Using Instruments in Worship

[Ben Zartman]

What is required to perform every action is attached as a circumstance to that action, even worship (an action). "Aids" are not requirements, hence they are not circumstantial.

I've not heard this regarding circumstance before. Would you say that air conditioning or seats are not circumstances, since they are not required for the performance of worship? I though we spoke of circumstances as the, er, circumstances in which we worshipped: building, lights, psalters, microphones (at least we sing without those)--not essential parts of the service, but providing shelter and a lack of interruption while worship carries on.
Do you have a different view of the word 'circumstance'?

 

[BG]

Bill, if you look at the musical instruments spoken of in the Old Testament, you'll find that all four categories - brass, woodwind, strings, and percussion - are represented. (The piano, as I mentioned before, is a percussion instrument, by the way.) Therefore, instruments from all four groups are permitted. (I would hesitate at the kazoo, though!)

A stone is a type of building material therefore the temple could be wood.
A lamb is a type of animal therefore you can sacrifice a turtle.
You see where I am going. If instrument are permitted in worship (I am EP and disagree) then only what God has specifically commanded are permitted other wise we are practicing the normative principle. We can't use our imaginations to come up with creative ways to justify what we want to do in worship.

 

[timfost]

What is required to perform every action is attached as a circumstance to that action, even worship (an action). "Aids" are not requirements, hence they are not circumstantial.

In this case, microphones are not required either. Just get everybody really close or have speakers with loud voices as they've done for the past 400 years.

I believe your definition and application of circumstance is far too restrictive. The OPC's DPW is helpful in this matter. I I don't think I have much more to contribute to this conversation...

 

[timfost]

Pianos, guitars, kazoos, banjos are all forbidden, there is no way around this unless you embrace the normative principle of worship.

If you insist...

Sometimes I wonder why you don't worship on Saturday. After all, the Bible does not explicitly command Sunday worship.

Your arguments against instruments (and uninspired music) in worship sound much like the SDA's arguments against Sunday Sabbath.

https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/37/t/is-sunday-really-sacred-

 

[BG]

Wow Tim i did not expect that reply. I know we both want to glorify God in worship by obeying His word. I was just restating what the Confession teaches .

True worship is instituted by God.
Limited by his revealed will.
He may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of man.
God may not be worshiped in any way other than what He has prescribed in Scripture.

CHAPTER 21
Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day



1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.a 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 worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.b

 

[Romans922]

If you insist...

Sometimes I wonder why you don't worship on Saturday. After all, the Bible does not explicitly command Sunday worship.

Your arguments against instruments (and uninspired music) in worship sound much like the SDA's arguments against Sunday Sabbath.

https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/37/t/is-sunday-really-sacred-

Tim, the RPW is clear. I really can't tell if you follow the RPW by your use of this kind of argumentation. It is by direct command or by good and necessary consequence can be deduced from Scripture or by clear example (in God's public worship). Those things and those things only must we do and can we do in His worship. You seem to be cherry-picking facts from Scripture.

1) We worship on Sunday the Lord's day because of good and necessary consequence and due to clear example from Jesus Himself and the early church.

2) Back to instruments. There are a variety of instruments used, you can categorize them however you'd like, but this one truth and one truth alone you should know. That instruments were introduced only in the worship via the temple (i.e. ceremonial law) in the OT. You don't find them outside of that in public worship at any point in all of Scripture. It is always with reference to the priesthood (Levitical).

Further, there is no NT command, nothing by good and necessary consequence, and nothing given by example in the NT that would lead anyone to come to the conclusion that we ought to use instruments in public worship.

Next, Bill G is correct. Our God not only commands the elements of His worship and what is to be done but how to do it and with what. If you are committed to the pro-instrument position, then it is required in accord with the RPW that you use the instruments He has commanded. You don't get to choose your own or how you want to use the instruments, the instruments the Lord commands or can be deduced from good/necessary consequence must be used (not can be used, they must be used). In fact, you must be using the instrument of your heart, that is clear (Eph. 5:19).

Finally, Tim you stated,

If microphones are a circumstance of worship because they aid in speaking/hearing, why not instruments which are an aid to singing?

