# What instruments to use in worship...



## irresistible_grace

How do you determine which instruments you do NOT use in worship?
I only use the "fruit of lips"  but ...
If you use instruments in worship, how do you determine which instruments you use?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Whatever it is it should only be used to guide singing, not overpower it, and not for entertainment purposes.


----------



## Kevin

We don't use any that we do not have, or if no one knows how to play it, then we don't use it.

In other words, we use what we have & what we know how to play.


----------



## irresistible_grace

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Whatever it is it should only be used to guide singing, not overpower it, and not for entertainment purposes.



Don't the little notes above the words in the psalter and/or hymnal guide the singing without overpowering it and without entertaining?

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------




Kevin said:


> We don't use any that we do not have, or if no one knows how to play it, then we don't use it.
> 
> In other words, we use what we have & what we know how to play.



We all have voices and know how to use them? 
Some may be better at singing than others but we do not excuse those from singing in "corporate" worship that are less skilled than others. Do you?

---------- Post added at 03:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

None of the instruments that are found in scripture (except the "fruit of lips") have ever been employed in any church I've ever attended. So, I'm curious ... If NOT by Scripture ... How do you determine which instruments you do NOT use and which you do?


----------



## Scottish Lass

irresistible_grace said:


> Don't the little notes above the words in the psalter and/or hymnal guide the singing without overpowering it and without entertaining?



Only if you know what they mean and what to do with them. I don't.


----------



## KMK

irresistible_grace said:


> How do you determine which instruments you do NOT use in worship?



Are you asking if there are moral grounds for excluding some instruments? I think the practical reasons are obvious.


----------



## Zach

Scottish Lass said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't the little notes above the words in the psalter and/or hymnal guide the singing without overpowering it and without entertaining?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you know what they mean and what to do with them. I don't.
Click to expand...


 I like have instrumentation because it helps me understand the music.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

The question is wrong. It's not about the instrument but rather about the motive behind wanting/excluding things within worship. What is the purpose for asking the question?


----------



## Edward

Ones that are not suitable for the tunes selected? Ones for which there is no suitable arrangement, and not time or money for making an arrangement? 

Once you make a decision that you'll use instruments, aren't you beyond singling out particular instruments?


----------



## jwithnell

We are living stones in the church God has built. If that includes a mandolin or recorder player and it fits with the style of music being played, let those talents be put to good use. A trumpet with piano would be wonderful for God of Our Fathers or for Joy to the World. An acoustic guitar would be lovely for What Child is This ...


----------



## Peairtach

Don't bother using any musical instruments in formal worship. Add nothing and take nothing away. The silence on instruments in the New testament is eloquent. 

The Apostle never mentions the office of musical director, or the gift of music. Indeed the only time they are mentioned in the Epistles is to call them lifeless intruments in I Corinthians 14:7.

Although they were used in Old Testament worship, musical instruments are not necessary in NT worship, which is simple, spiritual and Scriptural.

They are no more necessary to NT worship than cherubim in the architecture of the Church or Temple.

There may be - indeed is - a cultural realm of informal worship, e.g. classical concerts, Christian concerts, where instruments may be used. But they should be kept out of the regular stated sevices of Divine worship, as they get in the way of it.

The glory of NT worship doesn't consist _aurally_ in a well-tuned organ, piano, praise band, brass band, etc, anymore than it consists _visually_ in an ornate cathedral.

The glory of NT worship is in Christ revealed in the Word of God - nothing added or taken away. Our worship is not to be mediated through an dead instrument. Keep it simple.


----------



## JBaldwin

We have a variety of instruments available to use in worship at our church, and we use what works the best with the songs we are singing and that often changes with every song. In other words, we use instruments that will not overpower the music, but help the congregation sing better. We have available to us: keyboard, guitar, mandolin, banjo, double bass, cello, recorder, djembe, and drum box. Often the instruments drop out, and we have nothing but the human voice. Recently, we sang "A Mighty Fortress" with cello, guitar and recorder. It was quite nice--just loud enough to keep the music going.


----------



## seajayrice

Great question. There are a few that clearly should not be used, just a few that come to mind:

Washboard
Kazoo
Harmonica
Snare drum
Trombone
Congas
Sousaphone
Xzylaphone
Fuzzbox


----------



## Edward

seajayrice said:


> Trombone



? 

We've used trombones in worship. I understand (but have not yet been convinced by) those who say RPW precludes any instruments, but I don't understand a 'no trombone' position.


----------



## jennywigg

Edward said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trombone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> We've used trombones in worship. I understand (but have not yet been convinced by) those who say RPW precludes any instruments, but I don't understand a 'no trombone' position.
Click to expand...


We have used a trombone, too. I still don't get the RPW, I guess.


----------



## Mindaboo

I am with Anna and Zach. I don't read music, and I am grateful for the musicians who give of their time and talents to guide us as we sing. We use a piano, violin, viola, and two guitars. Once in a while one of the young men in our congregation will play mandolin. We also have a group of 6 young ladies who sing acappela occasionally. I think the man who leads/picks our music does a wonderful job of making sure the music is solid, and that it is always done tastefully.


----------



## RobertPGH1981

jwithnell said:


> We are living stones in the church God has built. If that includes a mandolin or recorder player and it fits with the style of music being played, let those talents be put to good use. A trumpet with piano would be wonderful for God of Our Fathers or for Joy to the World. An acoustic guitar would be lovely for What Child is This ...





I know that some churches are against the use of using musical instruments in services, but I have to admit that I never understood this. How can you argue that using an instrument in a service is wrong? Where in the bible does it say not to use a musical instrument?

Here is a Psalm below that references musical instruments in worship. So in modern day Christianity how would it be wrong to play the piano, guitar, or keyboard?

Psa 98:4 Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth; break forth into joyous song and sing praises! 
Psa 98:5 Sing praises to the LORD with the *lyre*, with the *lyre *and the sound of melody! 
Psa 98:6 With *trumpets *and the sound of the *horn *make a joyful noise before the King, the LORD! 
Psa 98:7 Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; the world and those who dwell in it! 
Psa 98:8 Let the rivers clap their hands; let the hills sing for joy together


----------



## jwithnell

> The silence on instruments in the New testament is eloquent.





> musical instruments are not necessary in NT worship


I fully respect that we have a difference of opinion on this within the reformed community. But this particular presentation I find baffling. How we can separate the NT from the old when it comes to worship unless the initial activity is directly tied to the sacrificial system? And we do plenty in worship that the NT does not specifically mention, such as infant baptism, stating our belief in the trinity ...


----------



## au5t1n

jwithnell said:


> How we can separate the NT from the old when it comes to worship unless the initial activity is directly tied to the sacrificial system.



