Musical Instruments in Worship

[JBaldwin]

Thank you for that clarification. I think you have missed the point a bit. In Synagogue worship the people sang the Psalms without musical accompanyment. This was the style of worship that the Church engaged in from the First Century all the way to the mid-1800's.

I might add that from the late middle ages to the present some form of instrumentation was included in worship. You need only to consult a few music history books to find a long list of music written for use in worship with instruments.

 

[tdowns]

For a further point, and perhaps this actually should be the beginning of a different thread. My understanding of worship is that we worship all the time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When we come together, I see the New Testament instructing us to meet together for teaching, admonishing with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, preaching, encouraging one another, prayer, fellowship, Lord's table, baptism (though we are not commanded to meet for that purpose, it makes perfect sense). When the early synagogue met, they met for readings from the Torah, psalms, hymns, prayers and almsgiving. Though many of these things cross over, why are we using the synagogue as a model for worship as your above post implies instead of using the NT guidelines?

Respectfully,

JBaldwin

I'm interested in the above thoughts.

 

[panta dokimazete]

An exhaustive study of the word "psallo" and the historical usage of musical instruments in the Christian church and the synagogue can be found athttp://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/mckurfees/index.htm

It's a lengthy treatment of the subject, but those who have a serious interest in this question will find it helpful.

enjoying the read - although the author's bias is just a little bit obvious:

Be it observed, first of all, that instrumental music was no part of the worship in the ancient Jewish synagogue. It was never used in that worship. It is as much of an innovation in the synagogue worship of modern times as it is in the worship of the church of Christ. That it was used in the worship of what is called Judaism proper, that is, in the ancient temple worship, is a fact freely admitted by [137] both Jews and Christians. Moreover, it is a significant fact that, just as Christians charge their fellow-Christians with judaizing or imitating the Jews when they introduce instrumental music into the worship of the church, so Jews charge their fellow-Jews with imitating the Christians when they introduce that practice into the worship of the synagogue. When that learned Roman Catholic theologian and scholastic doctor of the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, quoted elsewhere in this work, said: "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize"[13] (Bingham's Antiq. Vol. 2, p. 483, London Ed.), little did he dream that, in a few centuries, this secularizing innovation would gain such a footing among Christians that those Jews, remaining loyal to their ancient synagogue worship, would have occasion to charge their fellow-Jews, who might adopt it, with imitating Christians! But this is precisely the state of things that has come to pass.

I don't follow his logic - if the Christians say the Jews started it and the Jews say the Christians started it - that in no way is conclusive evidence that it at one time did not occur as a regular practice. Synagogue worship was an attempt to restore a semblance of Temple worship, anyway - and everybody agrees that there was instrumental music there.

I am really getting much more comfortable with instrumental music as circumstance. If you have it fine, if you don't, fine. Scripture can support both standpoints. It is not an "either/or" it is a "both/and". Just use them in a way that promotes decency and order.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Calvin and Hodges said:

Thank you for that clarification. I think you have missed the point a bit. In Synagogue worship the people sang the Psalms without musical accompanyment. This was the style of worship that the Church engaged in from the First Century all the way to the mid-1800's.

It is not entirely true that the style of the early church to the mid-1800s was to sing psalms exclusively. Jesus Himself, our prime example, sang a hymn with His disciples at the last supper (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26) (And please don't tell me that was not worship so it doesn't count. We celebrate the Lord's table in our worship so it does count. And again, don't tell me that the Spirit of God was so vague as to chose the word hymn and that we are somehow to figure out that He really meant Psalm since I have not run across a Greek scholar interpreting this word to mean psalm in this context.) We also have existing examples of hymns (not psalms) that were sung in the church that date back as far as the church fathers (late 200s), both Eastern and Western churches and on through history. (A History of Western Music, Grout)

On the issue of musical instruments. It is true that throughout history, it was the practice of the churches to sing without instruments. We do not know whether or not the early church prior to the 200s used instruments, there is no proof one way or the other. We know that they met from house to house. In the time of the early church, musical instruments were not as easily available to the average person as they are today, so it is likely they didn't use them simply because they weren't available. Another reason they did not use instruments was because of the association with Greek and Roman idol worship. The scriptures do not teach that using musical instruments in worship is sinful. We merely have the few words "psalmos" and "psallos" that Paul used in Ephesians and Colossians, and the words used by James (chapter5).