In this case, microphones are not required either. Just get everybody really close or have speakers with loud voices as they've done for the past 400 years.

Microphones aren't required. I'm happy you finally see this. For some they are needed as an aid to speaking/hearing. But the use of microphones as aides in worship, or lighting, or air conditioning for comfort, or the time to gather for worship on the Lord's day for being organized and orderly, while they are circumstances that doesn't prove then that instruments are circumstances as well. Because these things (e.g. microphones, etc) are not referred on in Scripture at all, therefore they are circumstances. Your 'why not' question is verging on Lutheran or normative principle thought. Instruments are specifically referenced in Scripture, they were required under the ceremonial law. For this reason alone they can't be circumstances of worship. The ceremonial law has been abrogated having been fulfilled in Christ, therefore instruments are not to be used in public worship today. Further, there is no command or anything by good and necessary consequence that would lead us to believe that we must use instruments in worship today from the Scriptures. If we are to use instruments in worship, then to be consistent, we must be sacrificing animals on the altar as well.


P.S. The OPC's Directory states,

In matters of circumstance and form in worship not specifically provided for in Scripture...

Circumstances aren't referred to in Scripture.

...the circumstances and forms of worship are consonant with God's Word...

Circumstances are consonant with God's word.

Moreover, in ordinary circumstances they are properly administered only in a gathering of the congregation for the public worship of God, baptism being a sacrament whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and the Lord's Supper signifying and sealing the communion of believers with Christ and with each other as members of his mystical body. Nevertheless, if a session judges that circumstances require otherwise, the sacraments may be administered elsewhere; but, in any event, the church must be represented in the service.

Location (Location of worship and where we perform sacraments is not detailed in Scripture whatsoever - thus a circumstance).

So you say that the OPC's view of circumstance is good. I agree, but it appears you do not based in how you have argued your case here.

 

[Parakaleo]

If you insist...

Sometimes I wonder why you don't worship on Saturday. After all, the Bible does not explicitly command Sunday worship.

Your arguments against instruments (and uninspired music) in worship sound much like the SDA's arguments against Sunday Sabbath.

It isn't Bill insisting, it's God who insists.

The actual RPW does not require an explicit command, but soundly deduced proof of authorization is perfectly acceptable. For things such as the Sunday Sabbath and the baptism of women, this is easily found.

Where is the soundly deduced proof of authorization for musical instruments in the New Testament (I could also add uninspired songs here)? This is what all these brothers have been trying to help you understand: it isn't there. If the RPW is granted, God's silence on his desire for musical instruments in New Testament worship and the Holy Spirit's omission of anything that can be used to deduce proof of their authorization is altogether the same as God's command against them. Using them is sin. This is what I came to terms with myself (over much protest, I might add). The great encouragement is that it's worth losing anything-up-to-everything if it is for the sake of doing what God has commanded.

 

[timfost]

Wow Tim i did not expect that reply. I know we both want to glorify God in worship by obeying His word. I was just restating what the Confession teaches .

Dear Bill,

Yes, I agree that we both want to glorify God. I agree that the day to worship God is Sunday. It is discouraging when no matter how much I, or whole faithful denominations such as the OPC, have it imposed on us that we operate according to the NPW. We do not. It seems like you cover your ears and hear what you want. Disagreements should be expected when we operate using necessary consequence, but it does not mean that those who disagree with what you understand to be necessary consequence have thrown out the principle. I used the example of Sunday/Saturday Sabbath to illustrate the point. If you read through the arguments in the link from the Saturday Sabbath advocates, they resemble your arguments against both hymnody and instruments.

I believe that your understanding of the RPW is unnecessarily restrictive. You may think otherwise, but it does not mean that we operate on different principles. Frankly, I think repeated allegations that we operate by the NPW are divisive and ignorant.

Did David play a harp when he worshipped? Consider 2 Sam. 6:5:

"Then David and all the house of Israel played music before the Lord on all kinds of instruments of fir wood, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on sistrums, and on cymbals."

