.

And, as so many have rightly observed, if they are circumstantial, then they are allowed for the NT Church, because they have not been specifically abrogated by the NT and the use is clearly laid out in the OT.

Now, if one considers *music* in general as an element of worship, then the discussion can get very interesting...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 4, 2009)

J.D.,

That has not been the argument that, because synagogue worship had no musical instruments then that is our pattern. I am not EP but intellectual fairness demands that I represent the opposing view properly and understand it if I'm going to disagree with it.

The issue of noting that our worship is patterned after Synagogue worship is primarily in reference to making sure we understand that we aren't engaged in "Temple worship" any more. The types and shadows of the ceremonies were in the Tabernacle and the Temple and Christ has perfectly fulfilled those. If we try to import OT Sanctuary worship into the NT Church then we have more than an instrument problem, we have a Gospel problem in not understanding the Priesthood of Christ. 

Whatever other arguments the non-Reformed might make, because they have diminished respect for the perfect Priesthood of Christ to begin with, is immaterial here. We lose way more than a position on instruments/non-instruments when we forget what the ceremonies pointed to and were fulfilled by.

By noting that NT worship is patterned after Synagogue worship does not mean that everything was simply adopted whole cloth. There are striking similarities, to be sure, with Synagogue worship (not the least of which is Elder rule and collegiality) but there are differences as well. I am not EP or non-instrumental because I do not think Synagogue patterns are normative but it does help keep categories straight in people's minds who have a tendency to see Temple worship as the only kind of worship that existed.


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 4, 2009)

As as I was reading through this thread it occurred to me for the first time that there were two different uses of musical instruments in OT worship. 

There were musical instruments used to accompany the sacrifices (always seems to be connected with trumpets) and there were musical instruments to accompany the singing. Both use of instruments were performed by Levites who were skilled musicians. 

I don't know if there can be a distinction made, but I find one. God never put an end to singing to the Lord, but He put an end to the sacrifices. If there was singing in the temple accompanied to instruments outside of the sacrifices, I would think that singing with instruments would still be permitted. 

Based on this thinking (and I'm waiting for someone to shoot me down ), it would be easier for me to argue that we should not use musical instruments to accompany the offering or other parts of worship than it would to ban musical instruments all together.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 4, 2009)

There were other things that the Priests did that were not sacrifice per se. There were wave offerings and thanksgiving offerings that had nothing to do with atonement for sin but for gratitude and praise. The levitical priesthood and all its ceremonies have been perfected and fulfilled in Christ.


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 4, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> There were other things that the Priests did that were not sacrifice per se. There were wave offerings and thanksgiving offerings that had nothing to do with atonement for sin but for gratitude and praise. The levitical priesthood and all its ceremonies have been perfected and fulfilled in Christ.



Rich, I was using sacrifices as one example, as you say there are many other offerings that hand nothing to do with atonement. I may be completely off base, but I see singing that did not accompany any sort of "ritual" (sorry for the term, I just can't think of a better word at the moment) in the temple. It was just praise and singing. This praise and singing has not been abolished. It's been commanded in the NT. I am wondering if this does not justify the use of instruments in modern worship when it is used to accompany singing.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 4, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > There were other things that the Priests did that were not sacrifice per se. There were wave offerings and thanksgiving offerings that had nothing to do with atonement for sin but for gratitude and praise. The levitical priesthood and all its ceremonies have been perfected and fulfilled in Christ.
> ...



Right. And Psalm 150 that I quoted never declares itself to be a Psalm just for the Levites. It seems to me that it is a Psalm for all of us. I am sure we'd have no problem singing those words in church, but we would using those instruments. How can someone tell that it was a Psalm just for the Levites, or at least its directions were just for the Levites?