If I understand them correctly, both positions within the Reformed community require a separation regarding instruments between Testaments. In the OT God commanded certain Levites (and only those Levitical familes) to play certain specific instruments (not any they wanted) in connection with the sacrifice in the Temple. As far as I know, all Reformed churches regard those commands as ceremonial and expired. Modern instrumentalists regard instruments as a circumstantial aid to singing, not as a continuation of the OT element. At least that's my understanding of the position.

Something I've always found interesting is that when a worship leader at a hymn-singing or contemporary church wants to make a particular hymn or stanza "extra special," they'll often drop out the instruments and have the congregation sing a capella.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well that is the argument against Musical Instrumentation in NT worship. The use of instruments in OT Worship (remember that category, not David strumming his lute in the fields or celebratory trumpets after a victory) was intrinsically tied to the slaughter of bulls and the Temple worship. It is not accidental that the Jews did not use musical instruments to guide their singing in the synagogue.


----------



## Peairtach

*JWithnell*


> How we can separate the NT from the old when it comes to worship unless the initial activity is directly tied to the sacrificial system?



Well it's interesting that music was introduced by David under the guidance of the Holy Spirit at a time when the _visual_ glory of the Tabernacle/Temple was also being augmented. We have an augmentation of the aural glory at the same time as there is augmentation of the visual glory.

NT worship does not consist in visual or aural glory, but in the simple presentation of Christ in His Word, leaving it to the Spirit to do the work.

There is no necessity for visual or aural glory in NT worship, whereas visual and aural glory were commanded in the OT, even more so in the Davidic period, maybe in order to anticipate the real glory of the New Covenant and the Heavenly Eschatalogical Kingdom (Heaven and, also, the New Heavens and New Earth)



> For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. (I Cor 2:2, ESV)





> O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. (Gal 3:1)



I may not be as "strict" as some who hold to the RPW as I believe there is an informal realm where worship overflows from the regular worship of God, where instruments may be used e.g. putting a Bach or Handel CD on the player, Christian concerts and soirees, etc.


----------



## Philip

seajayrice said:


> Congas



I've seen congas used well, actually, mostly in churches where the worship had a black gospel feel to the music.



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It is not accidental that the Jews did not use musical instruments to guide their singing in the synagogue.



What instruments used at the time would have been conducive to congregational singing?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

P. F. Pugh said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not accidental that the Jews did not use musical instruments to guide their singing in the synagogue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What instruments used at the time would have been conducive to congregational singing?
Click to expand...


Any number of stringed instruments that existed at the time. Like the Lyre.

The Biblical Musical Instruments


----------



## Philip

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Any number of stringed instruments that existed at the time. Like the Lyre.



The lyre doesn't seem like an instrument suited to congregational singing at all.

It would be interesting to see a historical study of how congregational singing furthered the invention of new instrumentation (apart from the well-documented link between hymnody and musical notation).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Really? King David seemed to think it worked all right.



> 1 Chronicles 13:8
> Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets.


----------



## py3ak

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Psa 98:4 Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth; break forth into joyous song and sing praises!
> Psa 98:5 Sing praises to the LORD with the lyre, with the lyre and the sound of melody!
> Psa 98:6 With trumpets and the sound of the horn make a joyful noise before the King, the LORD!
> Psa 98:7 Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; the world and those who dwell in it!
> Psa 98:8 Let the rivers clap their hands; let the hills sing for joy together



Today we sang from Psalm 118:27, _bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar._
The fact that we use the words doesn't mean we are going to physically carry out everything that is said - hence we don't bring double-edged swords or enchained monarchs to the Sunday services.

Psalm 149
_Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand;
To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
To execute upon them the judgment written_


----------



## Philip

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Really? King David seemed to think it worked all right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Chronicles 13:8
> Then David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets.
Click to expand...


Sorta sounds like dancing in the streets, too: not congregational singing.


----------



## raekwon

seajayrice said:


> Great question. There are a few that clearly should not be used, just a few that come to mind:
> 
> Washboard
> Kazoo
> Harmonica
> Snare drum
> Trombone
> Congas
> Sousaphone
> Xzylaphone
> Fuzzbox



I'm going to guess that this is a joke, and if not, I'd love some rationale. (We've used four of these instruments.)


----------



## Edward

raekwon said:


> (We've used four of these instruments.)



I'm pretty sure that we've never used a Kazoo or a Washboard. And I don't recall a harmonica, and don't even know what a Fuzzbox is. The rest are either yes, or I think so but don't specifically recall. Then again, I didn't attend the evening services where the music was more contemporary.


----------



## raekwon

We've used a washboard, a harmonica, a snare, and congas.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Interesting....


----------



## Stargazer65

raekwon said:


> We've used a washboard, a harmonica, a snare, and congas.



The washboard would go well with some hymms like:
"Are you washed in the Blood?"


----------



## Peairtach

I think many of us agree that there is a movement from more complex and external worship in the OT to simpler and more spiritual worship in the NT. 

But many are not willing to say that that involves no musical instruments whatsoever.

Yet the eloquent silence of the NT on the use of instruments in worship, points to that, or at least that they are _unnecessary_ for proper NT worship, and there is significance in that in itself.


----------



## Philip

Peairtach said:


> Yet the eloquent silence of the NT on the use of instruments in worship, points to that, or at least that they are unnecessary for proper NT worship, and there is significance in that in itself.



True, they are unnecessary, as are pews/chairs (historically, congregations have often stood), pulpits, and even designated church buildings. The question is whether instrumentation can fall into the category of circumstances of worship rather than elements.


----------



## Moireach

I've just written a response on a similar thread that may be relevant, I'll edit and post what's relevant.

From an RPW perspective, I'm afraid I'd agree that one who believes the Bible commands the use of instrumental music in worship cannot argue against contemporary worship. 

If an acoustic guitar is lawful, so is an electric and base guitar. Those who claim the Bible commands the use of 'traditional' instruments - such as the organ - exlusively, are in my opinion mistaken. Either the Bible commands the use of instruments in worship or it does not. Full stop. There is no Biblical way to decide which instruments in particular. Unless your warrant is an Old Testament passage which I believe restricts you to the instruments of David.

As far as the RPW is concerned, in my opinion you cannot argue that it is commanded to use certain instruments but that others are forbidden.


----------



## he beholds

austinww said:


> Something I've always found interesting is that when a worship leader at a hymn-singing or contemporary church wants to make a particular hymn or stanza "extra special," they'll often drop out the instruments and have the congregation sing a capella.