We know that David was not of Levi, yet he praised God with instruments. Now if instruments are so tied to temple worship which was to be conducted by the Levites, either David was violating what was prescribed in worship, or he was able to use musical instruments as a circumstance of his own worship, even in the OT. Even if instruments were an element of temple worship in the OT, they were also a circumstance simultaneously. Consider other elements that were part of temple worship such as 1) plates (Lev. 8:9), 2) bowls (Ex. 25:31), 3) lampstands (Ex. 25:31, possibly equivalent to electric light fixtures?). If we set the communion cup on a plate, have we returned to OT worship because we have used the same object? If we sprinkle water in baptism from a bowl, have we returned to the old covenant? If we use lampstands (or have lights in fixtures), are we playing priest? If God commanded these things to be used in OT temple worship, should we avoid all of them under the new covenant?

Again, brother, I believe that you are seeking to glorify God. But at the same time, I think that your comparison of musical instruments to temple worship is wholly lacking.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

A bit of a ramble and I'm not of a mood to interact (family tragedy yesterday) but I think these thoughts are pertinent if jumbled. So I'm simply leaving them for what they may be worth for consideration.

If the argument is for instruments on a circumstantial basis to aid the singing it has to be still a matter that is in the church's power to appoint (this is the point Girardeau is making; that the church cannot via a circumstance alter the nature of an element of worship). A true circumstantial matter is indifferent in the determination but not unregulated.

So if the instrument is to aid merely staying on key like a pitch pipe or the voice of a trained precentor, it truly has to do that without altering the worship. But if it fails that measure of indifference (as with anything indifferent) and makes the worship foolish or gets in the way of the singing, like a kazoo or an all drowning out pipe organ, it simply is no longer indifferent and that choice is not an option.

And so while on that subject; mood music (to fill the silence) is not a circumstance; mood music alters the worship in seeking to stir up the worshiper in a way a pitch pipe does not in aiding the singing, or a seat cushion the comfortable posture of a worshipper, the A/C a comfortable environment, etc. The choice of mood music is not in the church's power to impose.

Now, as a matter of instruments as a circumstance to aid the worship, a large portion of the NT church over time viewed instrumental music as the sound track of OT typical worship and as much a part of it as the alter, the bloody sacrifice, the holy days, etc; so, if we can bring them back as something indifferent circumstantially as an aid to singing, and only that, why not bring back incense if that will make being in the room more pleasant, all the while avowing there is no intent to impose this via anything but some sort of circumstantial argument? Nicer dress for the minster; bring back the mitre? But these are only circumstantial matters? So that the things brought in circumstantially look like the OT worship doesn't matter, right? I don't' think so.

We could make our worship look like a high RC mass through such arguing, much like the anglocatholics did in imposing the church calendar back onto Scotland, saying, 'but we don't mean the same thing as the RCC and our goal in making our worship look as similar as possible to them is to win them to the reformation.' Indifferent circumstantial choices are regulated by the rules of indifference and these must be kept in mind. https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-of-piety-charity-purity.85390/#post-1064654

 

[timfost]

Andrew,

I believe I addressed some of your points in my last reply to Bill. In the OPC's DPW, it gives a key at the beginning:

"1. Practices that are mandated are denoted by "shall," "will," "is to be," "must," and "are to be."

The following three categories denote practices that are not mandated:

2. Practices that are strongly recommended are denoted by "should," "ought to," "is desirable," and "is advisable."

3. Practices that are commended as suitable are denoted by "is appropriate," "is well," and "is fitting."

4. Practices that are permissible are denoted by "may.""


When it speaks about musical instruments, it says:


"Because musicians and musical instruments serve the part of worship that is performed by the congregation, it is fitting that they be positioned with or behind the congregation."

In their thinking, musical instruments are consonant with the WCF's teaching on worship. Do you disagree with them?

 

[Romans922]

If microphones are a circumstance of worship because they aid in speaking/hearing, why not instruments which are an aid to singing?

When it speaks about musical instruments, it says:


"Because musicians and musical instruments serve the part of worship that is performed by the congregation, it is fitting that they be positioned with or behind the congregation."