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Mar 4, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Hey Duane: Haven't seen you around in a while. Good to see you.
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand your distinction. We would say that part of the Law (the first two commandments of the decalogue) claim that God is to be worshiped as he commands. Thus, the circumstantial "positive" or "arbitrary" law of how worship is to be conducted in different times falls under the moral or "natural" law in this sense. Thus, while the law considered strictly does not forbid or command the use of instruments in worship, the law _circumstantially considered_ does: for, we argue, since all ceremonial worship is based upon the contingent and positive will of God, and since we lack such ordinance under this testament, it thus becomes against the Decalogue to use instruments in public worship, though it was certainly not against the Decalogue, and indeed was circumstantially commanded by the Decalogue under the Mosaic administration.
> 
> Regarding will-offerings: that was an issue that was prescribed and for which direction was given in the Mosaic covenant; it is not parallel to the introduction of new _forms_ of worship under any testament. We are also commanded to bring will offerings: sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving.



OK...let me try to better clarify my meaning.

Firstly, I was questioning Calvin's understanding of whether or not playing instruments is a sin, by making it a Commandment. The Commandment being, "Thou shalt NOT use musical instruments in worship to the LORD your God."

I mean, that is seems that one is making it a Commandment...(Thou shalt not...) as it is most Commandments begin with "Thou shalt not..." . It just seems to be contradictory to state it is essentially against the law to do something that is lawful... I may be confusing something...but, I can't help it, the issue IS somewhat confusing to me.

So, bear with me, and appreciate responses.


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 4, 2009)

> So, bare with me, and appreciate responses.









I'd rather 'bear' with you. I don't think the others in my office would like me to 'bare' with you.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Mar 4, 2009)

Just thought of something...

When the Veil was rent opening the Holy of Holies...wasn't that showing the end of Levitical Priests INTERVENING on our behalf, and shouldn't if be thought of that it is safe for us to do this freely now?

Just a different view of the putting away of the old...meaning what was once Commanded, is now open to do of one's own will?


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 4, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *TheFleshProfitethNothing*
> _Just thought of something...
> 
> When the Veil was rent opening the Holy of Holies...wasn't that showing the end of Levitical Priests INTERVENING on our behalf, and shouldn't if be thought of that it is safe for us to do this freely now?
> ...



Hey Duane,

You're not going to find many Reformed people (whether EP or not, instruments or not, etc) who would say something of that sort: what we all have in common is that we recognize that worship is _regulated_: we simply differ in our conclusions as to the results of that regulation. We find that we must have a _positive_ command to do something in worship; basically, it is a situation where God says, "Worship me;" and we say, "We don't know what you want. What should we do?" And so we wait for God to say, "I will show you." Thus, without God's, "This is how I will be worshiped," we won't do it. With regards to instruments, those who argue for them do so on the basis that they are a _circumstance_ to help the _element_ of worship, singing. The argument is _not_ that they are a part of worship themselves.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 4, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> J.D.,
> 
> That has not been the argument that, because synagogue worship had no musical instruments then that is our pattern. I am not EP but intellectual fairness demands that I represent the opposing view properly and understand it if I'm going to disagree with it.
> 
> ...



Rich, I have had non-instrumental and EPers point out as a part of their argumentation the fact that Temple worship was abrogated, but Jesus worshiped at the synagogue, too, and the synagogue had no instrumental accompaniment, therefore any mention of non-Temple worship singing in the NT was de facto unaccompanied, so the NT church should worship with music just as Jesus and the rest of the first century church, that is with unaccompanied song. 

The point being that synagogue worship should not be considered a substantiation to either non-instrumental or EPer arguments. It is irrelevant.

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 05:15:01 EST-----

one example from here




> The conclusion to which we are driven is this: God has not commanded us to use musical instruments in New Testament worship. We have seen that God did not authorize (command) the use of musical instruments until the time of Moses (even if we consider the trumpets used in the tabernacle to be instruments of music). When they were authorized (commanded), they were clearly a part of the shadowy ceremonial system. And even in the Old Testament period, worship (except that which was performed by the priests and Levites at the temple in Jerusalem) was commonly offered without musical instruments. Worship in the ancient synagogue was always devoid of such. So was the worship of the early church. Never in the New Testament do we find mention of their use. What we do find is an abundance of teaching to the effect that the whole system of tabernacle and temple worship (shadowy and typical in nature) has been abolished. It follows, therefore, that the use of musical instruments is not authorized in the worship of the church today.





