Musical Instruments: Denial of Christ's Final Sacrifice

[Romans922]

From your perspective, would you consider instruments to be prohibited only for public worship, or also in private worship?

From my studies, we should generally be guided (where applicable) by the Regulative Principle in every area of life. So where it applies to worship, Scripture guides us how we ought to do family worship guided in principle generally by those commands for public worship, again where it may be applied. Obviously we aren't celebrating the sacraments. We ought to sing though, and where we do, the same for instruments as OP applies. Our family sings using no musical instruments.

I am curious how you would see the non-temple uses of instruments.

Patriarchal age
Gn. 4:21-22 - musical instruments man used for their pleasure (this can be abused).
Gen. 31:27 - music used in joyous celebration
Job 21:12 - music used in joyous celebration
Job 29:13 – metaphorical bringing joy to widow
Job 30:8-9 – Joy can be dishonest (He’s a mocking song)
Job 30:31 – Uses irony (usually used for joy – but for me sorrow)
Job 35:10 – joy
Job 39:24 – Joy at hearing music

Time of Moses
Exodus 15:20-21 - Used not as worship but as national celebration
Deut. 31:19-22 - Moses writes song to teach/warn the nation of Israel (not worship)
Deut. 32:44, 46-47 - Moses teaches children to sing, sing in homes to warn (not worship)
Num. 21:12ff - music for joy
Num. 10:1-3 - Trumpets used for signaling people to let them know when sacrifices were going to be offered (ceremonial)

Joshua and after (Just a few passages)
Joshua 6:4ff - instruments used for mustering (military)
Judges 3:27; 6:34; 7:8-22 - instruments used for mustering (military)


And on. Instruments used outside of worship were used for joyous celebration or mocking; instruments used for national celebration; but the vast majority of use (outside of worship) is trumpets for mustering (military). That is all the instrumental use (the vast majority) until David and the Lord through David instituting instruments in worship (temple).

However, this seems to prompt the follow-up question (hopefully not too speculative) of what it would look like if instruments were to be permitted in public worship, but were not part of the ceremonial law - given that ceremonial worship was the only public worship of the Old Covenant. If instruments in public worship are paired with the ceremonial law, why not public worship itself - which only occurred within the sacrificial system in the Old Covenant? Obviously "public worship" itself is not ceremonial, but what criteria do you use to determine what parts of public worship are ceremonial, and what parts not?

I think you perhaps forget that public worship didn't only happen at the temple in Jerusalem. It happened on the sabbath in the local synagogues. If you research the synagogues during the OT and after, you will find that from the OT all the way up to approximately 1950 AD, you will not find at all musical instruments in the Jewish synagogue (though you find the word, prayer, and singing). I believe I alluded to this in the OP.

 

[iainduguid]

From my studies, we should generally be guided (where applicable) by the Regulative Principle in every area of life. So where it applies to worship, Scripture guides us how we ought to do family worship guided in principle generally by those commands for public worship, again where it may be applied. Obviously we aren't celebrating the sacraments. We ought to sing though, and where we do, the same for instruments as OP applies. Our family sings using no musical instruments.


Patriarchal age
Gn. 4:21-22 - musical instruments man used for their pleasure (this can be abused).
Gen. 31:27 - music used in joyous celebration
Job 21:12 - music used in joyous celebration
Job 29:13 – metaphorical bringing joy to widow
Job 30:8-9 – Joy can be dishonest (He’s a mocking song)
Job 30:31 – Uses irony (usually used for joy – but for me sorrow)
Job 35:10 – joy
Job 39:24 – Joy at hearing music

Time of Moses
Exodus 15:20-21 - Used not as worship but as national celebration
Deut. 31:19-22 - Moses writes song to teach/warn the nation of Israel (not worship)
Deut. 32:44, 46-47 - Moses teaches children to sing, sing in homes to warn (not worship)
Num. 21:12ff - music for joy
Num. 10:1-3 - Trumpets used for signaling people to let them know when sacrifices were going to be offered (ceremonial)

Joshua and after (Just a few passages)
Joshua 6:4ff - instruments used for mustering (military)
Judges 3:27; 6:34; 7:8-22 - instruments used for mustering (military)


And on. Instruments used outside of worship were used for joyous celebration or mocking; instruments used for national celebration; but the vast majority of use (outside of worship) is trumpets for mustering (military). That is all the instrumental use (the vast majority) until David and the Lord through David instituting instruments in worship (temple).