In their thinking, musical instruments are consonant with the WCF's teaching on worship. Do you disagree with them?

Absolutely I disagree with them.

But what I was speaking of was their use of 'circumstance'. It seems your use of 'circumstance' disagrees with theirs. Of course, it seems they disagree with themselves there with their definition of circumstance before that. Clearly they do not believe it is an element of worship. But it is almost as if they don't consider it a circumstance either given their definition early in their DPW. That was all a side note though (hency, P.S.).

I don't believe you have addressed all the rest of my thoughts. I would also like to add that burden of proof has been brought up. When it comes to the RPW, the burden of proof always lies with the one wanting to do something in the public worship of God. Those things wanted to be done, must be proven that they must be done from God's word. In this case, it is not the burden of anyone who is against the use of instruments to prove they shouldn't be used. The burden falls upon the one believing instruments should be used to prove from Scripture they should be used. It would be the same thing if, for example, I wanted to have dance in public worship. I would have to prove that, not the one who doesn't want dance in public worship.

 

[timfost]

(family tragedy yesterday)

Chris, I'm sorry to hear. Please let us know how we can pray.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Chris, I'm sorry to hear. Please let us know how we can pray.

My niece's husband passed away suddenly. Two young teenage children. They belong to a PCA in Pa.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Disagreements should be expected when we operate using necessary consequence

Not so, brother. The conclusion is the necessary consequence of Scriptural propositions. We're talking about set-in-stone laws of logic, not something speculative.

 

[timfost]

Not so, brother. The conclusion is the necessary consequence of Scriptural propositions. We're talking about set-in-stone laws of logic, not something speculative.

Brother, I think you have too high of an opinion of your logic...

As my pastor has said before, we will find out who was right someday and none of us will say "I told you so."

Thank you all for conversing.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Brother, I think you have too high of an opinion of your logic...

If that is the case, then so do the Westminster standards and all Reformed churches, who assert that the consequences are necessary.

Tell me, is the conclusion of the following syllogism logically necessary or not?

Major premise: All men are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

 

[timfost]

If that is the case, then so do the Westminster standards and all Reformed churches, who assert that the consequences are necessary.

Tell me, is the conclusion of the following syllogism logically necessary or not?

Major premise: All men are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Thanks again for discussing.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

My niece's husband passed away suddenly. Two young teenage children. They belong to a PCA in Pa.

I'm so sorry. The Lord be with them through this sorrowful valley.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bookslover]

. . .there is no NT command, nothing by good and necessary consequence, and nothing given by example in the NT that would lead anyone to come to the conclusion that we ought to use instruments in public worship.

This works exactly the other way, too: ". . .lead anyone to come to the conclusion that we ought *not* to use instruments in public worship."

 

[Romans922]

This works exactly the other way, too: ". . .there is no NT command, nothing by good and necessary consequence, and nothing given by example in the NT that would lead anyone to come to the conclusion that we ought *not* to use instruments in public worship."

(Bold for what you left out of my quote that brings clarity. I did not say, "*not*" so I underlined it.)

It doesn’t work both ways. Nor is your double negative helpful. You are employing the normative principle. We aren't looking for "what does God forbid?" We are looking for what does God command. That's the RPW, which shows what we ought to do in worship. To figure out what we ought the do in worship, we must find it in God’s word (RPW). If the word clearly shows what we ought not to do in worship that is great too.

However, there is nothing in scripture (RPW) to lead us to the conclusion that we ought to use instruments. There is everything to show that we ought not to use them. Given they were expressly set forth under the ceremonial law, and they have been fulfilled in Christ, we know then they are not commanded by God for His worship today.

 

[Parakaleo]

A pretty helpful article on this subject from Pastor Brad Freeman of the Presbyterian Reformed Church.

An excerpt:

Even if instrumental music could be considered as an aid to worship, the Lord still strictly controls what aids are allowed in His worship. The Israelites, in their zeal to offer to the Lord true worship, nevertheless committed idolatry when they forged the golden calf at Sinai to magnify the great power of God. They weren’t blind pagans; they intended to worship the God of Israel, not some pagan deity. But in their desire for an aid to worship, they sinned and instead provoked the wrath of God. To them the golden calf was an aid to worship that they thought the Lord would have allowed, but to the Lord it was an unauthorized aid that He abhorred. In matters of worship, both reason and the will of man is a fatal guide. We would do well to remember the words of Solomon in Prov. 16:25, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

 

[Gforce9]

Rather pertinent to the topic and highly edifying!