When Paul would go into the Synagogues on the Sabbath - he would hear and sing the Psalms without instruments. Thus, when Paul talks about the Psalms in Eph. and Col. he would most likely be talking about them without instruments.

It is true that Paul would have heard and sung the psalms accapella in the Synagogue according to Jewish tradition, and of course, this would have been the style he was familiar with. But can assume that Paul imitated everything done in the Synagogue since he eschewed anything that smelled of the Judaizers? How do we know that the practice of singing accapella psalms exclusively was approved by God? God did not approve Synagogue worship. It was a tradition started when the temple was destroyed, and Jesus and His disciples met there because it was where everyone worshiped. We also know that the reason many of the early Christians (at least from the mid 200s on) shunned musical instruments in worship was not because God told them not to, but because they feared they would look to much like Pagan Greece and their worship. Is it at possible that the Apostle Paul used words like psallos and psalmos that have to do with the use of musical instruments in order to let the early Greek Christians to whom he was writing know music instruments were allowed?

I read your profile, and I understand your bias on this matter. However, I ask of you to consider that instruments are not warranted in the worship of God. I would ask you to read post #38, and ask of the Lord through prayer for knowledge, wisdom, and faith on this matter.

I reread post #38, and I still cannot see a Biblical reason why we should not use musical instruments in worship. Going back to the temple and tabernacle only convince me that God loves His people to praise Him with musical instruments (Psalm 150), and He would not have included so many of David's instrumental songs in the Book of Psalms if He thought they were wrong since He knew we would be using them throughout the remainder of Christian history. As far as the church fathers go, they are not infallible.

If I am wrong, I am certain that eventually the Spirit of God will teach me. I trust He will do so.

For a further point, and perhaps this actually should be the beginning of a different thread. My understanding of worship is that we worship all the time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When we come together, I see the New Testament instructing us to meet together for teaching, admonishing with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, preaching, encouraging one another, prayer, fellowship, Lord's table, baptism (though we are not commanded to meet for that purpose, it makes perfect sense). When the early synagogue met, they met for readings from the Torah, psalms, hymns, prayers and almsgiving. Though many of these things cross over, why are we using the synagogue as a model for worship as your above post implies instead of using the NT guidelines?

Respectfully,

JBaldwin

Greetings:

JBaldwin:

I am not talking about exclusive psalmody. That you have changed the subject from Instruments to Psalmody illustrates your bias on this matter. However, you are mistaken. When Jesus and his disciples were said to sing a "hymn" at the Lord's Supper all commentators agree that they were singing from the Psalms - the Egyptian hallel to be precise. How do you know that the hymns mentioned by Grout were sung during worship and not at other times?

If you want to talk about Psalmody, then I suggest you start another thread on the subject - I will not answer any more points concerning a matter that is not under the theme of this thread on this thread. I would ask the moderators to delete/move posts that do not bear on the subject of Instruments.

As a matter of fact - we do know that the Church has never used musical instruments in worship since the first century. Both Justyn Martyr and Irenaeus were of the 2nd Century (circa 100-200 AD), and they both testify that musical instruments were absent in worship. Synagogue worship did not use instruments at all - and the synagogue style goes all the way back to the Babylonian captivity (597 BC). With the destruction of the Temple and the diaspora of the Jews - they had no way to worship God. Thus, they would gather together on the Sabbath and read, pray and preach from the Scriptures. They would also sing the Psalms a cappella.

The Biblical argument against instruments in worship was probably not so well articulated in my post #38. The outline of which can be summarized thus:

1) The Regulative Principle of Worship requires a positive command of God for everything that happens in worship. So-called "circumstances" in worship are subject to Christian prudence as guided by the Bible.

2) Musical instruments are a matter of divine command and specifically given to the Levites and Temple worship, Numbers 10:2; 1 Chron. 16:1-6; 23:1-5, 25-26; 2 Chron. 29:25-26.