Rich said:


> I am not EP but intellectual fairness demands that I represent the opposing view properly and understand it if I'm going to disagree with it.



Hopefully this will assist you in your attempts to fulfill the demands of intellectual fairness.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Mar 5, 2009)

Prufrock:

Appreciate the responses...I am aware of the common understanding...and lean that way, but I still have some questions concerning the abstaining from using them. 

I know people have tried to use David's forming a large "Orchestra", and wonder about that. Was David ever rebuked for it? Punished for it? If not, why not? He is a type of Christ, and used the Levites to build a massive musical ensamble to worship the LORD.

We no longer have a High Priest who daily intercedes in the temple, and we find that Christ is now this High Priest, and we being subordinate to Him, in typology, we must then conclude (or not) that we are types of the Levitical Priesthood. Peter mentions that we are "royal priesthood, an holy nation...". 

I'm not looking for debate here...just throwing out some thoughts I have been having about the use of instruments, and wondering if anyone else has thought of these things and if they just might be somehow relavant when doing a proper exegesis and hermeneutical study of Scripture. (I honor Calvin, Owen, and the many others who have gone before, I just always question, dig, deduce, and the such-like, until I'm pretty much exhausted...LOL).

Thanks again, and look forward to more dialogue in this and other issues and doctrine.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 5, 2009)

panta dokimazete said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > J.D.,
> ...


Your assertion above was not that it was an argument but _the_ argument. 

You said:


> And, the argument goes, since the synagogue had no musical instruments, then our worship should have no instruments.


That is not the argument for non-instrumental worship.

The principle argument, which stands or falls apart from synagogue worship, is that Temple types and shadows are fulfilled in Christ. Full stop. 

There are those who don't understand that instruments in OT worship were restricted to the Temple as a prescribed element and so a discussion of the synagogue is helpful to give them a background. Nothing more, nothing less. It is also helpful to understand that the Jews, given the light they had, understood this to be the case.

If the argument for the use of musical instruments in the NT is built upon a ceremonial basis it is un-Biblical and this from one who considers instruments usable.


----------



## DonP (Mar 5, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, but is calling a position "extreme" generally looked down upon here? Is it considered insulting?
> ...



Hmmm... Wrong to be Extreme. That sounds like an "Extreme" position to me, but you won't catch me saying that it is. 

An earlier post was very clear and most did not interact with it. 

The instrumental worship was in the temple. the few people who may have had some strings tied to an olive branch may have made some tunes for private worship but it wasn't part of worship. It wasn't done in the synagogue so there was no need to make a big deal about it in the NT writings. They continued the same practices unless specifically addressed to change them. They only corrected the Judaizers on the things they taught in error. So obviously by silence we could say that the Judaizers were not teaching instrumental worship or we would have seen that addressed as part of OT ceremonial worship to be dropped with the sabbaths etc. 

And if we hold strictly to the RP we are only instructed to pray, read, preach, break bread and sing, not play instruments. 

So yes though it is confusing as you read the psalms, remember it only sounds this way because we have been conditioned to have instruments in worship. Those raised without it in the past would understand the psalmists to be referring to temple worship ceremonial worship with instruments. 

A Dutch minister told me they brought the organ in to keep the people silent and before church and during offering. Then they decided to accompany the singing to help the singing. It was never to be something of its own, or seen as instrumental worship. But no doubt with more money and louder organs they took over as any fleshy addition tends to do. But many Dutch reformed denominations never let any other instrument in public worship. 