That's all about style, though. It's not because we think God hears us better without instruments. It's not because we want to "worship God correctly" for one stanza. It's to emphasize the part. Were the whole song a capella there'd be no way to emphasize one part. I'm not saying that it's necessary to set apart one stanza or anything--I'm just explaining why it would be done. It is to emphasize.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I agree with those who say the correct answer is none. For those who have not seen these before, see the below for the position taken against instruments in worship as falling under circumstance.
(Article) John L. Girardeau, The Discretionary Power of the Church | Naphtali Press

(Review article) Robert L. Dabney, Review of Dr. Girardeau’s Instrumental Music in Public Worship

Girardeau's (PDF ebook) Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God


----------



## Tripel

austinww said:


> Something I've always found interesting is that when a worship leader at a hymn-singing or contemporary church wants to make a particular hymn or stanza "extra special," they'll often drop out the instruments and have the congregation sing a capella.



But I don't think that's an argument for the removal of instruments all-together, as if to say that a cappella is better. Singing with and without instruments are both good and beautiful. There's something very special about singing a hymn or a stanza a cappella with mixed parts. But there's also something very special about singing a hymn or stanza with a fine pipe organ cranked up.


----------



## Philip

Moireach said:


> As far as the RPW is concerned, in my opinion you cannot argue that it is commanded to use certain instruments but that others are forbidden.



The argument being made by some there, though, is practical and aesthetic, not Biblical. If use of instruments is allowable, then the question is one of prudence.

Another question I would have is whether there would be practices that could be Biblically warranted but not commanded for worship. That is, would it be possible to make an argument from Scripture that instruments are allowable in worship without saying that they are mandatory? Does the RPW allow for that?

This is, of course, in addition to my initial question as to whether instrumentation to accompany congregational singing constitutes an element of worship distinct from unaccompanied singing.


----------



## JP Wallace

P. F. Pugh said:


> True, they are unnecessary, as are pews/chairs (historically, congregations have often stood), pulpits, and even designated church buildings. The question is whether instrumentation can fall into the category of circumstances of worship rather than elements.



In my opinion instruments cannot safely be viewed as circumstantial in the New Covenant because they were clearly elemental in the Old Covenant and just as clearly are not elemental in the New Covenant. 

If we give ourselves freedom to adopt OC elemental practices as merely circumstantial in the NC then there is no hermeneutical reason why Passover ceremonies, sacrifices etc. cannot likewise be performed according the desires, or not, of any given local church.


----------



## Romans922

jennywigg said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trombone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> We've used trombones in worship. I understand (but have not yet been convinced by) those who say RPW precludes any instruments, but I don't understand a 'no trombone' position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have used a trombone, too. I still don't get the RPW, I guess.
Click to expand...


Just keep studying. None here are perfect or know everything despite what they/we might think. 






RobertPGH1981 said:


> Here is a Psalm below that references musical instruments in worship. So in modern day Christianity how would it be wrong to play the piano, guitar, or keyboard?
> 
> Psa 98:4 Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth; break forth into joyous song and sing praises!
> Psa 98:5 Sing praises to the LORD with the lyre, with the lyre and the sound of melody!
> Psa 98:6 With trumpets and the sound of the horn make a joyful noise before the King, the LORD!
> Psa 98:7 Let the sea roar, and all that fills it; the world and those who dwell in it!
> Psa 98:8 Let the rivers clap their hands; let the hills sing for joy together



The question here is for that Psalm (or any Psalm that mentions instruments or perhaps even David dancing): Is this a Psalm describing (or bringing a command for) public worship or private (everyday living) worship? David dancing in Samuel for instance didn't occur in public worship (despite what some may think). It occured as they were bringing up the ark...


----------



## Hebrew Student

Backwoods Presbyterian,



> The use of instruments in OT Worship (remember that category, not David strumming his lute in the fields or celebratory trumpets after a victory) was intrinsically tied to the slaughter of bulls and the Temple worship. It is not accidental that the Jews did not use musical instruments to guide their singing in the synagogue.



I am aware that the Puritans argued this, but the historical argument from the temple is, as far as I know, an error; I have never seen this argument outside of the writings of the Puritans and those who are seeking to defend them. The reason why the Jews didn't have instruments outside of the temple had nothing to do with the sacrifices; it had to do with not working on the Sabbath. Consider this article which comes from a scholarly book on the subject of Jewish music in the second temple period up until after the destruction of the temple:



> The simplicity of the music in the early synagogue was influenced by the halakhic prohibitions against playing musical instruments, or, under certain circumstances, even singing. These prohibitions stem from three different sources: rules of Sabbath observance; the mourning over the destruction of the Temple; and the struggle against what the Rabbis took to be promiscuity. [1]
> 
> Musical instruments and the shofar were considered inseparable parts of the Sabbath service in the Temple; rabbinic law could do nothing regarding their presence there. But the Rabbis could and did prohibit them outside the Temple for fear that playing an instrument on the Sabbath, a permissible act in and of itself, might lead inadvertently to the musician's tuning it, mending it, or carrying it from one public place to another- all of these being forbidden acts of work. Since the main synagogue service took place on Sabbath mornings, no musical instrument could become an integral component thereof. Even the shofar could not be blown, if Rosh Hashanah occurred on the Sabbath.
> 
> Mourning over the destruction of the Second Temple led to a rabbinic ban on all secular songs and instrumental music. Quoting Hosea (9:1), "Do not rejoice, O Israel, with merriments like the nations," the Rabbis declared: "An ear listening to songs will surely be cut off.... A song in the house means destruction is at its threshold" (Sotah 48a). Concessions were made permitting music, even instrumental music, for the sake of a religious obligation, such as rejoicing with groom and bride; but the Sabbath ban remained, and, in general, music was not favored.
> 
> The only instrument allowed in the synagogue, precisely because of its nonmusical significance, the shofar was blown mainly on Rosh Hashanah, to fulfill the biblical obligation as stated in Leviticus 24:29 and Numbers 29:1. The instrument is also sounded at the end of the concluding service (Ne'illah) on Yom Kippur and after the weekday morning services during Elul, the month preceding Rosh Hashanah. In the Sephardic and Yemenite rites,[2] the penitential services clustered around the High Holy Day season (selichot) feature many shofars blown simultaneously when the thirteen attributes of God (Exod. 34:5-7) are chanted. The awesome sound of the shofar served also to create a mournful atmosphere in services of public fasts, and even to invoke a sense of dread during ceremonies of excommunication.
> 
> Behind both Sabbath regulations and the desire to mourn for the Temple, however, we see the Rabbis' puritanical ethic, with its fight against real or imagined promiscuity, as evident in the extremist talmudic maxim: "A woman's voice is indecency" (Ber. 24a). In the Temple, and later in the synagogue, men and women were separated and only the men sang. In spite of a unique testimony to the contrary among the Therapeutae,[3] the antiphonal singing of men and women became unacceptable in rabbinic worship. "Men singing and women answering is promiscuity; women singing and men answering is like fire set to chaff" (Sotah 48a) [4].