3) The Temple and its worship services have been destroyed. The Levitical priesthood has been changed by the priesthood of Jesus Christ ("after the order of Melchisedec"). Thus, the instruments of the Temple were a matter of (as the Church fathers I quoted pointed out) the infancy of the Church, and have been abolished.

The Church never used the Temple worship service as a model for its worship. They used the synagogue style of worship.

For those of you wishing an historical account of this read:

Schaff, Philip, A History of the Christian Church vol. 1 pgs. 455-470.

Schurer, Emile, A History of the Jewish People at the Time of Christ, Second Division, vol. 2, pg. 75ff.

Walker, WIlliston, A History of the Christian Church, pgs. 14-26.

Vos, Howard, and, Free, Joseph, Archaeology and Bible History, pg. 289.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[panta dokimazete]

Schaff, Philip, A History of the Christian Church vol. 1 pgs. 455-470.

Would that be this section?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Walker, WIlliston, A History of the Christian Church, pgs. 14-26.

Would that be this book?

Neither one has broached the subject of exclusive acapella singing in the synagogue.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderator hat on. Everyone try to stay on topic. Moderator hat off.

Here is one source that gives some of the sources for the contention that the Christian worship is patterned after that of the Synagogue which did not use musical instruments. A important source is Vitringa's De Synagoge (1696), the other he uses is the Westminster Assembly Divine, John Lightfoot. Another is Joseph Bingham which is not cited at the place below but is an English work and cited by Girardeau. as far as the non use of instruments in the church before the 13th century.

The Ancient Church. Its History, Doctrine, Worship, and Constitution, Traced for the First Three Hundred Years.
By W. D. Killen, D.D. Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Pastoral Theology to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. 1859
This is online at Google Books in several editions, the one I used looks to be a modern typescript than a facsimile repro.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7EwiE8--4PsC&pg=PA763
A purported English edition of Vitringa is actually a condensation and the author completely omits this subject as far as I can tell.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zpK1kb6Nb5kC&pg=PA1&#PPR3,M1


Killen, 253-254.
Singing, in which none but Levites were permitted to unite,[216:1] and which was accompanied by instrumental music, constituted a prominent part of the temple service. The singers occupied an elevated platform adjoining the court of the priests;[216:2] and it is somewhat doubtful whether, in that position, they were distinctly heard by the majority of the worshippers within the sacred precincts.[216:3] As the sacrifices, offerings, and other observances of the temple, as well as the priests, the vestments, and even the building itself, had an emblematic meaning,[216:4] it would appear that the singing, intermingled with the music of various instruments of sound, was also typical and ceremonial. It seems to have indicated that the tongue of man cannot sufficiently express the praise of the King Eternal, and that all things, animate and inanimate, owe Him a revenue of glory. The worship of the synagogue was more simple. Its officers had, indeed, trumpets and cornets, with which they published their sentences of excommunication, and announced the new year, the fasts, and the Sabbath;[216:5] but they did not introduce instrumental music into their congregational services. The early Christians followed the example of the synagogue; and when they celebrated the praises of God “in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,”[216:5] their melody was “the fruit of the lips.”[216:7 For many centuries after this period, the use of instrumental music was unknown in the Church.[217:1]


Notes from pp. 757-758.
[216:1] See Lightfoot’s “Temple Service,” ch. vii. Sec. 2; “Works,” ix. 56.
[216:2] Lightfoot’s “Prospect of the Temple,” ch. xxxiii.; “Works,” ix. 384.
[216:3] The multitudes who assembled at the great festivals in the temple could not well unite in one service. The wall of the building was more than half a mile in circumference. See Lightfoot, ix. 217. There were various courts and divisions in the building.
[216:4] Heb. ix. 9-12, x. 1; John ii. 19-21; 1 Pet. ii.5
[216:5] Vitringa, “De Synagoga,” p. 203
[216:6] Eph. v. 19 According to some, the Psalms were divided into these three classes.
[216:7] Heb. xiii. 15.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Schaff, Philip, A History of the Christian Church vol. 1 pgs. 455-470.

Would that be this section?

No. It would be this section:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.IX.51.html

-CH

 

[MW]

A building (the temple) was used in OT worship, so is it now forbidden for believers to gather in a building?

