# History of Instruments



## Ryan&Amber2013

I'm having a hard time finding info and I'm really interested. In the NT history of worship, when were Instruments used and or introduced? Basically, what centuries used Instruments, how popular were they, etc? I feel like I'm getting different answers from friends and I want to know the facts. Thanks!


----------



## TheOldCourse

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I'm having a hard time finding info and I'm really interested. In the NT history of worship, when were Instruments used and or introduced? Basically, what centuries used Instruments, how popular were they, etc? I feel like I'm getting different answers from friends and I want to know the facts. Thanks!



The first recorded example of instruments in worship is the introduction of an organ into a Roman church by Pope Vitalianus in 670. The next example was in 812 when Charlemagne had a copy of a court organ made for a cathedral. They remained extremely uncommon for centuries. Aquinas said in the 13th century: "The Church does not use musical instruments such as the harp or lyre when praising God, in case she should seem to fall back into Judaism. ... For musical instruments usually move the soul more to pleasure than create inner moral goodness. But in the Old Testament, they used instruments of this kind, both because the people were more coarse and carnal, so that they needed to be aroused by such instruments and with worldly promises, and also because these bodily instruments were symbolic of something." It wasn't until the 14th and 15th centuries that the organ gained more widespread prominence, so at the time of the Reformation instruments were still, relatively speaking, novelties in the church.

John Giradeau covers some of the history in his _Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church_ (https://rpcottawa.org/uploads/artic...e_Public_Worship_of_the_Church--Girardeau.pdf). John Price also discusses it in _Old Light on New Worship_.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 5


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

TheOldCourse said:


> The first recorded example of instruments in worship is the introduction of an organ into a Roman church by Pope Vitalianus in 670. The next example was in 812 when Charlemagne had a copy of a court organ made for a cathedral. They remained extremely uncommon for centuries. Aquinas said in the 13th century: "The Church does not use musical instruments such as the harp or lyre when praising God, in case she should seem to fall back into Judaism. ... For musical instruments usually move the soul more to pleasure than create inner moral goodness. But in the Old Testament, they used instruments of this kind, both because the people were more coarse and carnal, so that they needed to be aroused by such instruments and with worldly promises, and also because these bodily instruments were symbolic of something." It wasn't until the 14th and 15th centuries that the organ gained more widespread prominence, so at the time of the Reformation instruments were still, relatively speaking, novelties in the church.
> 
> John Giradeau covers some of the history in his _Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church_ (https://rpcottawa.org/uploads/artic...e_Public_Worship_of_the_Church--Girardeau.pdf). John Price also discusses it in _Old Light on New Worship_.



Thank you so much for the detailed response. So does this sound right:
Up until 670 A.D., no instruments
From 670-1200s A.D., they were extremely rare but there were a few organs here and there.
In the 1300s-1400s A.D., they were becoming more popular, but still aren't the norm among the churches.

So then what happened from the time of the reformation? Did the Romans continue to use them but nobody else did? When did Protestants first use them, and how popular were they? Thanks!


----------



## TheOldCourse

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Thank you so much for the detailed response. So does this sound right:
> Up until 670 A.D., no instruments
> From 670-1200s A.D., they were extremely rare but there were a few organs here and there.
> In the 1300s-1400s A.D., they were becoming more popular, but still aren't the norm among the churches.
> 
> So then what happened from the time of the reformation? Did the Romans continue to use them but nobody else did? When did Protestants first use them, and how popular were they? Thanks!



Most of this is from John Price's book which I heartily recommend since you're interested:

-Organs rapidly proliferated during the 15th century and by the 1500s "an organ was found in nearly every important church." In the 16th century there was continued introduction of other instruments and instrumentation became a distinguishing hallmark of the Roman liturgy.
-Many of the proto-Reformers like Wycliffe and Hus decried the use of instruments and encouraged unaccompanied congregational singing. Even Papists who wished for reform within the Roman church like Erasmus complained of the use of instruments
-Luther thought that the reform of worship was of secondary importance and allowed instrumentation. This was not unanimous among the Lutherans as both Melancthon and Carlstadt opposed the use of instruments. Nevertheless, the Lutheran church maintained their use for the most part.
-The Reformed almost universally opposed them. Not just Calvin, but Zwingli (despite being an accomplished musician himself), Bullinger, Beza, Knox, and Pareus too. Even men like Menno Simons (founder of the Mennonites) and prelatists like Robert Horne and John Marbeck opposed the organ and other instruments. In the Church of England, instruments were abolished in the second prayer book (1563)
-The Puritans were uniformly against it. The Westminster standards don't directly address the issue since the Solemn League and Covenant of Scotland and acts of Parliament in England had already abolished them by law.
-This continues into the 17th century. Even Isaac Watts wrote against the use of instruments. The only dissenting voice appears to be of Richard Baxter who thought them indifferent. On this, as in other important matters, he is a poor guide for Reformed theology and practice, however.
-The uniformity begins to breakdown in the early 18th century. There was still widespread opposition but in some churches smaller orchestral instruments begin to be imported from the schoolhouse to the church. The first organ installed in a church of Puritan heritage was in 1770 in First Congregational Church in Providence, Rhode Island. While present in the Anglican churches too, many continued to voice opposition there as well.
-Scottish Presbyterianism finally succumbs in the late 19th century, seemingly under the influence of revivalists like Dwight Moody. Still, many prominent ministers and theologians continued opposing them on both sides of the Pacific such as Spurgeon, John L. Dagg, Dabney, Thornwell, Giradeau, etc.
- In the 20th century revivalism and the piano (and eventually the guitar) won out, as we all can see.