The reason why the playing of instruments was allowed in the temple was because of the fact that the priests were allowed to break the sabbath by doing temple work. The problem was, no one outside of the temple was allowed to break the sabbath. It stemmed from one of the Jewish traditions that tuning a musical instrument on the sabbath was breaking the sabbath. As far as I can tell, I have not been able to substantiate the argument that the reason why the Jews didn't have instruments outside the temple had to do with sacrifices; all of the sources I can find give the same reasons as given above.

Also, I am aware that the Puritans likewise tried to argue that the musical instruments in the Old Testament were connected to the temple sacrifices from scripture. However, I don't agree with their reasoning on this. At this point, the issue is exegetical.

Also, I don't think it is an issue of, if you allow musical instruments, then you must allow Passover and Sacrifices, etc. Most of us believe that children of at least one believing parent are members of the covenant, and thus should be Baptized. Do we not Baptize our children because of the absence of a command to do so in the NT? Does baptizing our children because the covenant sign was given to them in the OT logically lead to Passover observance and Sacrifices? The point is that we allow *all* of scripture to speak, and we don't cut out the OT passages speaking about musical instruments in worship simply because they contradict our theology. We need to make our theology consistent with the scriptures. Again, I realize that there are some who don't use this rhetoric, and devote themselves to exegetical arguments that try to argue that the NT has overturned those passages, and that is where the discussion needs to be.

This is also the case with why we shouldn't do temple sacrifices, because the book of Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that they pointed to Christ. The same thing with the passover, that Christ is our passover lamb. That is why I believe that rhetoric like this needs to be dispensed of, and we need to open the scriptures and argue from them.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## JP Wallace

Hebrew Student said:


> That is why I believe that rhetoric like this needs to be dispensed of, and we need to open the scriptures and argue from them.



Adam with respect it sounds a little like you demote any argument you don't agree with to 'rhetoric', the inference being that it is not logical, or well thought out, but merely 'hot air', that appears to me to be an ad hominem argument. Disagree if you will, but just because you do so does not render every or even any opposing argument as mere 'rhetoric' with no logical or exegetical weight or merit.



Hebrew Student said:


> Also, I don't think it is an issue of, if you allow musical instruments, then you must allow Passover and Sacrifices, etc.



I'm not sure anyone does. I don't make that argument, if you re-read what I wrote, what I argued was that it is unsafe to take an element in the OC and adopt it circumstantially. Adopting musical instruments or anything else from the OT into the NT is not necessarily wrong, nor is there a express command needed for any practice (good and necessary inference is sufficient), but this argument is not about practices, nor in relation to the 'thin end of the wedge' but whether an expressly commanded element can be adopted circumstantially when it is clearly not elementally warranted.

If a given element (which musical instrumentation clearly is in the OC) may be adopted circumstantially what is to prevent any or all elements being adopted circumstanially?


----------



## au5t1n

he beholds said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something I've always found interesting is that when a worship leader at a hymn-singing or contemporary church wants to make a particular hymn or stanza "extra special," they'll often drop out the instruments and have the congregation sing a capella.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all about style, though. It's not because we think God hears us better without instruments. It's not because we want to "worship God correctly" for one stanza. It's to emphasize the part. Were the whole song a capella there'd be no way to emphasize one part. I'm not saying that it's necessary to set apart one stanza or anything--I'm just explaining why it would be done. It is to emphasize.
Click to expand...


I understand. I was a church musician for several years (acoustic guitar, bass guitar). However, I think the use of a capella at the climax of a song (even Hillsong rock worship songs) may indicate that worship leaders understand subconsciously the beauty and benefit of the congregation itself being the worship band and being heard.

If a congregation is going to try to use instruments merely as a circumstantial aid to singing (and it is very difficult for worshippers to view them this way), then at least it should be such that the congregation is emphasized and clearly heard. I used to make a Biblical case against instruments (and I still have it lying around in the attic somewhere if need it), but these days I take a more pragmatic approach. Spend 6 months worshipping a capella and you'll wonder why anyone wants to use instruments. It's unnecessary and their introduction has caused more division in the church (look at the worship wars) than almost anything. Even churches that share doctrinal confessions are divided over which "worship style" to use. Evangelicals at large choose churches on the basis of worship style more than anything else. What an incredible source of division the introduction of instruments in the 1800s turned out to be! I want to extend charity to my brethren, but please, let's declare a moratorium on instruments for a while. We may find that the voices of a congregation mixing together is a beautiful sound. It is Apostolic worship, Catholic worship (for over 1000 years), and Reformed worship. I love all my Reformed brethren, but please...just give it a try!


----------



## Hebrew Student

JPWallace,



> Adam with respect it sounds a little like you demote any argument you don't agree with to 'rhetoric', the inference being that it is not logical, or well thought out, but merely 'hot air', that appears to me to be an ad hominem argument. Disagree if you will, but just because you do so does not render every or even any opposing argument as mere 'rhetoric' with no logical or exegetical weight or merit.



Actually, I would say that you are misrepresenting me. Go back and reread what I said. My point was that there are reasons why a person takes commands such as giving the sign of the covenant to children, or honoring your father and mother, or loving the Lord with all your heart, but do not take certain commands such as the passover to be binding. We take *all* of scripture. The point is, if you are going to argue that these commands in the Psalms are no longer binding, then the burden of proof is on you. Going to the Passover and temple sacrifices is a red herring, because that is not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that the Hebrew Bible commands it, _and there is nothing in the NT which overturns that command_!



> I'm not sure anyone does. I don't make that argument, if you re-read what I wrote, what I argued was that it is unsafe to take an element in the OC and adopt it circumstantially. Adopting musical instruments or anything else from the OT into the NT is not necessarily wrong, nor is there a express command needed for any practice (good and necessary inference is sufficient), but this argument is not about practices, nor in relation to the 'thin end of the wedge' but whether an expressly commanded element can be adopted circumstantially when it is clearly not elementally warranted.
> 
> If a given element (which musical instrumentation clearly is in the OC) may be adopted circumstantially what is to prevent any or all elements being adopted circumstanially?



The fact that the rest of scripture doesn't overturn some elements, and overturns others is the reason why any and all cannot be adopted. That is the reason we adopt instruments but do not adopt sacrifices or passover. The rest of scripture shows that the ones you mentioned are fulfilled in Christ, while nowhere, according to my position, does the scripture ever rescind the command to praise God with instruments.

Again, as I said, when commands such as those found in the Psalms are so clear, it requires an exegetical argument from the other side to show that it has somehow been overturned in the New. As covenant theologians, we presume covenant continuity, and that commandments are binding unless God himself changes them. The question is, if you do not believe those texts are binding, where did God specifically change those?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The OT Passover and other elements of OT Worship/Holy Days were explicitly ended by a positive command in the New Testament.