Now in private and other services you can have instruments, but not in the called public worship service. 
As for what God does with those who like Cain probably did, offer spurious worship, undirected worship, we can't say He will kill them as he did Uzzah and others. Nor does it seem except maybe for Cain, a reason for them to go to hell, esp if they do it in ignorance. Cain and others clearly knew better. Uzzah, well that is a tough one for me to. I just stand back in amazement of the Glory and majesty of God and beg for His mercy on me for even my best actions and thoughts. Selah 

And I think by today's standards sadly this is an *extreme position to hold, and hard to, since most reformed churches don't. I submit to the church I am in. By Extreme I mean it is within the bounds of Christian faith and is not out of Confessional bounds, but based on majority minority adherence it is out on the edge of the bell curve. A positive term. I am extremely reformed. _ am extremist when it comes to believing all 10 commandments are still binding on Christians as a rule of obedience and God did not change His mind. Keeping the day of rest is no less binding on us as Not having an image. Otherwise those Catholic chapels are beautiful. 

In His Service,

-----Added 3/5/2009 at 03:43:40 EST-----



Prufrock said:



Hey Duane: Haven't seen you around in a while. Good to see you.

I'm not quite sure I understand your distinction. We would say that part of the Law (the first two commandments of the decalogue) claim that God is to be worshiped as he commands. Thus, the circumstantial "positive" or "arbitrary" law of how worship is to be conducted in different times falls under the moral or "natural" law in this sense. Thus, while the law considered strictly does not forbid or command the use of instruments in worship, the law circumstantially considered does: for, we argue, since all ceremonial worship is based upon the contingent and positive will of God, and since we lack such ordinance under this testament, it thus becomes against the Decalogue to use instruments in public worship, though it was certainly not against the Decalogue, and indeed was circumstantially commanded by the Decalogue under the Mosaic administration.

Regarding will-offerings: that was an issue that was prescribed and for which direction was given in the Mosaic covenant; it is not parallel to the introduction of new forms of worship under any testament. We are also commanded to bring will offerings: sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving.

Click to expand...



Good explanation Paul. I have a question for you that has been a little challenge for me to answer. 
If we are strict RP and there is no instruction to use a pulpit or microphone or overhead projector, video or TV, or psalm book, where do we draw the line on these things, and how to explain why they are a part of supporting the proper aspects of worship, where instruments accompanying singing could not fall in the same category? Pitch pipe vs organ??

Because instruments were ordered to be part of ceremonial we must drop them? 
Or the ones are purely new technology advancements on the same prescribed things? 

Thanks, 

In his Service,_


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 5, 2009)

Duane,

I can only say that we have to be cautious in our Levitical Priesthood/"Priesthood of all believers" parallels. We must acknowledge that they actually are two separate spheres: our constitution is not that of the Levites. If we begin to bring in the argument that "The Levites were commanded to to this, thus we should do it, too," then there is nothing other than pure arbitrary caprice to prevent us from bringing in the other things the Levites were commanded to do. 

I can respect the position of my Reformed brethren who bring in instruments calling them circumstances as aids to the elements of worship; but once we look to the Levitical priesthood, and see instruments as _a part of_, or an element of worship, then we've given up the whole ball game. If you argue from the Levitical priesthood, then eventually means that we are, not just permitted, but _commanded_ to use instruments, and thus we would be sinning if we were able to use them and did not do so.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 5, 2009)

Levites were called for a specific duty or office and they did no other thing. Some like offices have been reinstituted in the NT but not all. There is no office of musician in the NT.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 5, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Good explanation Paul. I have a question for you that has been a little challenge for me to answer.
> If we are strict RP and there is no instruction to use a pulpit or microphone or overhead projector, video or TV, or psalm book, where do we draw the line on these things, and how to explain why they are a part of supporting the proper aspects of worship, where instruments accompanying singing could not fall in the same category? Pitch pipe vs organ??
> 
> Because instruments were ordered to be part of ceremonial we must drop them?
> Or the ones are purely new technology advancements on the same prescribed things?



Don,

Thank you for your kind words. This is certainly a good question, though there are certainly many others here more qualified to answer.

I need to go take care of some business, but I will attempt to give you a satisfactory answer when I return, provided no one else has done so yet.


----------



## Myshkin (Mar 5, 2009)

Regarding "circumstance" vs. "element":

I have seen the categories for worship explained several ways, all by those who defend the RPW-

1. a) Elements
b) Circumstances

2. a) Elements
b) Forms (the forms of the elements)
c) Circumstances (issues such as time/place of meeting; issues not dealing with the liturgy)

3. a) Elements
b) Forms
c) Circumstances
d) Rubrics (I don't remember how this was defined)

Which is correct?