That is the story, briefly, in churches of English and Scottish descent. Price doesn't cover the German and Dutch churches, but their theologians of the orthodox eras were universally opposed to instruments as well following the decisions of their early church synods. Examples would include Wilhelmus a Brackel, Gisbertus Voetius, Abraham Van de Velde, Henrik de C ock, etc. Instruments were introduced there at the earliest in the 18th century.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 5


----------



## Edward

Some interesting items, consistent with Mr. Hansen's post, turn up in a quick Google search:

First Presbyterian, New York City:
"As early as 1855, the Session at First Church wanted to install a pipe organ to attract younger worshipers, but Elder James Lenox, who controlled the church’s finances, opposed “the sinister influences of such innovations.” After Lenox’s death, however, the way was opened, and in 1887 the first pipe organ was installed."
http://www.fpcnyc.org/music/organs.html

First Presbyterian, Chattanooga:
"The church’s first organ was also the first organ in Chattanooga. It was built and installed in 1878 by a ruling elder of the church, John Fernquist."
http://www.agochattanooga.org/regional-organs-database/chattanooga/first-presbyterian-church/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

TheOldCourse said:


> Most of this is from John Price's book which I heartily recommend since you're interested:
> 
> -Organs rapidly proliferated during the 15th century and by the 1500s "an organ was found in nearly every important church." In the 16th century there was continued introduction of other instruments and instrumentation became a distinguishing hallmark of the Roman liturgy.
> -Many of the proto-Reformers like Wycliffe and Hus decried the use of instruments and encouraged unaccompanied congregational singing. Even Papists who wished for reform within the Roman church like Erasmus complained of the use of instruments
> -Luther thought that the reform of worship was of secondary importance and allowed instrumentation. This was not unanimous among the Lutherans as both Melancthon and Carlstadt opposed the use of instruments. Nevertheless, the Lutheran church maintained their use for the most part.
> -The Reformed almost universally opposed them. Not just Calvin, but Zwingli (despite being an accomplished musician himself), Bullinger, Beza, Knox, and Pareus too. Even men like Menno Simons (founder of the Mennonites) and prelatists like Robert Horne and John Marbeck opposed the organ and other instruments. In the Church of England, instruments were abolished in the second prayer book (1563)
> -The Puritans were uniformly against it. The Westminster standards don't directly address the issue since the Solemn League and Covenant of Scotland and acts of Parliament in England had already abolished them by law.
> -This continues into the 17th century. Even Isaac Watts wrote against the use of instruments. The only dissenting voice appears to be of Richard Baxter who thought them indifferent. On this, as in other important matters, he is a poor guide for Reformed theology and practice, however.
> -The uniformity begins to breakdown in the early 18th century. There was still widespread opposition but in some churches smaller orchestral instruments begin to be imported from the schoolhouse to the church. The first organ installed in a church of Puritan heritage was in 1770 in First Congregational Church in Providence, Rhode Island. While present in the Anglican churches too, many continued to voice opposition there as well.
> -Scottish Presbyterianism finally succumbs in the late 19th century, seemingly under the influence of revivalists like Dwight Moody. Still, many prominent ministers and theologians continued opposing them on both sides of the Pacific such as Spurgeon, John L. Dagg, Dabney, Thornwell, Giradeau, etc.
> - In the 20th century revivalism and the piano (and eventually the guitar) won out, as we all can see.
> 
> That is the story, briefly, in churches of English and Scottish descent. Price doesn't cover the German and Dutch churches, but their theologians of the orthodox eras were universally opposed to instruments as well following the decisions of their early church synods. Examples would include Wilhelmus a Brackel, Gisbertus Voetius, Abraham Van de Velde, Henrik de C ock, etc. Instruments were introduced there at the earliest in the 18th century.



Wow, you have been extremely helpful. Hopefully others interested in this subject will be able to find this thread. Thank you for your time. This is one of the reasons why I love the Puritan Board.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## yeutter

It is not just Presbyterian that resisted the use of organs and other instrumental accompaniment. 
When did organs cease to be rare in Baptist meeting houses?
When was the pipe organ installed in Metropolitan Tabernacle?
Organs were introduced in most Anglican cathedrals in the early 1700s. Well into the late 1700s more then one Anglican expressed themselves as opposing Organs and other musical accompaniment in parish churches. Some Anglicans said that organs were a Methodist and Lutheran innovation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse

yeutter said:


> It is not just Presbyterian that resisted the use of organs and other instrumental accompaniment.
> When did organs cease to be rare in Baptist meeting houses?
> When was the pipe organ installed in Metropolitan Tabernacle?
> Organs were introduced in most Anglican cathedrals in the early 1700s. Well into the late 1700s more then one Anglican expressed themselves as opposing Organs and other musical accompaniment in parish churches. Some Anglicans said that organs were a Methodist and Lutheran innovation.



Yes, Baptists in some areas held out even longer than the Presbyterians. I noted a few voices among the Anglicans against instruments--when I first read of the history I was surprised at the extent of the testimony against instruments in the Church of England.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## yeutter

In Nepal organs and other keyboard instruments are not common in the parishes we visited. Some kind of percussion instrument is almost a universal.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## VictorBravo

yeutter said:


> Organs were introduced in most Anglican cathedrals in the early 1700s.



Probably earlier than that. I used to be an organ aficionado who visited historic organs in England and Europe. I saw and got to play the John Loosemore organ in Exeter Cathedral. It was built in 1665 and had replaced an earlier organ.

Edited to add: The above was from memory. After looking up John Loosemore I ran across records indicating he was building organs in the 1630s, and that it seemed a common practice in the Anglican parishes at that time.

http://www.loosemore.co.uk/Chapter6/CHAPTER6text.htm

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Edward

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I'm having a hard time finding info and I'm really interested. In the NT history of worship, when were Instruments used and or introduced?



I finally got around to checking Wikipedia (if it's on the internet, it has to be true, doesn't it?)