----------



## Peairtach

*Philip*


> This is, of course, in addition to my initial question as to whether instrumentation to accompany congregational singing constitutes an element of worship distinct from unaccompanied singing.



If it's not an element of worship, those musicians that are not singing e.g. trombone players, are not worshipping, and those that are singing while playing intstruments are worshipping while also doing something else.

If only the singing is the worship, why have the instruments? As a circumstance to help the singing? Actually instruments do nothing to help the singing, but can often discourage it.

So the instruments aren't a circumstance, but an element. Pianists, trombonists, guitarists, etc, believe that they are worshipping God according to His pattern by strumming their guitars. 



> The argument being made by some there, though, is practical and aesthetic, not Biblical. If use of instruments is allowable, then the question is one of prudence.



There is a difference between formal and informal worship. For example in I Corinthians, the Apostle separated the formal worship of the Lord's Supper from the informal worship of the agape feast.

Only those elements that have been explicitly commanded - i.e. Psalms a capella - should be allowed in the formal worship services of the Church.



> Another question I would have is whether there would be practices that could be Biblically warranted but not commanded for worship. That is, would it be possible to make an argument from Scripture that instruments are allowable in worship without saying that they are mandatory? Does the RPW allow for that?



You'll get differences of opinion on that, I think.


----------



## seajayrice

austinww said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something I've always found interesting is that when a worship leader at a hymn-singing or contemporary church wants to make a particular hymn or stanza "extra special," they'll often drop out the instruments and have the congregation sing a capella.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all about style, though. It's not because we think God hears us better without instruments. It's not because we want to "worship God correctly" for one stanza. It's to emphasize the part. Were the whole song a capella there'd be no way to emphasize one part. I'm not saying that it's necessary to set apart one stanza or anything--I'm just explaining why it would be done. It is to emphasize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand. I was a church musician for several years (acoustic guitar, bass guitar). However, I think the use of a capella at the climax of a song (even Hillsong rock worship songs) may indicate that worship leaders understand subconsciously the beauty and benefit of the congregation itself being the worship band and being heard.
> 
> If a congregation is going to try to use instruments merely as a circumstantial aid to singing (and it is very difficult for worshippers to view them this way), then at least it should be such that the congregation is emphasized and clearly heard. I used to make a Biblical case against instruments (and I still have it lying around in the attic somewhere if need it), but these days I take a more pragmatic approach. Spend 6 months worshipping a capella and you'll wonder why anyone wants to use instruments. It's unnecessary and their introduction has caused more division in the church (look at the worship wars) than almost anything. Even churches that share doctrinal confessions are divided over which "worship style" to use. Evangelicals at large choose churches on the basis of worship style more than anything else. What an incredible source of division the introduction of instruments in the 1800s turned out to be! I want to extend charity to my brethren, but please, let's declare a moratorium on instruments for a while. We may find that the voices of a congregation mixing together is a beautiful sound. It is Apostolic worship, Catholic worship (for over 1000 years), and Reformed worship. I love all my Reformed brethren, but please...just give it a try!
Click to expand...


I think there is truth in this post. Recently I have been worshipping a capella with an RPCNA assembly. New experience for me. I still think advocacy for the practice is inconsistently argued. Example, we sang a psalm to the melody of "A Mighty Fortress." How's that for irony, Luther wins. 

I can't stop thinking Tommy Dorsey (who I love) when I think trombone. Kazoos are evil.


----------



## Peairtach

> Example, we sang a psalm to the melody of "A Mighty Fortress." How's that for irony, Luther wins.



Any appropriate tunes will do for the Psalms.


----------



## seajayrice

Peairtach said:


> Example, we sang a psalm to the melody of "A Mighty Fortress." How's that for irony, Luther wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any appropriate tunes will do for the Psalms.
Click to expand...


How can that be, would you think Stairway to Heaven or Brown Sugar sufficiently reverent? Many meters, keys and arrangements are without question unsuitable for corporate worship. What warrant do we have for particular meters, keys and melody? The a capella advocates should argue for chant to be consistent.


----------



## Philip

Peairtach said:


> Only those elements that have been explicitly commanded - i.e. Psalms a capella



There is, of course, debate over whether only Psalms are commanded, but let's set that aside.

In fact the Scriptures do not say whether the worship is to be a capella. In the NT we have no mention of instrumentation one way or the other. There is a difference, I think, between arguing that "a capella is commanded" and the argument that the regulative principle means that since instruments are not mentioned, they are forbidden. One implies a positive statement on the part of Scripture, the other does not. The question here is whether the silence of the NT on this matter means that instruments are allowable or verboten.



Peairtach said:


> If it's not an element of worship, those musicians that are not singing e.g. trombone players, are not worshipping, and those that are singing while playing intstruments are worshipping while also doing something else.



I would say that it is worship---the question is whether accompanied worship would be morally different from unaccompanied worship: does it constitute a separate element. To me, it's like asking whether the bread used at communion should be baguettes or sourdough; or whether the wine should be port. To me this is like making an elemental distinction (pun intended) along those lines.



Peairtach said:


> So the instruments aren't a circumstance, but an element. Pianists, trombonists, guitarists, etc, believe that they are worshipping God according to His pattern by strumming their guitars.



I would say that both accompanied and unaccompanied Psalms/hymns/spiritual songs are equally Biblical---they are the same element of worship.


----------



## Peairtach

*Philip*


> The question here is whether the silence of the NT on this matter means that instruments are allowable or verboten.



If due weight is to be given to the NT silence, instead of it being ignored as it is by large sections of the Church, it means at best that they should be left at the periphery, in the zone of informal worship.



> I would say that it is worship---the question is whether accompanied worship would be morally different from unaccompanied worship: does it constitute a separate element. To me, it's like asking whether the bread used at communion should be baguettes or sourdough; or whether the wine should be port. To me this is like making an elemental distinction (pun intended) along those lines.



This creative element of instrumentation being brought in blurs the line between worship and entertainment, or lets entertainment take over. The moral and practical effects of ignoring the RPW on musical instruments are not small, as we have seen in many of the evangelical churches.

---------- Post added at 01:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 AM ----------

*CJ*



> How can that be, would you think Stairway to Heaven or Brown Sugar sufficiently reverent?



I wouldn't consider these appropriate because of their long association with rock'n'roll.


----------



## Philip

Peairtach said:


> This creative element of instrumentation being brought in blurs the line between worship and entertainment, or lets entertainment take over.



This is a practical argument---one of prudence, not of the regulative principle _persay_. Also, a capella singing can be just as entertainment-focused (there is Jazz A Capella, African Chant, Barbershop, and all kinds of other stuff).



Peairtach said:


> If due weight is to be given to the NT silence, instead of it being ignored as it is by large sections of the Church, it means at best that they should be left at the periphery, in the zone of informal worship.