Let's be more specific. Temple = single centralised place of worship. No, the time has come when believers will not gather in a single centralised place of worship, but now gather in the true temple, the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Walker, WIlliston, A History of the Christian Church, pgs. 14-26.

Would that be this book?

Neither one has broached the subject of exclusive acapella singing in the synagogue.

No. My copy is edited and expanded.

What I wrote:

The Church never used the Temple worship service as a model for its worship. They used the synagogue style of worship.

The references I gave were in support of this point.

-CH

 

[panta dokimazete]

Schaff, Philip, A History of the Christian Church vol. 1 pgs. 455-470.

Would that be this section?

No. It would be this section:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.IX.51.html

-CH

Thank you, brother, but I still do not see acapella song treated.

I did see this:

The prayers and songs were chiefly taken from the Psalter, which may be called the first liturgy and hymn book.

...

The Lord himself inaugurated psalmody into the new covenant at the institution of the holy Supper,669669 Comp. Matt. 26:30; Mark 14: 26. and Paul expressly enjoined the singing of "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," as a means of social edification.670670 Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16. But to this precious inheritance from the past, whose full value was now for the first time understood in the light of the New Testament revelation, the church, in the enthusiasm of her first love, added original, specifically Christian psalms, hymns, doxologies, and benedictions, which afforded the richest material for Sacred poetry and music in succeeding centuries...

Good stuff, though, thank you.

 

[panta dokimazete]

No. My copy is edited and expanded.

What I wrote:

The Church never used the Temple worship service as a model for its worship. They used the synagogue style of worship.

The references I gave were in support of this point.

-CH

Ah, thank you - that brings me back to another question - since the synagogue was inaugurated to be an imperfect substitute for Temple worship, why would instrumental music have been prohibited?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

No. My copy is edited and expanded.

What I wrote:

The Church never used the Temple worship service as a model for its worship. They used the synagogue style of worship.

The references I gave were in support of this point.

-CH

Ah, thank you - that brings me back to another question - since the synagogue was inaugurated to be an imperfect substitute for Temple worship, why would instrumental music have been prohibited?

Hey:

That is a good question. I believe that it was because the Jews considered Instruments to be commanded for Temple worship only. Girardeau says something to that effect, but I do not possess his book on the subject.

-CH

 

[bookslover]

Post # 38 has both a Scriptural and an historical argument against musical instruments. Please read it and reply.

Well, first, I don't think that that particular context (the Numbers passage) has anything to do with worship. Calling the assembly to the tabernacle seems to mean, considering the immediate context, calling the Israelites to the tabernacle for preparing to journey, since the tabernacle represented a central, well-known location where the tribes (or just the leaders, in the same context) could meet.

Second, about making the two trumpets "whole": why does that mean they can't use the trumpets they brought from Egypt. I could be wrong, but I don't remember the Israelites bringing any instruments with them from there. It simply means that the trumpets are to be made "whole" or "complete."

As for the historical arguments: well, they're interesting from a historical point of view, as far as they go, but they're not convincing. We're supposed to make our judgments from the Scriptures, not from history.

I still say the connection is a simple one: musical instruments were used in the worship of God under the Old Covenant, and they can be used for His worship under the New Covenant.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Let's be more specific. Temple = single centralised place of worship. No, the time has come when believers will not gather in a single centralised place of worship, but now gather in the true temple, the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, a building is used in a specific way for OT worship, but we can use a building in another way under the new covenant. Ergo, musical instruments were used in a specific way for OT temple worship under the old covenant (for sacrifices), but they can now be used in another way (for edification) under the new covenant.

 

[AV1611]

Let's be more specific. Temple = single centralised place of worship. No, the time has come when believers will not gather in a single centralised place of worship, but now gather in the true temple, the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, a building is used in a specific way for OT worship, but we can use a building in another way under the new covenant. Ergo, musical instruments were used in a specific way for OT temple worship under the old covenant (for sacrifices), but they can now be used in another way (for edification) under the new covenant.

Dont forget that the Temple was a command and so was not a circumstance of worship in the OT

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dont forget that the Temple was a command and so was not a circumstance of worship in the OT

Two things:

[1] That still doesn't prove that instruments are banned from the New Covenant gathering.