They credit the first western church organ to Charlemagne's chapel in Aachen in 812.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## bookslover

I think instruments were used during New Testament times just as they were in Old Testament times. The reason they are rarely mentioned in the New Testament is that they were not the burden of the New Testament message - the gospel was. The New Testament does not ban musical instruments from worship either expressly or by implication. Also, I think that, as the gospel spread widely into both Greek and Roman Mediterranean-area cultures (and beyond), they probably incorporated whatever instruments they used into their worship services (just a guess). It's a natural thing to assume.

In his commentary on Psalm 149, Calvin writes: "The musical instruments he mentions [in verse 3] were peculiar to this infancy of the Church, nor should we foolishly imitate a practice which was intended only for God's ancient people." He offers no theological or biblical proof for this statement. He just asserts this. I don't know where Calvin (or Aquinas) got this idea.

I'm glad that Bach, Haydn, Mozart, et al didn't have this same idea.


----------



## Jake

bookslover said:


> I think instruments were used during New Testament times just as they were in Old Testament times. The reason they are rarely mentioned in the New Testament is that they were not the burden of the New Testament message - the gospel was. The New Testament does not ban musical instruments from worship either expressly or by implication.



On what basis do you (or others) think that instruments were used in New Testament times? 

Also, is the Reformed perspective looking for a ban on a practice to not incorporate it in worship?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo

bookslover said:


> The New Testament does not ban musical instruments from worship either expressly or by implication. Also, I think that, as the gospel spread widely into both Greek and Roman Mediterranean-area cultures (and beyond), they probably incorporated whatever instruments they used into their worship services (just a guess). It's a natural thing to assume.



Dear brother, the New Testament absolutely bans musical instruments from worship, simply by failing to command them as part of New Covenant worship.

The Scriptural Law of Worship (also called the RPW) is basic to God's Word and, really, it is basic to our very existence. It is only natural that the Creator would set the manner by which the creature would render honor and worship, and not the creature!

I would say that, all on its own, the _lack of reference to musical instruments_ in the New Testament is a death-blow to the argument for their use in our worship. Could you could _bind_ my or anyone else's conscience to use musical instruments in worship using the New Testament? It's laughable. If you can't bind my conscience to do it (because it isn't _commanded_), what business do you have offering God worship with instruments yourself?

And it would need to be proven from the New Testament. In the Old Covenant, we have a shadowy and ceremonious worship instituted by God. Christ fulfills it and now leads us in worship that is in spirit and truth. No shadows. In fact, it would be blasphemous to return to the shadows in our worship, because Christ has come. How are we to know what is weak and beggarly and what is spirit and truth? Can we be trusted to arbitrate on our own? Of course not! For what percentage of the history of Israel was God's worship completely corrupted? It's way up there. Do we think we are so much wiser? Of course not. We must become fools in order to become wise. Nothing can be imported out of desire or preference. We must have it by command if we are to dare offer it to God in worship.

With Love in Christ,
Blake

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover

Jake said:


> On what basis do you (or others) think that instruments were used in New Testament times?



There is no indication in the New Testament that they _weren't_ used. There is no prohibition of them.


----------



## yeutter

bookslover said:


> There is no indication in the New Testament that they _weren't_ used. There is no prohibition of them.


If they were used in the New Testament era, I would expect the practice to continue. Since their is no mention of instrument use by the Ante Nicean Fathers I assume their was no such use in Apostolic times.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Parakaleo said:


> Dear brother, the New Testament absolutely bans musical instruments from worship, simply by failing to command them as part of New Covenant worship.



This is an argument from silence. Such arguments are always weak.

Blake, I'm not trying to bind your conscience, or anyone else's. I'm just pointing out, as I said, that the New Testament is not interested in banning musical instruments from worship. It neither says so explicitly nor implies such.


----------



## Parakaleo

bookslover said:


> There is no indication in the New Testament that they _weren't_ used. There is no prohibition of them.



Dear brother, this is a woeful misunderstanding of the RPW and, frankly, the very character of God. You imply he has given a certain amount of freedom to us in an area where he has not. The RPW is easily deduced from Scripture, but what passages may be appealed to in order to prove a _lessening_ of God's requirement that worship be as he has commanded?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover

yeutter said:


> If they were used in the New Testament era, I would expect the practice to continue. Since their is no mention of instrument use by the Ante Nicean Fathers I assume their was no such use in Apostolic times.



Well, that's _possible_, I suppose, but not _probable._ It's also probable that they're not mentioned because their use was taken for granted and not considered remarkable. Besides, as with the New Testament, the Ante-Nicean Fathers had more important things on their minds, such as promoting sound doctrine and protecting it against heretics.


----------



## Parakaleo

bookslover said:


> Blake, I'm not trying to bind your conscience, or anyone else's. I'm just pointing out, as I said, that the New Testament is not interested in banning musical instruments from worship. It neither says so explicitly nor implies such.



See my comment (#18). Right understanding of the RPW would tell you that if you cannot bind my conscience to use musical instruments in worship, you have no freedom to use them yourself. Because they aren't commanded.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Parakaleo said:


> Dear brother, this is a woeful misunderstanding of the RPW and, frankly, the very character of God. You imply he has given a certain amount of freedom to us in an area where he has not. The RPW is easily deduced from Scripture, but what passages may be appealed to in order to prove a _lessening_ of God's requirement that worship be as he has commanded?



Well, turn it around. Why are you assuming that instruments are banned? Is it possible that they're not mentioned in the New Testament because their continued use is assumed there? As the gospel spread throughout the Mediterranean area, there are no warnings given by any New Testament writer against their use among these new converts. Paul had a lot of complaints against the Corinthian churches, but the use of musical instruments (if they used them) is not among them. It's _possible_ that these Christians did not use them. But it's just as _possible_ that they did.