I would say that my position that either accompanied or unaccompanied congregational singing is acceptable gives due weight to Biblical silence. We shouldn't require what Scripture does not, nor forbid what Scripture does not unless we are talking about elements as opposed to circumstances of worship. I am still not convinced that accompanied singing of praise constitutes a separate element from unaccompanied singing of praise. To me, it seems an arbitrary distinction.

Again, this is not to condemn the worship practices of those in a tradition of unaccompanied Psalmnody.


----------



## J. Dean

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Whatever it is it should only be used to guide singing, not overpower it, and not for entertainment purposes.


Tend to agree.


----------



## Derick Dickens

Thus, a question that should be asked at this point... why do we sing? Besides it being a command, what is the purpose of singing unto the Lord?


----------



## Moireach

Derick Dickens said:


> Thus, a question that should be asked at this point... why do we sing? Besides it being a command, what is the purpose of singing unto the Lord?


Simple.

_Let *the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom*, *teaching and admonishing one another* in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord._

_...but *be filled with the Spirit*, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and *making melody in your heart to the Lord*, *giving thanks always for all things* to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, *submitting to one another in the fear of God*._


----------



## Derick Dickens

Moireach said:


> Derick Dickens said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, a question that should be asked at this point... why do we sing? Besides it being a command, what is the purpose of singing unto the Lord?
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> _Let *the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom*, *teaching and admonishing one another* in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord._
> 
> _...but *be filled with the Spirit*, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and *making melody in your heart to the Lord*, *giving thanks always for all things* to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, *submitting to one another in the fear of God*._
Click to expand...


Yes, the "admonishing one another" is a reason, but why do it musically? Could we not make melody in our heart and give thanks without music?

Why is the musical form a command, not merely a suggestion?


----------



## Moireach

Derick Dickens said:


> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derick Dickens said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, a question that should be asked at this point... why do we sing? Besides it being a command, what is the purpose of singing unto the Lord?
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> _Let *the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom*, *teaching and admonishing one another* in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord._
> 
> _...but *be filled with the Spirit*, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and *making melody in your heart to the Lord*, *giving thanks always for all things* to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, *submitting to one another in the fear of God*._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the "admonishing one another" is a reason, but why do it musically? Could we not make melody in our heart and give thanks without music?
> 
> Why is the musical form a command, not merely a suggestion?
Click to expand...


It's neither in my own opinion.


----------



## JBaldwin

> Yes, the "admonishing one another" is a reason, but why do it musically? Could we not make melody in our heart and give thanks without music?


 
As a musician, I can tell you why do it musically...because it stays with you. You learn a song that teaches sound doctrine or that is set to Scripture and the next thing you know, you're singing it and meditating on it. It's an excellent way to hide God's Word and good sound doctrine in your heart. 

I remember one particular summer when we were camping with the youth group in Canada, and we were required to quote the Scripture we'd memorized that day before eating dinner. Several of us spent a lot of time making up tunes to fit the words so that we could remember them, and a lot of us "sang" for our dinner that week. I can still quote those passages of Scripture today, and they come to mind sometimes more quickly than others.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------

I can also add how songs of faith I've learned over the years have been a comfort or encouragement to me when I was no where near another believer, a Bible or a church. You can't memorize a sermon in the same way that you can memorize a song.


----------



## JML

Peairtach said:


> If it's not an element of worship, those musicians that are not singing e.g. trombone players, are not worshipping


----------



## fredtgreco

John Lanier said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not an element of worship, those musicians that are not singing e.g. trombone players, are not worshipping
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. Does that mean that unless everyone is speaking in prayer, they are not worshipping?


----------



## JP Wallace

It makes perfect sense. Each element is to be engaged in according to the warrants of Scripture in connection with that element. Thus preaching is corporate act where one preaches and the rest listen, ditto with the apostolic gift of tongues speaking, one was to speak, other listen, one was to interpret 'each in turn' that everything may be done 'decently and in order', because God is not the author of confusion but of peace (all NKJV 1 Cor 14). This principle in turn can be and ought to be applied to the element of prayer.

However just as certainly, singing is specifically warranted as a corporate activity where everyone is to be mutually edifying each other - if you're not singing you aren't edifying. 

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

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

Each element must be participated in, in the way it was intended.


----------



## Peairtach

fredtgreco said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not an element of worship, those musicians that are not singing e.g. trombone players, are not worshipping
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This makes no sense. Does that mean that unless everyone is speaking in prayer, they are not worshipping?
Click to expand...


Touche.

If singing is of the essence of the worship, rather than the playing of instruments, as it seems to be, since no-one here is arguing for long instrumental solos in formal worship, then the instrumentalists have to concentrate on playing rather than singing, which isn't so great.



> Yes, the "admonishing one another" is a reason, but why do it musically? Could we not make melody in our heart and give thanks without music?
> 
> Why is the musical form a command, not merely a suggestion?



(a) The Lord must desire such; He must like His people to be singing to Him and about Him.

(b) The Holy Spirit must be able to use God's Word in the sung form in a special way.


----------



## KMK

If singing is required, does it necessary follow that EVERY song is required to be sung? 

In addition, as an ex-professional trombone player, I can tell you it doesn't take that much concentration to play a hymn along with the congregation. In fact, depending on the age of the hymn, it might even be easier.


----------



## VictorBravo

KMK said:


> In addition, as an ex-professional trombone player, I can tell you it doesn't take that much concentration to play a hymn along with the congregation. In fact, depending on the age of the hymn, it might even be easier



And, for that matter, as an ex-church organist (emphasis on the _ex_), I can attest to the possibility of singing while accompanying.

Personally, I love a capella singing and wish it were common. But, I can't say every congregation is quite ready for it. Some of us struggle with carrying a tune even with accompaniment.


----------



## N. Eshelman

VictorBravo said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I love a capella singing and wish it were common. But, I can't say every congregation is quite ready for it. Some of us struggle with carrying a tune even with accompaniment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is that many congregations struggle to carry a tune BECAUSE of the accompaniment. If instruments are an aid to worship, I have rarely seen this done. My experience in instrumental congregations is that GENERALLY, the instruments drown out the voices that they are supposed to be accompanying.
Click to expand...