I think you perhaps forget that public worship didn't only happen at the temple in Jerusalem. It happened on the sabbath in the local synagogues. If you research the synagogues during the OT and after, you will find that from the OT all the way up to approximately 1950 AD, you will not find at all musical instruments in the Jewish synagogue (though you find the word, prayer, and singing). I believe I alluded to this in the OP.

There is no Biblical example of which I'm aware of singing in the synagogue. Most scholars believe that singing came into synagogue worship (along with benediction) after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. One commentator notes, “The Mishnah contains detailed indications with regard to the reading of Torah and the Prophets in the Sabbath meetings, whereas psalm-singing is not mentioned at all”. What happened in the synagogues up until NT times was more "study" than it was "worship"

 

[JH]

Pastor Barnes (and others who agree), I have not read Girardeau's work fully (perhaps he addresses this), but he specifically notes in the beginning that he is addressing public worship, not private or family worship. From your perspective, would you consider instruments to be prohibited only for public worship, or also in private worship?

Travis Fentiman has a convincing article over at his site on the subject. Personally it has convinced me to stop singing anything other than the Psalms in proper worship, whether that worship take place in the gates of Zion, or the dwellings of Jacob (Ps. 87:2) – and that may mean brushing shoulders with other brethren, though we try our best not to in a spirit of charity; but better to love the praise of God, more than the praise of men. The article handles a handful of practical questions as well, such as catechism for children, &c.

John Owen: "This, then, they who hold communion with Christ are careful of: — they will admit of nothing, practise nothing, in the worship of God, private or public, but what they have his warrant for; unless it comes in his name, with ” Thus saith the Lord Jesus,” they will not hear an angel from heaven. They know the apostles themselves were to teach the saints only what Christ commanded them. Matt. 28:20."

And I think this section is fitting: Elder @Andres mentioned earlier in another brothers thread about relocation for the purity of God's worship: "You know how many in this very nation, in the days not long since past, yea, how many thousands, left their native soil, and went into a vast and howling wilderness in the utmost parts of the world, to keep their souls undefiled and chaste to their dear Lord Jesus, as to this of his worship and institutions." – I stumbled across this a couple weeks before relocating myself.

 

[Zach]

Thanks for sharing. I think that's probably the best concise argument I've heard in favor, but as I said earlier I'm just not convinced.

Like Dr. Duguid pointed out, I just don't see how the instruments themselves are typological of and fulfilled in the person and work of Christ such that they pass away with the old order. His point about that is arguably the most important point made so far in this thread and where the argument that the instruments were part of the ceremonial law begins to fall apart from my perspective. I get the reasoning that they were used during that period, even that they were connected in certain ways to sacrifice, but I'm with others in saying that just because they were part of worship under that order doesn't mean that it is part of the ceremonial law. In fact, I think if it was part of the ceremonial law we would expect them to be used from the giving of the law.

 

[Mr. Great-Heart]

Yes, Neil, sums up my thoughts well. Presbyterians are expected to argue from the RPW not the NPW. I would assert the majority of those who worship using instrumental accompaniment, be it a guitar and drums or a piano, be it a Pentecostal or a Presbyterian, they do so not out of any conviction, but rather out of tradition. I also don't think people care to study this topic or give it much consideration because practically speaking, we simply enjoy instruments.