----------



## Parakaleo

Apologies for getting afield of the OP on church history. I feel strongly that historical theology can never be the _source _of doctrine. Especially when it comes to worship.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## bookslover

Parakaleo said:


> See my comment (#18). Right understanding of the RPW would tell you that if you cannot bind my conscience to use musical instruments in worship, you have no freedom to use them yourself. Because they aren't commanded.



Well, I'm not trying to force you to use them. I'm just saying that there's no New Testament reason why you can't.


----------



## yeutter

bookslover said:


> Well, that's _possible_, I suppose, but not _probable._ It's also probable that they're not mentioned because their use was taken for granted and not considered remarkable. Besides, as with the New Testament, the Ante-Nicean Fathers had more important things on their minds, such as promoting sound doctrine and protecting it against heretics.


 The earliest records of Church music was Chanting the Psalter. If instruments were used in the Apostolic and Ante Nicean era, why and when did the use of instruments disappear?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

yeutter said:


> The earliest records of Church music was Chanting the Psalter. If instruments were used in the Apostolic and Ante Nicean era, why a



Chanting/singing the Psalms is fine (though chanting might be too much of a challenge for us modern folks). In fact, I think we should do more of it. And we should use instruments for it, too.

What's the rest of your second sentence?


----------



## Parakaleo

bookslover said:


> Well, turn it around. Why are you assuming that instruments are banned? Is it possible that they're not mentioned in the New Testament because their continued use is assumed there? As the gospel spread throughout the Mediterranean area, there are no warnings given by any New Testament writer against their use among these new converts. Paul had a lot of complaints against the Corinthian churches, but the use of musical instruments (if they used them) is not among them. It's _possible_ that these Christians did not use them. But it's just as _possible_ that they did.



It's really not possible that they did.

The worship we see from the apostles is not modeled after the temple, but upon worship in the synagogue. As corrupt as the Jews were at various times, during the intertestamental period when the synagogue rose to prominence, the Jews had enough understanding not to mimic bloody temple worship outside the temple. The synagogue worship was without animal sacrifice and musical instruments. It included prayers, singing of a cappella psalms, the reading of Scripture, and exposition of the Word. (Seem familiar?) The synagogue was self-consciously detached from the worship of the temple. At minimum, they had the sense to know that erecting mini-temples (high places) as their fathers had done was blasphemous.

When Christ came, part of his ministry was to fulfill temple worship and put an end to it. This is why the destruction of the temple was such a big deal, and a major part of Christ's prophetic ministry. However, God had ordained the synagogue to be the precursor of the church. Musical instruments in worship may seem quite innocuous to us at this time, but that's because we've not understood their connection to ritual sacrifice, which would have been very obvious to the Jewish Christians who formed the early church.

After the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., even the unbelieving Jews ceased using musical instruments, because they recognized their connection with the animal sacrifices.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922

You need to start with God's command for musical instruments in public worship. Where do you find the command first? It's only found in the command for the priests to do so in temple (ceremonial) worship. Knowing this is fulfilled and doesn't continue in Christ. Musical instruments do not continue (this is what Calvin meant) because they were part of the ceremonial law from David to Christ. New Testament worship which follows more closely the synagogue worship it would be wise to look at it. Synagogue worship had no use for musical instruments during the time of the Scriptures, and quite frankly not UNTIL Jews implemented their use in the 1950's. So then if one is to use musical instruments in public worship today there needs to be something very clear (positively) to do so in Scripture. No one can find such a positive command therefore we may not use instruments in public worship.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo

It isn't fun because we are all beholden to many idols, but in order to conform to the RPW (which is eminently biblical), we must do the painful work of stripping away _every notion _we may have for what we think improves God's worship and _diligently search out _that which has been given as a commandment. Musical instruments just can't pass that test.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jomawh

As someone who has been trying to suggest experimentation with A cappella Psalm-signing in my church this is all very useful, thank you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookslover

Parakaleo said:


> The worship we see from the apostles is not modeled after the temple, but upon worship in the synagogue. . .during the intertestamental period when the synagogue rose to prominence. . .



So, you're basing your argument on the synagogue, an organizational structure _not commanded_ - or even mentioned - in the Old Testament. That's. . .ironic.



Parakaleo said:


> God had ordained the synagogue to be the precursor of the church.



Oh? Where? Scripture, please.


----------



## bookslover

Romans922 said:


> You need to start with God's command for musical instruments in public worship. Where do you find the command first? It's only found in the command for the priests to do so in temple (ceremonial) worship. Knowing this is fulfilled and doesn't continue in Christ. Musical instruments do not continue (this is what Calvin meant) because they were part of the ceremonial law from David to Christ. New Testament worship which follows more closely the synagogue worship it would be wise to look at it. Synagogue worship had no use for musical instruments during the time of the Scriptures, and quite frankly not UNTIL Jews implemented their use in the 1950's. So then if one is to use musical instruments in public worship today there needs to be something very clear (positively) to do so in Scripture. No one can find such a positive command therefore we may not use instruments in public worship.



There's no positive command to set up the organizational structure known as the synagogue in the Old Testament. In fact, they're not even mentioned. So, were the Jews wrong to start them?


----------



## Parakaleo

bookslover said:


> So, you're basing your argument on the synagogue, an organizational structure _not commanded_ - or even mentioned - in the Old Testament. That's. . .ironic.



My view of instruments in worship is not based on synagogue worship, but upon apostolic example. The synagogue is only brought up as a contrast to the temple worship. The apostles' synagogue-like worship in the church is illustrative of the fulfillment of temple worship and the breaking away from it in the New Covenant.

If you can grant the point that, of the two options, the worship God commanded in the New Covenant resembles the synagogue far more than the temple, then you can understand what a leap backwards it would be to re-introduce musical instruments into God's worship now.