----------



## VictorBravo

N. Eshelman said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I love a capella singing and wish it were common. But, I can't say every congregation is quite ready for it. Some of us struggle with carrying a tune even with accompaniment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience is that many congregations struggle to carry a tune BECAUSE of the accompaniment. If instruments are an aid to worship, I have rarely seen this done. My experience in instrumental congregations is that GENERALLY, the instruments drown out the voices that they are supposed to be accompanying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before Ken protests the attribution of the quote, I'll own it.
> 
> I'll agree with you that some instruments drown out the voices (It's a trick I used to use when I was a pagan organist trying to show off). Then there are those congregations with an acoustic piano playing four parts without frills. 10 or more people can easily compete with that. At the very least, the accompanist ought to understand these issues.
> 
> Again, I prefer a capella singing--but then I sight-sing easily and have pretty good absolute pitch. But I don't desire to cause upheaval where things are pretty decent and orderly.
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

VictorBravo said:


> have pretty good absolute pitch



If this is true, Vic, I would think that a large group of people singing a capella would drive you crazy!


----------



## VictorBravo

KMK said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> have pretty good absolute pitch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true, Vic, I would think that a large group of people singing a capella would drive you crazy!
Click to expand...


I have learned tolerance too--and I also have good relative pitch so I can transpose. 

But sometimes I get nervous when someone starts a hymn a third too high.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Not sure why the quote thing did not turn out... 

Anyhow, I do agree that IF accompaniment is merely for that purpose, then I would prefer an acoustic guitar or some other simple instrument. In seminary I would ask my Dutch Reformed friends why a guitar is not acceptable in public worship if an organ is. I would even argue from the financial aspect (good guitar= $1500. good organ= $Tens of Thousands!). This did not go over very well. Tradition is a hard thing to break. 

Anyhow, my convictions stand.. but I do find the whole thing a strange animal. The so-called worship wars of the 90s that many of our Reformed congregations struggled through were about preference and nothing more. Hymns and organs are not more or less godly than praise songs (with good content) and praise bands. There is no difference in the Scriptures between the two. None.

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------

Not sure why the quote thing did not turn out... 

Anyhow, I do agree that IF accompaniment is merely for that purpose, then I would prefer an acoustic guitar or some other simple instrument. In seminary I would ask my Dutch Reformed friends why a guitar is not acceptable in public worship if an organ is. I would even argue from the financial aspect (good guitar= $1500. good organ= $Tens of Thousands!). This did not go over very well. Tradition is a hard thing to break. 

Anyhow, my convictions stand.. but I do find the whole thing a strange animal. The so-called worship wars of the 90s that many of our Reformed congregations struggled through were about preference and nothing more. Hymns and organs are not more or less godly than praise songs (with good content) and praise bands. There is no difference in the Scriptures between the two. None.

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

Also not sure about the stutter. 

Also not sure about the stutter.


----------



## Peairtach

So the view of those in favour of instruments in worship is that they are there to assist the singing, which is the worship, and therefore are circumstantial, rather than that they are there as part of the worship itself?

This would be a material difference from the OT, which indicates that the dead instruments themselves were part of the worship.

But instruments are completely unecessary to help the singing, and actually get in the way of it.


----------



## au5t1n

VictorBravo said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, as an ex-professional trombone player, I can tell you it doesn't take that much concentration to play a hymn along with the congregation. In fact, depending on the age of the hymn, it might even be easier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, for that matter, as an ex-church organist (emphasis on the _ex_), I can attest to the possibility of singing while accompanying.
> 
> Personally, I love a capella singing and wish it were common. But, I can't say every congregation is quite ready for it. Some of us struggle with carrying a tune even with accompaniment.
Click to expand...


On that note (no pun intended ), my congregation has only been singing a capella since spring. As far as I know, no one here sings by sight reading; we pick up the tune by ear the way most people learn a song. There's been a learning curve, but we've improved and it's worth it. If a congregation can't sing, instruments don't so much solve it as cloak it.


----------



## KMK

austinww said:


> If a congregation can't sing, instruments don't so much solve it as cloak it.



Pedagogically speaking, this simply isn't true. Instruments are invaluable when it comes to ear training and are used in every music curriculum I have seen. Even university choruses use some kind of instrument to establish a pitch before singing a capella.


----------



## Peairtach

> If a congregation can't sing, instruments don't so much solve it as cloak it.



Indeed. Is God unhappy if people genuinely can't sing, even after they've tried. I doubt not.

It's more us that are distressed and then demand cloaking by instruments.

Congregational singing is different from professional perfectionism, although people should try their best to make a nice sound.

There is so much good singing and music out there, that we start to think that God requires the same.


----------



## arielann81

Instruments in "worship?" Well I agree with those that say this is the wrong question. What is worship but a response to God? Is worship not in all things we do? "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." Rom. 12: 1-3 ESV Our Bodies are with us no matter what we are doing and therefore how we live is how we worship God. If we are honoring God in what we do and using Gifts he has given us to glorify him and edify the body I don't see this as wrong. Why would God gift us with those abilities if we were not capable of glorifying him with them? Is not all creativity part of the design God ordained? Just look at creation? What does it sound like when lightning crashes or rain falls on different types of materials? 

"Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, "Hallelujah!For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns." Rev.19: 5-7

Have you ever stood next to a large waterfall? The roar of the water covers one of the widest ranges of frequency known on the sound spectrum. Its the same with great winds, waves, and fires. If God uses the range of sounds on the spectrum and the bible gives evidence that this is used for Worship that is good enough for me.

Whatever sounds that can be made can be used to glorify God if they fall within the spectrum declared worship. It is more important that our heart posture is in the right place. Seeking an understanding of what it means to worship in Spirit and in Truth would be a better question.


----------



## KMK

Peairtach said:


> people should try their best to make a nice sound.



If it is true that instruments at least some of the time help people 'make a nice sound', then doesn't this argue in favor of instruments?

It seems to me that you have to either argue against the use of instruments on moral grounds, or allow any and all instruments on practical grounds. It is universally accepted that, practically, instruments do help people sing proper pitch and rhythm. If it were true that instruments impede good pitch and rhythm then a capella singing would be the norm in this world.


----------



## py3ak

arielann81 said:


> Instruments in "worship?" Well I agree with those that say this is the wrong question. What is worship but a response to God? Is worship not in all things we do? "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." Rom. 12: 1-3 ESV Our Bodies are with us no matter what we are doing and therefore how we live is how we worship God. If we are honoring God in what we do and using Gifts he has given us to glorify him and edify the body I don't see this as wrong. Why would God gift us with those abilities if we were not capable of glorifying him with them? Is not all creativity part of the design God ordained? Just look at creation? What does it sound like when lightning crashes or rain falls on different types of materials?