AND

[2] Where is the distinction between "command" and "circumstance" taught explicitly in Scripture?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Girardeau says something to that effect, but I do not possess his book on the subject.

-CH

The Girardeau work is online; I gave the link above; also in the flurry of posts if you missed it, someone asked for historical references on Christian worship being patterned after the synagogue; I cited a work that cites two import sources, Lightfoot and Vitringa.

 

[JBaldwin]

Calvin:

I am not talking about exclusive psalmody. That you have changed the subject from Instruments to Psalmody illustrates your bias on this matter. However, you are mistaken. When Jesus and his disciples were said to sing a "hymn" at the Lord's Supper all commentators agree that they were singing from the Psalms - the Egyptian hallel to be precise. How do you know that the hymns mentioned by Grout were sung during worship and not at other times?

I apologize for bringing up the issue of EP, but you mentioned psalm singing in your post, and so I followed through with my thinking. I won't discuss it further in this thread.

As I mentioned in my last post, going back to Synagogue worship as our example of what to do in simply is not a good enough reason to say we absolutely cannot use instruments in worship, since I firmly believe that the New Testament scriptures in Ephesians, Colossians and James indicate that we can use instruments. I guess we will have to disagree on this point.

God's Blessings
JBaldwin

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

Chris:

I must have missed the link on Girardeau, but I did see the references to Lightfoot and Vitringa. I have never read either - are they online? If not, are they in print?

JBaldwin:

Nobody has ever interpreted the passages you cite in the way that you do. You have formed a "new theology" with your interpretation. I think that your bias is causing you to understand the passages in a way that is not consistent with the Scriptures.

Consider this: If you are right, then all of the godly men and women up to the mid-1800's are wrong. And I mean all of them - for the unified witness of the saints through all ages has been no instruments in New Testament worship.

I would urge you to lay aside your prejudice and prayerfully consider this before making a final decision on the matter (though it seems your mind is confirmed on it already). You are free to believe whatever you like, but you are not free to suffer the consequences of your beliefs.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob Wieland

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Rob,
Vitringa has never been translated fully, nor apparently faithfully, from the Latin (there's an English 'condensation'). As far as I know, Lightfoots works are not online; I think there are 10 volumes or thereabouts. Bingham, which Girardeau references, is in English and is a standard work. Several editions have made it so far on Google books.

Greetings:

Chris:

I must have missed the link on Girardeau, but I did see the references to Lightfoot and Vitringa. I have never read either - are they online? If not, are they in print?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Sorry, also, Girardeau is online here:
http://www.fpcr.org/girardeau/Chapter 5 - Girardeau on Instrumental Music.htm

 

[JBaldwin]

Nobody has ever interpreted the passages you cite in the way that you do. You have formed a "new theology" with your interpretation. I think that your bias is causing you to understand the passages in a way that is not consistent with the Scriptures.

Consider this: If you are right, then all of the godly men and women up to the mid-1800's are wrong. And I mean all of them - for the unified witness of the saints through all ages has been no instruments in New Testament worship.

Calvin,

I am sad that you choose such words as "nobody has ever" and "new theology". The fact is I didn't dream up these ideas completely on my own. I have read numerous books on the subject, and there are others out there who would agree with me at least as far as my definition of the word "psalmos" and Vines agrees with me that "psalmos" means "a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm." I did not dream up this definition out of my head.

The standard belief down through history (and I have been doing a lot of reading on the subject in the last few days) was this: In the early days, Augustine and other church fathers held the position that using instruments in worship was copying the pagans. In the days of the reformers, Luther and Calvin, much of what they had to say about instruments in worship had to do with the fact that they were opposing what was going on in the catholic church. Zwingli took it so far as to almost ban all singing in worship. They were trying to return to simple worship and that was understandable. I will not argue with history.

Were there no godly men from the mid-1800s until now? Are all those who hold to allowing musical instruments in worship now ungodly? What about all those in the reformed faith such as composers like Bach and Telemann who wrote music both vocal and instrumental for the worship of God in the Lutheran churches (and almost exclusively)? Were they ungodly? Who interpreted the scriptures for them and told them it was not wrong to use instruments in worship?

Perhaps you might be surprised to know that I have spent some years in churches that use no instrumentation and worshiped quite happily.