I'm a bit concerned that you are operating not with an RPW but an NPW (Normative Principle). The NPW is not confessional and alien to the Scripture. What passages would you appeal to that teach there is greater "freedom" in worship in the New Covenant? The bottom line is that if you offer something to God in worship apart from the firm belief it is what he has commanded, you're blatantly engaging in will worship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Parakaleo said:


> My view of instruments in worship is not based on synagogue worship, but upon apostolic example.



But, again, you're assuming that the "apostolic example" is automatically the no-instruments view, based on what allegedly was done (or not done) as a part of synagogue liturgical practice. I'm more interested in what the New Testament documents actually say. And these documents, being occasional in nature, show that the apostles and the early Christians generally had bigger things to worry about than whether musical instruments were used in worship.

The New Testament example is that we do not see them banning (or even discouraging) the use of instruments in corporate worship. Such a banishment is simply not there.


----------



## Ed Walsh

A Comment:

Are we starting to go 'round and 'round here? I think the pro side of instruments has been stated and restated with little new information, The RPW side (my side) seems to be doing pretty much the same.

Ed


----------



## BG

bookslover said:


> There is no indication in the New Testament that they _weren't_ used. There is no prohibition of them.



This is not the RPW but the normative principle

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Parakaleo

bookslover said:


> But, again, you're assuming that the "apostolic example" is automatically the no-instruments view, based on what allegedly was done (or not done) as a part of synagogue liturgical practice. I'm more interested in what the New Testament documents actually say. And these documents, being occasional in nature, show that the apostles and the early Christians generally had bigger things to worry about than whether musical instruments were used in worship.
> 
> The New Testament example is that we do not see them banning (or even discouraging) the use of instruments in corporate worship. Such a banishment is simply not there.



My conclusion that the apostles did not use instruments is based _in small part_ on reliable accounts that instruments were not used in synagogue worship. It's easily shown from Scripture that instrumentation is not lawful to use in worship outside the temple and by non-Levites. However, these are vanishingly small considerations in light of the much more convincing evidence that the New Testament documents do not make any mention of instruments. This alone is enough to forbid them.

If your starting point is the RPW and you have purposed in your heart that you will not offer anything other than what God has desired in his worship, you cannot offer God worship with instruments. Because you have no way to confirm it is what God desires. That's what I was getting at earlier when I said that you can't bind my conscience to use instruments to worship God. If you can't bind my conscience by God's Word, then neither can you justify using instruments yourself.



Ed Walsh said:


> Are we starting to go 'round and 'round here? I think the pro side of instruments has been stated and restated with little new information, The RPW side (my side) seems to be doing pretty much the same.



Yes, brother. I'm afraid you're correct. I will add that there is usually a high cost involved with returning to a consistent understanding of the RPW. That's why so many people stop short. I have paid this cost. One of the main reasons I needed to leave my former call is that I was unable to lead God's people in worship themed around man-made holy days.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If one is going to stay within the regulative principle of worship of Presbyterianism, you cannot argue musical instruments as prescribed and then treat them like a circumstance (a circumstance is not prescribed nor an element of worship). If you argue them as elemental (prescribed), 1. then all NT churches must use some sort of instruments (specific prescribed instruments?); 2. we really are back to the OT ceremonial worship which caused Calvin and others to reject any instrumentation. If they are argued as circumstantial merely to aid singing, then the argument has to stay within the realm of the circumstantial.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Parakaleo

NaphtaliPress said:


> If they are argued as circumstantial merely to aid singing, then the argument has to stay within the realm of the circumstantial.



I was once one of these "musical instruments as a circumstance of worship" persons, until I realized that musical instruments don't even pass the NPW-test for a biblical circumstance of worship, because of their use as elements in temple worship.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans922

bookslover said:


> But, again, you're assuming that the "apostolic example" is automatically the no-instruments view, based on what allegedly was done (or not done) as a part of synagogue liturgical practice.



Forget about the synagogue, it is just a side comment really. Musical instruments as commanded (as an element, if you want to use that term) was part of the ceremonial law and temple worship. It's fulfilled in Christ, it ends with Christ because they served as a shadow. Since they were part of the ceremonial law and no longer apply at the time of the death/resurrection of Christ, there would have to be a clear positive command in the New Testament. There isn't, therefore, you may not use musical instruments in public worship.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## yeutter

Some Christians; who sing more then the 150 Psalms, believe that musical instruments are prohibited. The debate Psalm singing, is a separate though related issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

NaphtaliPress said:


> If one is going to stay within the regulative principle of worship of Presbyterianism, you cannot argue musical instruments as prescribed and then treat them like a circumstance (a circumstance is not prescribed nor an element of worship). If you argue them as elemental (prescribed), 1. then all NT churches must use some sort of instruments (specific prescribed instruments?); 2. we really are back to the OT ceremonial worship which caused Calvin and others to reject any instrumentation. If they are argued as circumstantial merely to aid singing, then the argument has to stay within the realm of the circumstantial.



Chris, does Calvin back up his opinion with Scripture anywhere in his writings? In his comments on Psalm 149, he makes this type of comment but doesn't back it up (I realize his biblical commentaries tend to be brief). He just makes the assertion and leaves it at that. One almost gets the impression that his reasoning is: "because I said so."

As far as the Temple service goes, what's fulfilled in Christ is _the theological rationale for the Old Testament sacrifices_. That's the important thing - and the thing the New Testament stresses repeatedly. Animal sacrifices are no longer necessary because they've been fulfilled by and in Christ.


----------



## Romans922

bookslover said:


> As far as the Temple service goes, what's fulfilled in Christ is _the theological rationale for the Old Testament sacrifices_. That's the important thing - and the thing the New Testament stresses repeatedly. Animal sacrifices are no longer necessary because they've been fulfilled by and in Christ.