There are two related points about your statements here, Ariel.
One is that the discussion relates to worship narrowly defined. In a broad sense we worship God (ideally) in everything we do; but there is still a difference between worshipping God _through_ another activity, and worshipping God expressly and directly, where that is the principal activity. The Reformed past that includes a prohibition of organs, and even people designing church buildings specifically so it would be impossible ever to bring an organ inside, was aware of all these matters, and it wasn't through ignorance that they came to their conclusions. And when it comes to that kind of formal, express, direct worship only God can tell us what is pleasing to Him, so that if we don't have authorization from His word for some matter, we are better off not bringing it.
On a similar note, there are many gifts and talents people have through which we believe that they can serve God, and yet we don't bring them into the worship service. For instance, a conscientious carpenter may make serviceable and lovely furniture and glorify God by doing so; but even if you hired him to build a pulpit or make pews, you probably wouldn't have him do that as part of the morning service at church. The fact that we have a talent to use to glorify God doesn't mean that the church services are the proper venue for that (e.g., my mad backrubbing skills).


----------



## RobertPGH1981

To some this is a cultural argument because I have yet to see scripture that condemns the use of instruments. Christians in Africa play instruments foreign to us and dance during praise and worship. While it would seem unorthodox to do this in the United States it is the norm in Africa. How would this be wrong? I am not understanding why people are saying it was acceptable in the OT, while unacceptable in the NT.


----------



## KMK

RobertPGH1981 said:


> To some this is a cultural argument because I have yet to see scripture that condemns the use of instruments. Christians in Africa play instruments foreign to us and dance during praise and worship. While it would seem unorthodox to do this in the United States it is the norm in Africa. How would this be wrong? I am not understanding why people are saying it was acceptable in the OT, while unacceptable in the NT.



Any discussion about dance in worship needs to be in a new thread.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

This is a very short explanation of the reason we are not to use musical instruments. Musical Instruments in Psalm 150
Girardeau is still the most accessible short book length work on the subject (though from a Southern Presbyterian a capella hymnody perspective). See my prior post.


----------



## py3ak

RobertPGH1981 said:


> To some this is a cultural argument because I have yet to see scripture that condemns the use of instruments. Christians in Africa play instruments foreign to us and dance during praise and worship. While it would seem unorthodox to do this in the United States it is the norm in Africa. How would this be wrong? I am not understanding why people are saying it was acceptable in the OT, while unacceptable in the NT.



When it comes to stated worship, Scripture doesn't have to _condemn_ something for it to be ruled out. Unless Scripture authorizes it, it's automatically ruled out.

The argument is that in the OT, in stated worship, instruments were tied to the whole symbolic sacrificial system of the Temple. So when the system of worship that involved blood and ashes and special clothes disappeared, so did the instruments.


----------



## J. Dean

py3ak said:


> When it comes to stated worship, Scripture doesn't have to _condemn_ something for it to be ruled out. Unless Scripture authorizes it, it's automatically ruled out.
> 
> The argument is that in the OT, in stated worship, instruments were tied to the whole symbolic sacrificial system of the Temple. So when the system of worship that involved blood and ashes and special clothes disappeared, so did the instruments.


This is RPW, right?


----------



## py3ak

The first line is, yes.


----------



## J. Dean

py3ak said:


> The first line is, yes.


Ok. Thank you. Now, let me play aisle-dancer's advocate for sake of argument: How do you respond to the person who says "Isn't that legalism, to forbid what the Bible does not forbid?"

What's your response?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

When it comes to God's worship, the lack of biblical warrant for something is the Word of God's forbidding of it.


J. Dean said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first line is, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Thank you. Now, let me play aisle-dancer's advocate for sake of argument: How do you respond to the person who says "Isn't that legalism, to forbid what the Bible does not forbid?"
> 
> What's your response?
Click to expand...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

See here for some definitions of the RPW.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/naphtalipress/what-regulative-principle-worship-25/


----------



## seajayrice

J. Dean said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first line is, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Thank you. Now, let me play aisle-dancer's advocate for sake of argument: How do you respond to the person who says "Isn't that legalism, to forbid what the Bible does not forbid?"
> 
> What's your response?
Click to expand...


Here is a quick dissection of the RPW contrasted with the normative principle. Regulative principle - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
The search function is a marvelous aid on the PB. Great topic for study.


----------



## Moireach

RPW is basic reformed doctrine.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

J. Dean said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first line is, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Thank you. Now, let me play aisle-dancer's advocate for sake of argument: How do you respond to the person who says "Isn't that legalism, to forbid what the Bible does not forbid?"
> 
> What's your response?
Click to expand...


“Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." -- Deut 12:32


----------



## py3ak

J. Dean said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first line is, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Thank you. Now, let me play aisle-dancer's advocate for sake of argument: How do you respond to the person who says "Isn't that legalism, to forbid what the Bible does not forbid?"
> 
> What's your response?
Click to expand...


No one is forbidding something the Bible hasn't forbidden. If the RPW is true, then when it comes to worship we can only bring what God has required; anything not required, is disallowed. Someone raising that question probably doesn't understand the RPW. For my conscience, or yours, to be free to worship God as commanded in his word, it must be free from elements imposed by the church without a Scriptural requirement.


----------



## JP Wallace

J. Dean said:


> Ok. Thank you. Now, let me play aisle-dancer's advocate for sake of argument: How do you respond to the person who says "Isn't that legalism, to forbid what the Bible does not forbid?"
> 
> What's your response?



My response is that the second commandment stated and expounded in Exodus makes that very point, that worship is to be in accordance with that which is specifically warranted and precludes the addition of other elements. In other words the Bible forbids everything not specifically warranted.

Exodus 20: 4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. 

God tells us here that acceptable worship is worship carried out in love to Him and in accordance with His commandments. Now in the following chapter the second commandment is further expounded and clarified thus,

Exodus 20:23-26 23 'You shall not make anything to be with Me -- gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves. 24 'An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In every place where I record My name I will come to you, and I will bless you. 25 'And if you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone; for if you use your tool on it, you have profaned it. 26 'Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.' 

Here God even more specifically outlaws the appropriation of the world's worship practices, and teaches us that worship is to be plain. Contextually most important of all it precludes the worshipper from attempting to 'beautify' or improve up the warranted worship methodology by hewing the altar which would profane it.

And then a third text

Deuteronomy 12:29-32 29 " When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, 30 "take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.' 31 "You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. 32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. 

Be careful, do not be ensnared by the world's practices, God is not to be worshipped in any other way other than what he has commanded...be careful to observe that and that only, no adding, no taking away (in relation to the revelatory age or covenant administration)

Herein (in these three texts) lies at least part of the evidence for the Confessional position. If it is legalism it is Scripture warranted God-breathed legalism.

"But the acceptable way of Worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself; and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be Worshipped according to the imaginations, and devices of Men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or 362any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures."


----------



## J. Dean

KMK said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> have pretty good absolute pitch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true, Vic, I would think that a large group of people singing a capella would drive you crazy!
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I have perfect pitch, and acapella isn't too bad so long as the majoirty of the singers have at least some sense of melody.

That being said, our audience is God, not each other, and it's more about worshipping him than it is impressing our fellow parishoners.


----------