Andres, you may find this Sunday School lecture by Albert Martin helpful (though, he's a reformed baptist). It is entitled The Biblical Basis for Instrumental Accompaniment.

https://sg-audiotreasures.org/singular/am_accompaniment.mp3

 

[EvanVK]

Is there any example of instruments used in the worship of the church in the New Testament scriptures?

 

[Tom Hart]

Many writers say it was Pope Vitalian who introduced them sometime in the period of 660-670 (I have found the dates 660, 666, and 670). Is there reason to doubt this?

That’s interesting; I hadn’t heard this before. Looking it up quickly, it seems that Vitalian and Charlemagne are both credited with introducing the organ into the Western Church, and a century and a half apart, too. I wonder whether this innovation could have happened independently, or whether some chronicler just got something wrong.

 

[Poimen]

Is there any example of instruments used in the worship of the church in the New Testament scriptures?

It is sparse. There are harps in heaven in the book of Revelation and the use of the term psallo in various passages which means to pluck or strike a chord. However, one could argue that the former are merely symbolic as are other images in that book. And the latter may be an example of the genetic fallacy, besides which Ephesians 5:19 speaks of making that melody (psallo) in our hearts.

 

[beloved7]

Andres, you may find this Sunday School lecture by Albert Martin helpful (though, he's a reformed baptist). It is entitled The Biblical Basis for Instrumental Accompaniment.

https://sg-audiotreasures.org/singular/am_accompaniment.mp3

Pastor Martin has put together some of the most solid reformed preaching and teachings in the 20th century. His works on pastoral theology are second to none. I’d put him up against any Presbyterian pastor in regard to the understanding of corporate worship, without hesitation.

 

[Eyedoc84]

If “making melody in the heart” is interpreted in such a way to exclude instruments because, well, the melody may only come from the heart, wouldn’t consistency demand that the melody also can’t be in our larynx/lips?

I always thought this passage was speaking to the heartfelt sincerity of our melody-making.

 

[Poimen]

If “making melody in the heart” is interpreted in such a way to exclude instruments because, well, the melody may only come from the heart, wouldn’t consistency demand that the melody also can’t be in our larynx/lips?

I always thought this passage was speaking to the heartfelt sincerity of our melody-making.

Yes that is an argument some may retort with against those who make the passage solely about musical instruments. However, the point is, on the other side of the debate, if you are going to use the term psallo as a justification for the use of (stringed only?) instruments in worship, we must define the term as it is used in context, not merely what it meant in its original usage. And in context it does not, as you point out here, refer to musical instruments at all so this passage is not really relevant to the authorisation of instruments in worship. Indeed the NT is, as far as I am concerned, entirely silent about that matter which would require one to establish the use of instruments on the basis of Old Testament passages (which the OP seeks to address) or as circumstance, not an element, of worship.

 

[iainduguid]

Is there any example of instruments used in the worship of the church in the New Testament scriptures?

Evan, I don't want to pick on you, because lots of reformed people take a similar approach, but this is the question Anabaptists ask, not Reformed people. We are not "New Testament Christians" but rather those seeking to obey the whole counsel of God. When it comes to worship, we need the OT as well as the NT to discern what Biblical worship looks like. For example, is there any example of benediction as part of a worship service in the NT? Where do we get our insistence that only ministers may administer the sacraments and pronounce the benediction? Not from specific NT examples but from theological reflection on the entirety of the Scriptures. The same is true when we are unfolding our understanding of the Sabbath and baptism: we refuse to be restricted simply to NT proof text or example.

Of course it is much easier to put a big red X through everything associated with the OT temple and sacrifice, especially if your opponents are Catholics, who are liturgical theonomists. But the result is often a functional liturgical dispensationalism, rather than a proper application of the law in its continuity and discontinuity (which is what the categories of moral, civil and ceremonial are pursuing). All I am asking is that we apply the same approach to worship law that reformed people apply to the rest of OT law. Explicit NT examples or instructions make it much easier to answer those questions, but the absence of such is not definitive.