 

[Romans922]

Here's a good sermon series (1-25 especially for this topic) by our own Todd Ruddell. It covers every mention of music throughout Scripture and covers Psalmody and Instruments. Edifying for all.

http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/sermons/distinctives/

 

[timfost]

I'm studying the issue some more and have some questions. Please answer any or all. Thanks in advance.

1. Were instruments an element of worship in the OT? What proof texts can you provide?

2. Could saints in the OT sing to God without musical instruments?

3. What, if any, differences in praise do we find in Temple worship and synagogue worship in the OT?

4. What was prescribed for private worship in the OT? How was it different from temple worship? How was it different from synagogue worship?

5. Did Moses establish the use of instruments in temple worship?

 

[Logan]

Tim, perhaps helpful to a couple of your questions, 2 Chronicles 29:25--30 has been rather poignant for me. The entire passage is about the re-institution of temple worship under Hezekiah, and over and over it states that it was done in accordance with what the Lord had prescribed (through Moses), or David, then this section on the instruments:

And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel. And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished. And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped. Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.

Nothing was done in accordance with the command of Hezekiah. The writer goes out of his way to say that the worship, including instruments and the songs themselves, had been ordained by God. So as some others have pointed out, if instruments are part of worship, then it seems that those would necessarily be the same instruments which had been commanded.

 

[timfost]

Tim, perhaps helpful to a couple of your questions, 2 Chronicles 29:25--30 has been rather poignant for me. The entire passage is about the re-institution of temple worship under Hezekiah, and over and over it states that it was done in accordance with what the Lord had prescribed (through Moses), or David, then this section on the instruments:



Nothing was done in accordance with the command of Hezekiah. The writer goes out of his way to say that the worship, including instruments and the songs themselves, had been ordained by God. So as some others have pointed out, if instruments are part of worship, then it seems that those would necessarily be the same instruments which had been commanded.

Thanks, Logan. Would you say that David's command to use instruments had prophetic authority? Would temple praise have been sinful without instruments? Would any OT praise be sinful without instruments? Thanks!

 

[BG]

Thanks, Logan. Would you say that David's command to use instruments had prophetic authority? Would temple praise have been sinful without instruments? Would any OT praise be sinful without instruments? Thanks!

Yes God commanded it.
1chr 28;12
1chr 28;19
2chr 29;25

It would have been sinful to not use instruments during the sacrifice and sinful to use them after.

 

[timfost]

Additionally, were instruments appropriate for praise prior to David commanding them?

 

[Afterthought]

Just some observations on one of the Scriptures cited.

2 Sam. 6:5.

a) I would note that David is the one in charge of these innovations as commandments of the Lord and even has a priestly role to play (e.g., the linen ephod he later dons), so this should not be viewed as an issue.
b) It is also not clear whether David himself actually played the instruments or commanded them to be played by representatives because we see similar language when we know only Levites are playing (1 Chronicles 15).
c) From the Chronicles, we see that the occasion in 1 Sam. 6:5 was not done after the due order. When the Lord was sought for the due order, only the Levites were appointed to play the instruments.
d) It is also interesting to notice the progress of instruments in biblical history. We have trumpets appointed to blow over the sacrifice in reminder of Sinai (indeed, Hebrews tells us we have not come to the sound of a trumpet). These trumpets remain, but they are embellished by instruments associated with prophecy and with joyful celebration. It's as if this is a picture way of stating law and gospel prophecy are associated with the sacrifice and service of song (and these themselves have a prophetical character).

 

[Romans922]

d) It is also interesting to notice the progress of instruments in biblical history.

Yes, interesting that those Levites who carried the ark, when there was no more reason for them to carry the ark anymore, the Lord through David gave them a new task of instrument players for the worship in the temple.