Sure, so where is the positive command for use of instruments, and what is the purpose of them?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Parakaleo said:


> It's easily shown from Scripture that instrumentation is not lawful to use in worship outside the temple and by non-Levites.



Then, make that case, brother. Again, though, the New Testament's silence could just as easily mean that, as I've said before, the New Testament writers had bigger fish to fry than worrying about musical instruments. If God really wanted to ban them from worship, he could have made that explicitly clear. But, He didn't.


----------



## bookslover

Romans922 said:


> Sure, so where is the positive command for use of instruments, and what is the purpose of them?



There isn't one. It's not a topic the New Testament writers were worried about. The purpose of musical instruments is to enhance and accompany the singing in corporate worship.


----------



## Romans922

bookslover said:


> There isn't one. It's not a topic the New Testament writers were worried about. The purpose of musical instruments is to enhance and accompany the singing in corporate worship.



Where is that described in Scripture, that musical instruments are used to enhance and accompany the singing in corporate worship? 

What you are saying sounds like a mix of element and circumstance. What are you saying this is, and where does Scripture describe it for this use?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Romans922 said:


> Where is that described in Scripture, that musical instruments are used to enhance and accompany the singing in corporate worship?
> 
> What you are saying sounds like a mix of element and circumstance. What are you saying this is, and where does Scripture describe it for this use?



The Scripture doesn't describe that function anywhere, which indicates to me that musical instruments are most probably a circumstance (see Chris Coldwell's post above listing the various options).


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I don't have time to look for Calvin's view, but Travis has done that work already (see here). The standard position until the mid 19th century for most Presbyterians and nonconformist churches was that the instruments were part of the ceremonial worship and they don't get a pass by not being specifically stipulated as passing away in the NT, than any other piece of that worship that was not specified. And it is notable that Paul, and he could have easily enough, did not add the instruments specified throughout the psalms to his 'sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.' But I have no real zeal to engage the topic again for the umpteenth time; the literature is abundant. See Travis' general page here on literature. Below Dabney represents the southern Presbyterian view in his review of Girardeau's book.
Dr. Girardeau has defended the old usage of our church with a moral courage, loyalty to truth, clearness of reasoning and wealth of learning which should make every true Presbyterian proud of him, whether he adopts his conclusions or not. The framework of his arguments is this: it begins with that vital truth which no Presbyterian can discard without a square desertion of our principles. The man who contests this first premise had better set out at once for Rome: God is to be worshipped only in the ways appointed in his word. Every act of public cultus not positively enjoined by him is thereby forbidden. Christ and his apostles ordained the musical worship of the New Dispensation without any sort of musical instrument, enjoining only the singing with the voice of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Hence such instruments are excluded from Christian worship. Such has been the creed of all churches, and in all ages, except of the Popish communion after it had reached the nadir of its corruption at the end of the thirteenth century, and of its prelatic imitators. But the pretext is raised that instrumental music was authorized by Scripture in the Old Testament. This evasion dr. Girardeau ruins by showing that God set up in the Hebrew Church two distinct forms of worship; the one moral, didactic, spiritual and universal, and therefore perpetual in all places and ages that of the synagogues; the other peculiar, local, typical, foreshadowing in outward forms the more spiritual dispensation, and therefore destined to be utterly abrogated by Christ’s coming. Now we find instrumental music, like human priests and their vestments, show-bread, incense, and bloody sacrifice, absolutely limited to this local and temporary worship. But the Christian churches were modeled upon the synagogues and inherited their form of government and worship because it was permanently didactic, moral and spiritual, and included nothing typical. This reply is impregnably fortified by the word of God himself: that when the Antitype has come the types must be abolished. For as the temple-priests and animal sacrifices typified Christ and his sacrifice on Calvary, so the musical instruments of David in the temple-service only typified the joy of the Holy Ghost in his pentecostal effusions. https://www.naphtali.com/articles/worship/dabney-review-of-girardeau-instrumental-music/​


bookslover said:


> Chris, does Calvin back up his opinion with Scripture anywhere in his writings? In his comments on Psalm 149, he makes this type of comment but doesn't back it up (I realize his biblical commentaries tend to be brief). He just makes the assertion and leaves it at that. One almost gets the impression that his reasoning is: "because I said so."
> 
> As far as the Temple service goes, what's fulfilled in Christ is _the theological rationale for the Old Testament sacrifices_. That's the important thing - and the thing the New Testament stresses repeatedly. Animal sacrifices are no longer necessary because they've been fulfilled by and in Christ.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## bookslover

Thanks, Chris.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I'm having a hard time finding info and I'm really interested. In the NT history of worship, when were Instruments used and or introduced? Basically, what centuries used Instruments, how popular were they, etc? I feel like I'm getting different answers from friends and I want to know the facts. Thanks!


This book is often recommended when musical instruments are discussed: Old Light on New Worship by John Price. He doesn't discuss Psalmody and isn't EP, but his book is excellent on this topic and he discusses the history of the use of musical instruments in the OT and NT church. 
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1881...ew+worship&dpPl=1&dpID=417XZ81Q4FL&ref=plSrch

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse

bookslover said:


> But, again, you're assuming that the "apostolic example" is automatically the no-instruments view, based on what allegedly was done (or not done) as a part of synagogue liturgical practice. I'm more interested in what the New Testament documents actually say. And these documents, being occasional in nature, show that the apostles and the early Christians generally had bigger things to worry about than whether musical instruments were used in worship.
> 
> The New Testament example is that we do not see them banning (or even discouraging) the use of instruments in corporate worship. Such a banishment is simply not there.