 

[EvanVK]

Evan, I don't want to pick on you, because lots of reformed people take a similar approach, but this is the question Anabaptists ask, not Reformed people. We are not "New Testament Christians" but rather those seeking to obey the whole counsel of God. When it comes to worship, we need the OT as well as the NT to discern what Biblical worship looks like. For example, is there any example of benediction as part of a worship service in the NT? Where do we get our insistence that only ministers may administer the sacraments and pronounce the benediction? Not from specific NT examples but from theological reflection on the entirety of the Scriptures. The same is true when we are unfolding our understanding of the Sabbath and baptism: we refuse to be restricted simply to NT proof text or example.

Of course it is much easier to put a big red X through everything associated with the OT temple and sacrifice, especially if your opponents are Catholics, who are liturgical theonomists. But the result is often a functional liturgical dispensationalism, rather than a proper application of the law in its continuity and discontinuity (which is what the categories of moral, civil and ceremonial are pursuing). All I am asking is that we apply the same approach to worship law that reformed people apply to the rest of OT law. Explicit NT examples or instructions make it much easier to answer those questions, but the absence of such is not definitive.

Or it’s just the question that someone asks who wants to know if/where musical instruments are mentioned in the NT lol but thank you for learning me.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Instruments used outside of worship were used for joyous celebration or mocking; instruments used for national celebration; but the vast majority of use (outside of worship) is trumpets for mustering (military). That is all the instrumental use (the vast majority) until David and the Lord through David instituting instruments in worship (temple).

I grew up in a "Baptist" congregation composed largely of ex-Anabaptist folk (Mennonite and Amish). These folk had been raised exclusively a cappella so we sang mostly hymns and some psalms, sometimes accompanied with stringed instruments and sometimes not. The debate over instruments is not exclusive to the Reformed sphere (I have found it interesting that the Mennonites now largely use instruments, not having anything (like a written confession) other than tradition to previously bar their inclusion). I have now spent the past 3/5ths of life singing the Church's psalter without instrumental accompaniment. I could easily enter into Biblical, logical, or theological debate regarding both EP and instruments, but this does not seem to be the point of the OP. I will only add to this discussion my observation which I haven't found anywhere else - that the instruments in the final selection in the Church's psalter are not endorsing the use of instruments in worship and that such an interpretation seems to miss the inspired psalmist's point: whatever you do and whenever you do it, praise God. The instruments mentioned in Psalm 150 (and elsewhere in the Hebrew text) are not limited to tabernacle or temple worship. They were (also) used for civil announcements (start of Jubilee, new moons, etc. - see Lev. 25 for example), wedding celebrations (timbrels, for example), war maneuvers (trumpets and horns), personal praise of God (note how often stringed instruments are attached to a singular pronoun throughout the Psalms), as well as different aspects of public and private worship. What I believe would be profitable for the Church would be an exhaustive study and publication of the meaning and mode of each instrument or combinations of instruments (recognizing that some overlap, of course, exists) mentioned in the previous dispensation of grace (unless such a complete work exists that I am ignorant of). Such would, I think, help clarify the discussion of whether or not instruments were types and thus abolished with Christ's incarnation and finished work. And, yes, I would love to do it, but, no, my Hebrew is not good enough. But I tire of hearing the final psalm (mis-)used to argue for instruments in worship and missing the psalmist's much greater point.