This seems to make a difference regarding how we determine instruments or anything else are categorized.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 5, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Your assertion above was not that it was an argument but _the_ argument.



Yes, this is the argument typically used in reference to the post above my original post:



Augusta said:


> It contains a lot of information on how NT churches were patterned directly from Synagogue worship.



to which I responded with my post



Rich said:


> That is not the argument for non-instrumental worship.



It is the argument used when rationalizing not using instruments in context of modeling NT worship after the synagogue.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 5, 2009)

panta dokimazete said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Your assertion above was not that it was an argument but _the_ argument.
> ...



 This is a Reformed board. Yes?

Is this the grounds for the historical formulation and can you demonstrate Puritan thought toward that end? Can you demonstrate for me that any Reformed Church grounds their argument for non-instrumental worship on this basis? Is this the ground that Calvin used, since, after all, this is a thread about Calvin on Instruments in Worship?

For all the debating that you do on this subject you seem woefully deficient in your understanding of why Samuel Miller would bring that up. Once again I note that the issue of Synagogue worship is brought up for supporting understanding but is not the basis for non-instrumental praise. It is historically relevant to point to parallels regarding the relationship between Temple and Synagogue worship even as there was a relationship between Temple and NT worship before and after the destruction of the Temple. It doesn't mean that NT worship _is_ Synagogue worship. It is not even a difficult or non-subtle thing to understand and I don't know how you can get so caught up in the supporting material that you come to believe that it forms the grounds for arguing for non-instrumental praise. If that was "all they had" then it would be a pretty easy position to dispose of historically.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 5, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



Are you so committed to defending your own misunderstanding that you would continue to mis-characterize my intent?

In response to a post that referenced it, I gave and rebutted the portion of the substantiation that some non-instrumentalists use to build their argument that NT church worship was modeled after and should continue in the manner of the synagogue. That is, with unaccompanied singing.

I never said that NIs only had the one argument or that it was the strongest one. Feel free to continue with your strawman bashing, but I am done dignifying this silliness and your aspersion casting with further replies.


----------



## DonP (Mar 8, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, but is calling a position "extreme" generally looked down upon here? Is it considered insulting?
> ...


*
*
Hmmm.... this seems to be an extreme view?


----------



## py3ak (Mar 9, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Tripel said:
> ...


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Mar 12, 2009)

> If we begin to bring in the argument that "The Levites were commanded to to this, thus we should do it, too," then there is nothing other than pure arbitrary caprice to prevent us from bringing in the other things the Levites were commanded to do.
> 
> 
> > Hope I remembered the command for quote correctly...lol
> ...


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Mar 12, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Duane,
> 
> If we begin to bring in the argument that "The Levites were commanded to to this, thus we should do it, too," then there is nothing other than pure arbitrary caprice to prevent us from bringing in the other things the Levites were commanded to do.
> 
> ...


----------



## Parsifal23 (Mar 27, 2009)

I would agree with Calvin on this I would even go so far as to support Acapella Exclusive Psalmody but that's just me literally. I am the only person in my church that supports Acapella Exclusive Psalmody my friend once brought up the idea of using The Metered Psalter and the response was one of to paraphrase "oh no not those boring old Psalms"


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

Parsifal23 said:


> I am the only person in my church that supports Acapella Exclusive Psalmody my friend once brought up the idea of using The Metered Psalter and the response was one of to paraphrase "oh no not those boring old Psalms"



Can a converted person say this? 

Was it Calvin who said if David is not one of your best friends I doubt you are saved?

I mean you may not like some tunes you have heard them sung to, but how can you say old boring psalms??

Scarey, I wonder if he would dare to say that on the day if judgment before the God who inspired those boring old psalms. 

These people just do not know and have not been taught the God of the bible.

Nor do they have much experience in the fiery trials God puts His children through or they would cling to the psalms when their conscience causes their bones to shake before our Judge and King.


----------