I always respect and appreciate your contributions, but this seems rather different than the perspective the Reformed divines had on worship. For instance, this section by Burroughs seems more in line with a confessional, Reformed understanding of worship and whether there were bigger things to worry about:



> The second note is this: In the matters of worship, God stands upon little things.
> 
> Such things as seem to be very small and little to us, yet God stands much upon them in the matter of worship, for there is nothing wherein the prerogative of God more appears than in worship. Princes stand much upon their prerogatives. Now God has written the law of natural worship in our hearts. But there are other things in the worship of God that are not written in our hearts, that only depend upon the will of God revealed in His Word, which would not be duties except that they are revealed in His Word. And these are of such a nature as we can see no reason for them except this, that God would have them. As now, there are many kinds of ceremonies to manifest honor to princes that have no reason at all, but merely because it is a civil institution so appointed. So God would have some ways of honoring Himself that the creature should not see the reason for, but merely the will of God to have them so.
> 
> Now God stands much upon little things, though men would think it a little matter whether this fire or that fire, and will not this burn as well as that? But God stands upon it. And so for the ark. When Uzza did but touch the ark when it was ready to fall, we would think it no great matter, but one touch of the ark cost him his life. *There is not any one small thing in the worship of God but God stands mightily upon it.*
> 
> In the matter of the Sabbath, that’s His worship. For a poor man to gather a few sticks, what great matter is it? But God stands upon it. And so when the men of Beth-shemesh did but look upon the ark, it cost the lives of fifty thousand threescore and ten men. If it is a matter of a holy thing that concerns His worship, He would not have it abused in anything. Let us learn to make conscience of little things in the worship of God and not to think, “Oh, how nice such are, and how precise and nice in such small things!” You do not understand the nature of Divine worship if so be that you are not nice about it. God is nice and stands upon little things in the matter of His worship.
> 
> Jeremiah Burroughs, _Gospel Worship_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

Jeri Tanner said:


> This book is often recommended when musical instruments are discussed: Old Light on New Worship by John Price. He doesn't discuss Psalmody and isn't EP, but his book is excellent on this topic and he discusses the history of the use of musical instruments in the OT and NT church.
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1881...ew+worship&dpPl=1&dpID=417XZ81Q4FL&ref=plSrch



Jeri, do you know who John Price is? The Amazon listing doesn't give any information about him, unless I missed it.


----------



## TheOldCourse

bookslover said:


> Jeri, do you know who John Price is? The Amazon listing doesn't give any information about him, unless I missed it.



He's a Reformed Baptist minister in Rochester, NY.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

bookslover said:


> As far as the Temple service goes, what's fulfilled in Christ is _the theological rationale for the Old Testament sacrifices_.




Sacrifices were not the only thing fore-signifying Christ:

"V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament." (WCF 7.5)


----------



## Andrew P.C.

bookslover said:


> It's not a topic the New Testament writers were worried about. The purpose of musical instruments is to enhance and accompany the singing in corporate worship.




This wasn't the primary purpose of the instruments. All the instruments revolved around the temple and its worship. Instruments were also connected to the sacrifices.

Also, to say "it's not a topic the New Testament writers were worried about" seems to demonstrate the very thing you are accusing others. Where does the Bible stress or demonstrate this idea? It's just an assertion. An argument for the *lack* of something being said in the Bible is also what you are accusing others of: an arugument from silence. At best, you're only asserting your opinions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

Whilst we find no record of the authorisation of synagogues in the scripture per se, the very fact that our Lord attended them on the Sabbath sanctifies their existence. Instruments are a modern innovation into synagogue worship. As to musical instruments, are they not part of the furniture of the ceremonial law as were candles, vestments, incense etc, which were part of that glory which is done away because of the glory that excelleth. Even the construction of the temple, its dimensions, its courts, the shittim wood, the knops and flowers, the altar and the various vessels, all have a spiritual significance under their physical and carnal glory. These were used,"until the day break, and the shadows flee away." Christ has come and brought in the simplicity of worship into a building fitly framed together growing into a holy temple in the Lord. In whom ye also are builder together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## bookslover

Andrew P.C. said:


> This wasn't the primary purpose of the instruments. All the instruments revolved around the temple and its worship. Instruments were also connected to the sacrifices.
> 
> Also, to say "it's not a topic the New Testament writers were worried about" seems to demonstrate the very thing you are accusing others. Where does the Bible stress or demonstrate this idea? It's just an assertion. An argument for the *lack* of something being said in the Bible is also what you are accusing others of: an arugument from silence. At best, you're only asserting your opinions.



Not really. Read through the New Testament and see how many times music and musical instruments are mentioned. Very rare. This virtual non-appearance shows that the New Testament writers were not concerned with the topic, although there would have been plenty of places where they could have been mentioned (Paul's lengthy instructions to the problematic Corinthians, for example). And, as I've said, I believe this strongly implies that instruments were used (just as in the Old Testament times) and that it was not a problem. Since the instruments were no longer connected with the Temple or the sacrifices (fulfilled in Christ), they were used to enhance and accompany worship.


----------



## jomawh

bookslover said:


> Since the instruments were no longer connected with the Temple or the sacrifices (fulfilled in Christ), they were used to enhance and accompany worship.


I have to ask the question here. With reasoning consistent with what you've said here, what would be your argument against clerical robes, incense, et al, or would you have one?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

Elder Zuelch,
Have you considered that the use of musical instruments was a function of the Levitical office? Is there a New Testament office that has been given the same charge?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

bookslover said:


> Since the instruments were no longer connected with the Temple or the sacrifices (fulfilled in Christ), they were used to enhance and accompany worship.