 

[Grant]

I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns. It's likely true that many who include instruments do not have a thought through defense of their position, just as many bring their children for baptism without necessarily having a proper understanding of why they should. Good defenses of the use of musical instruments are thin on the ground, for good reason. No one on that side of the argument thinks their opponents are "denying the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice", so they do not feel the urgent burden to challenge the other side that is understandably felt by the "musical instruments are unbiblical" side. Building a proper argument, as for baptism, is not a one verse or one passage task; it involves a proper understanding of the relationship of church and temple (which is the primary OT background for the church, not the synagogue), and an ability to interpret the law properly, dividing rightly between moral, civil, and ceremonial worship. We are not anabaptists, who consider it a sufficient argument against something that "That's OT worship", although too often Reformed arguments sound very like that - mainly because most of the things wrong with Rome are rooted in OT categories (priests, sacrifices, sacred buildings, etc). The bare assertion that because something is linked with temple and sacrifice, it therefore has no more significance for us as Christians today is simply false. Otherwise, we lose singing itself, which was not part of the synagogue service and become Sydney Anglicans, gathering for edification only, not exaltation. Nor does something have to be reiterated in the NT in order to guide our behavior for us today.

I contend that musical instruments are not ceremonial law (otherwise they would have to point forward to Christ in some recognizable fashion). They are not moral law, or they would always have been part of worship - and the tabernacle has neither instruments nor singing. They are part of the civil law - which means that their general equity continues to guide our behavior today. Obviously, that argument would need to be substantially fleshed out, something I don't have the time or inclination to do here, knowing I will be immediately inundated with 15 responses for people who disagree. It's perfectly fair for people to respond, but equally, it's not my calling to spend a lot of time interacting in internet comboxes, which are not ideal for complex theological discussions. Normally, I abstain from these discussions on the basis of a sense that the returns don't justify the use of my time, which would be much better served working on my magnum opus on the Biblical Theology of Worship (seriously, I've been working on this off and on for 25 years, and hope to publish it someday, but it requires a comprehensive knowledge of everything - OT, NT, CH, ST and PT - so it is a daunting task). But I have several other volumes to complete before I can seriously develop this material further.

One further mistake that often clouds these discussions is the assumption that if the OT law on instruments is still valid today, then instruments - the same instruments that David commanded - would be mandated. This first of all misunderstands the RPW, since there are several elements of worship (lawful oaths, sacraments) that are sometimes present and not always so. In the same way, instruments could be affirmed without being required. Second, it is defused by the argument that instruments are civil law; the details expire, but the general equity continues. So the law requiring a parapet around the roof of a person's house has relevance for modern building codes but doesn't have to be literally still a requirement.

Iain,

Very thought provoking. From your perspective, would this exegetical approach categorize instrument use in worship as an element or circumstance? Or would this be a 3rd category?

If a 3rd category, then is there anything else within worship that you would view under “civil law”?

Though I do profess to be AO, these questions are not rooted in disagreement, but out of sincerely wrestling with this topic for several years now.

 

[iainduguid]

That's a fair question, but there isn't a straight equivalence. "Elements" and "circumstances" are traditional ways of distinguishing between things that are and aren't governed by the RPW: elements are things that the Bible commands, like preaching, singing, etc; elements are incidental things that are regulated by human wisdom, like whether to have a sound system or pews. This can be a helpful way of thinking about worship issues, but once you get into the details, complexities multiply. For examples, candles for lighting in the days before electricity were circumstances, but candles used symbolically (like advent candles) are presumably elements and potentially run into difficulties with Biblical warrant (depending on how you understand the role of the lampstand in the Tabernacle, I guess). What about the layout of the church building, though? Is that an element or a circumstance? Well, the Bible doesn't exactly give us a church building layout, unless you replicate the structure of the tabernacle and temple (as Medieval cathedrals tended to do). But Reformed churches moved the font and the communion table for distinctly theological reasons: the font was moved from the entry to the church building (symbolizing entry into the Christian community, often in a private ceremony) to the center of the church below the high pulpit. Now the minister stood behind the communion table (also below the pulpit) rather than facing away from the congregation offering a sacrifice to God in a language they couldn't understand. Those are distinctly symbolic changes that flow logically from a Reformed theology of worship, so are they elements? Or still circumstances?

I would suggest that actually both elements and circumstances are governed by God's Word, in broader and narrower ways - so they are more of a spectrum than an opposition. That, of course, makes it harder to tell people that they shouldn't be doing what they are doing, and puts more onus on pastors to be theologically educated enough to discern the theological importance of every aspect of worship, and how the Scriptures regulate it. It also suggests why the challenge "Is it an element or a circumstance?" doesn't always lead to a clear conclusion. There are many things that just don't neatly fall into one category or another (think of the recent discussion of harmony vs unison in singing)

What I'm suggesting is that an alternative and more fruitful way to explore questions of how the OT shapes our contemporary worship patterns is to treat these passages exactly the same way Reformed people treat other aspects of OT law: does it bind us directly and unchangingly (moral law)? Does it no longer bind us because it was specifically designed to point forward to Christ (ceremonial law)? Was this law a specific application of God's wisdom to Israel's situation that does not bind us directly but only through general equity (civil law)? What are traditional termed "elements" will generally fall under moral law, but this gives us a more nuanced way to think about the application of OT worship practices to the contemporary church.

To take a simple example, when Paul is arguing in favor of ministers being paid for their labors, he doesn't go to what you might think is the obvious OT texts about tithing to support the priests and Levites. I would argue that this is because Paul understands that tithing is not moral law, but civil law, and therefore he can't make direct application of it here (see my booklet on whether Christians should tithe). Instead, he appeals to another OT civil law about not muzzling the ox while it is grinding grain (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim 5:16), from which he draws the general equity application that ministers should share in the benefits of their labors.

 

[Northern Crofter]

elements are incidental things that are regulated by human wisdom, like whether to have a sound system or pews.

Did you mean to start this with "circumstances" not "elements"?

 

[Northern Crofter]

For examples, candles for lighting in the days before electricity were circumstances, but candles used symbolically (like advent candles) are presumably elements and potentially run into difficulties with Biblical warrant (depending on how you understand the role of the lampstand in the Tabernacle, I guess). What about the layout of the church building, though? Is that an element or a circumstance? Well, the Bible doesn't exactly give us a church building layout, unless you replicate the structure of the tabernacle and temple (as Medieval cathedrals tended to do). But Reformed churches moved the font and the communion table for distinctly theological reasons: the font was moved from the entry to the church building (symbolizing entry into the Christian community, often in a private ceremony) to the center of the church below the high pulpit. Now the minister stood behind the communion table (also below the pulpit) rather than facing away from the congregation offering a sacrifice to God in a language they couldn't understand. Those are distinctly symbolic changes that flow logically from a Reformed theology of worship, so are they elements? Or still circumstances?

"Circumstances" are pretty clearly defined in the WCF (1.6): "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." Note the 4 qualifications: (1) common to human actions and societies, (2) ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, (3) according to the general rules of the Word, (4) always to be observed. The examples of candles and architecture do not seem to fall into the confessional area of "circumstances" (the proof texts reference head coverings for women and the order of worship) given these qualifications.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The issue that sealed for me acapella singing in the churches is the capacity for use of musical instruments to get out of hand (as they obviously have). Every little southern Baptist church now has its own praise band. You all know the harm this kind of performance has caused to God’s people. Use of musical instruments in the churches would surely have been regulated by the apostles..

 

[Taylor]

The issue that sealed for me acapella singing in the churches is the capacity for use of musical instruments to get out of hand (as they obviously have). Every little southern Baptist church now has its own praise band. You all know the harm this kind of performance has caused to God’s people. Use of musical instruments in the churches would surely have been regulated by the apostles..

Of course, this is an abuse and not an inherent aspect of instruments in worship. Our church has had only a piano since the day it was planted over a decade ago, and there had been no desire to expand instrumentation.

 

[Zach]

The issue that sealed for me acapella singing in the churches is the capacity for use of musical instruments to get out of hand (as they obviously have). Every little southern Baptist church now has its own praise band. You all know the harm this kind of performance has caused to God’s people. Use of musical instruments in the churches would surely have been regulated by the apostles..