Also may I ask? Congregations that do not use instruments do they have less "enhanced" worship?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Andrew P.C.

bookslover said:


> Not really. Read through the New Testament and see how many times music and musical instruments are mentioned. Very rare. This virtual non-appearance shows that the New Testament writers were not concerned with the topic, although there would have been plenty of places where they could have been mentioned (Paul's lengthy instructions to the problematic Corinthians, for example). And, as I've said, I believe this strongly implies that instruments were used (just as in the Old Testament times) and that it was not a problem. Since the instruments were no longer connected with the Temple or the sacrifices (fulfilled in Christ), they were used to enhance and accompany worship.




The lack of something doesn't prove the use of something. This doesn't follow logically. If I don't speak about eating oranges, this doesn't prove that I am eating oranges. It only proves that there is nothing specifically talking about oranges. It also doesn't prove motive or intent, thus your argument about them not being worried is an assertion. Logical consequence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

jomawh said:


> I have to ask the question here. With reasoning consistent with what you've said here, what would be your argument against clerical robes, incense, et al, or would you have one?



I haven't thought about it, though I would say that my pastor would look really, really bad in a Geneva gown!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## bookslover

TylerRay said:


> Elder Zuelch,
> Have you considered that the use of musical instruments was a function of the Levitical office? Is there a New Testament office that has been given the same charge?



Old Testament singing has been carried over into the New Testament. Why could the same not be said for instruments?


----------



## bookslover

earl40 said:


> Also may I ask? Congregations that do not use instruments do they have less "enhanced" worship?



Yes, in a sense, since singers and instrumentalists support each other and encourage each other in their singing and playing.


----------



## bookslover

Andrew P.C. said:


> The lack of something doesn't prove the use of something. This doesn't follow logically. If I don't speak about eating oranges, this doesn't prove that I am eating oranges. It only proves that there is nothing specifically talking about oranges. It also doesn't prove motive or intent, thus your argument about them not being worried is an assertion. Logical consequence.



The lack of something also doesn't disprove the use of something. If you don't mention oranges, it also doesn't mean that you're not eating oranges.


----------



## TylerRay

bookslover said:


> Old Testament singing has been carried over into the New Testament. Why could the same not be said for instruments?


Because we are commanded to sing. We aren't commanded to play instruments.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo

bookslover said:


> The lack of something also doesn't disprove the use of something.



Unless the one speaking is the Holy Spirit and the subject is God's worship. An omission of a worship element by the Holy Spirit is the same as a prohibition. That is how the RPW operates and that is what numerous brothers have attempted to show you here.

An omission of a worship _circumstance_ by the Holy Spirit is not the same as a prohibition. We do not hold that a microphone is a violation of the RPW, because it is merely an aid to the element preaching with no religious significance. As I mentioned earlier, musical instruments cannot be called a circumstance because they are positively loaded with religious significance, as much as we try and deny it now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

bookslover said:


> Yes, in a sense, since singers and instrumentalists support each other and encourage each other in their singing and playing.



Have you ever seen what happens at a concert when the lead singer stops singing, his band stops playing, and he holds the microphone toward the audience? Low and behold how the audience starts singing and becomes a participant in the show. The same can and should happen during worship minus the lead singer and band.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Cymro

Justin Martyr AD 150
Plain singing is not childish, but only the singing with lifeless organs, with dancing and cymbals,etc. Whence the use of such instruments and other things for children are lain aside, and plain singing only retained.
Clemens of Alexandria AD 190.
We Cristian's make use only of one organ or instrument, even the peaceful Word, with which we honour God; no longer with the old psaltery, trumpet, drum, cymbal, or pipe.
Cyprian AD 240.
Such organs, or instruments were then permitted in the OT church for this cause, even for the sake of their weakness, to stir up their minds to perform their external worship with some delight.
Chrysostom AD 396
Instrumental music was permitted to the Jews, as sacrifice was, for the heaviness and grossness of their souls. God condescended to their weakness, because they were lately drawn off idols; but now instead of instruments we may use our bodies to praise Him withal. Again, let no man deceive you, these instruments appertaining not to Christians; these are alien to the Catholics church; all these things do the nations of the world seek after.
The Magdeburg Centuriators on AD 666.
At last in the year 666, when the number of the beast (Rev 13) was now full, the churches received Latin singing with organs from Pope Vitalian, and from thence began to say Latin mass and to set up altars with idolatrous images.
Thomas Aqinas AD 1225-1274.
In the old law, God was praised both with musical instruments and human voices. But the church does not use musical instruments lest she should seem to Judaize. Nor ought a pipe ,or harp, or the like be brought into use in the Christian Church, but only those things that make the hearer better men. Under the OT such instruments were used because they were typical of something.
Erasmus AD 1516.
We have brought a cumbersome and theatrical music into our churches. Men run to church as to a theatre to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ makers are hired with great salaries.
Cardinal Cajetan Ad 1518.
The Church did not use organs in Thomas Aquinas' time, and even to this day the Church of Rome does not use them in the presence of the Pope.
Calvin 1546.
Instrumental music is not fitter to be adopted into the the public worship of the Christian Church than the incense, the candlestick,and the shadows of the Mosaic law.
John Wesley 1703-1791.
I have no objection to instruments being in our chapels, provided they are neither seen or heard.
Spurgeon.
We should like to see all all the pipes and organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly filled with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior.

I have omitted other historical and more modern quotes else I should be guilty of tedium. There is only one organ that had been created to express adoration and worship and that is the "little member." Sanctified and fitted to sound forth our great Redeemers praise both in time and eternity.
Instruments have no place in NT or in eternity.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## bookslover

I checked the OPC's General Assembly reports on song in worship (1946 and 1947) and, unless I missed it somewhere (the combined report is _very long_), I see no mention that musical instruments were discussed. Interesting.

If you'd like to read these reports, go to: www.opc.org, click on "General Assembly" and you'll find them there.


----------