I mean no disrespect, but that is just not biblical reasoning. In fact, it's a major assumption. I don't think that we want to start reasoning that the capacity for abuse requires that a practice must have been forbidden by the Apostles in other areas, for example.

 

[Polanus1561]

No Sabbath Day pause for this discussion?

 

[beloved7]

No Sabbath Day pause for this discussion?

It’s my understanding that discussing doctrine is absolutely permissible on the Sabbath, but I would abstain from contention.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Of course, this is an abuse and not an inherent aspect of instruments in worship. Our church has had only a piano since the day it was planted over a decade ago, and there had been no desire to expand instrumentation.

I realize that many Reformed churches have held the line like that, but don’t we care about worship in the broader visible church? You’re saying it’s an abuse of a permitted thing. But how can you make that case biblically to someone who attends a church with a rock band?

 

[Taylor]

I realize that many Reformed churches have held the line like that, but don’t we care about worship in the broader visible church? You’re saying it’s an abuse of a permitted thing. But how can you make that case biblically to someone who attends a church with a rock band?

I was simply pointing out that, logically, the abuse of X does not mean X is bad.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I mean no disrespect, but that is just not biblical reasoning. In fact, it's a major assumption. I don't think that we want to start reasoning that the capacity for abuse requires that a practice must have been forbidden by the Apostles in other areas, for example.

I realize it’s not a making of the case from Scripture for acapella singing in the church. I agree with others on the thread who’ve spoken to that. I also should have put it differently; it was seeing what I mentioned in my post, that once musical instruments are brought in there’s no real way to regulate their use, is what started me down the road to acapella only. I was involved in that praise band world so was looking at issues from an inside perspective.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I was simply pointing out that, logically, the abuse of X does not mean X is bad.

I agree with that generally speaking.

 

[Taylor]

I realize it’s not a making of the case from Scripture for acapella singing in the church. I agree with others on the thread who’ve spoken to that. I also should have put it differently; it was seeing what I mentioned in my post, that once musical instruments are brought in there’s no real way to regulate their use, is what started me down the road to acapella only. I was involved in that praise band world so was looking at issues from an inside perspective.

I certainly understand the concern. I was in that world too, and I frankly despise it now.

Our church uses one instrument, and we actually do have a real way to regulate its use: a faithful session. I don’t mean that to sound snarky, but actually sincerely mean it. Christ has given his Church the gift of pastors and elders to regulate these things with biblically-informed wisdom, and that is precisely what our pastor and elders do, in my estimation, hence the absence of abuse of musical instruments in our church.

 

[Zach]

I realize it’s not a making of the case from Scripture for acapella singing in the church. I agree with others on the thread who’ve spoken to that. I also should have put it differently; it was seeing what I mentioned in my post, that once musical instruments are brought in there’s no real way to regulate their use, is what started me down the road to acapella only. I was involved in that praise band world so was looking at issues from an inside perspective.

Thanks for clarifying! I agree with you to an extent, though I think we can at least say clearly from Scripture that any instrumentation that drowns out our ability to address one another with Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (what that means is for another thread!) is clearly unacceptable. Sadly, I’ve seen Reformed worship where classical accompaniment does that with the best (or rather, the worst) of praise bands. So while I think we can regulate their use according to Scripture (assuming that instruments are permitted) your words are a good warning to make sure we do regulate against the abuse you describe.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

the capacity for use of musical instruments to get out of hand

Of course, this is an abuse and not an inherent aspect of instruments in worship.

I was simply pointing out that, logically, the abuse of X does not mean X is bad.

your words are a good warning to make sure we do regulate against the abuse you describe.

I love Iain Murray's writings because he often combines great theology with pastoral wisdom. Here is an insightful article he wrote on the dangers of sensual 'worship' https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2010/sensual-worship-a-sign-of-impending-apostasy/