God's blessings,
JBaldwin

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Nobody has ever interpreted the passages you cite in the way that you do. You have formed a "new theology" with your interpretation. I think that your bias is causing you to understand the passages in a way that is not consistent with the Scriptures.

Consider this: If you are right, then all of the godly men and women up to the mid-1800's are wrong. And I mean all of them - for the unified witness of the saints through all ages has been no instruments in New Testament worship.

Calvin,

I am sad that you choose such words as "nobody has ever" and "new theology". The fact is I didn't dream up these ideas completely on my own. I have read numerous books on the subject, and there are others out there who would agree with me at least as far as my definition of the word "psalmos" and Vines agrees with me that "psalmos" means "a sacred song sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm." I did not dream up this definition out of my head.

The standard belief down through history (and I have been doing a lot of reading on the subject in the last few days) was this: In the early days, Augustine and other church fathers held the position that using instruments in worship was copying the pagans. In the days of the reformers, Luther and Calvin, much of what they had to say about instruments in worship had to do with the fact that they were opposing what was going on in the catholic church. Zwingli took it so far as to almost ban all singing in worship. They were trying to return to simple worship and that was understandable. I will not argue with history.

Were there no godly men from the mid-1800s until now? Are all those who hold to allowing musical instruments in worship now ungodly? What about all those in the reformed faith such as composers like Bach and Telemann who wrote music both vocal and instrumental for the worship of God in the Lutheran churches (and almost exclusively)? Were they ungodly? Who interpreted the scriptures for them and told them it was not wrong to use instruments in worship?

Perhaps you might be surprised to know that I have spent some years in churches that use no instrumentation and worshiped quite happily.

God's blessings,
JBaldwin

Hi JBaldwin:

I did not mean to make you sad, and I apologize if I offended. However, we are talking about Reformed Christianity. The Lutherans, Anglicans and Roman Catholics have a different understanding of what is worship.

The problem I see is that you are applying the definition of "psalms" in a way that has never been used before. If I even granted the way you interpret "psalms" as you derive it from Vine's Expository Dictionary, then it does not necessarily follow that how you interpret the passages of Ephesians and Colossians is correct. I think Pastor Winzer pointed this out to you: that you are taking a definition of a word, and then cramming back into the verse witiout considering the alternatives. For example:

Jesus says, "this is my body ... this is my blood"

If we defined the word "is" according to the Roman Catholics, then we must acknowledge that the Mass is correct. However, if the definition of the word "is" can be understood figuratively, then the Mass should be considered idolatrous. By cramming a literal definition of the word "is" in the passages the Roman Catholics are abusing the Scripture.

In the same manner: though the word "psalm" can be used in the fashion of a "song sung to a musical instrument," this definition does not fit with the way Psalms were used in the synagogue. It is correctly used when we are talking about Temple worship, but such is not in view in these passages. The cities of Ephesus and Corinth did not contain the Temple of Herod, but were synagogues. It would be unnatural and offensive for Paul to reccommned Temple worship in a synagogue. And, if he was doing so, then he would have been more perspicuous.

So, my conclusion was not meant to offend. However, it was intended to stir you up out of your prejudice, and consider whether or not that what you are doing is truly honoring to God. To "examine oneself" is the mark of a good Christian, 2 Cor. 13:5. To assume that everything and anything I do for God must necessarily be accepted by God is the pride of Cain, Gen. 4:3, 5-7.

If I am wrong on this matter, then I will repent in dust and ashes. Nevertheless, there is too much evidence - both Biblical and Historical - to make me think that Instruments are acceptable in NT worship. I used to think that Instruments were OK - until God interposed these same arguments through a good Christian brother - and convinced me otherwise.

My prayer is that it would be the same with you.

Blessings, sister!

-Rob Wieland

 

[JBaldwin]

Calvin,

Thank you for replying in such a kind way. I will continue to study this subject until I feel satisfied that I am either right or wrong. If the Lord shows me I am wrong, I will repent. I do respect and understand your views, and I trust that you will respect mine. These are not issues that will keep us out of the Kingdom. As the Lord reminded me so clearly this morning, we can be so obsessed with our petty little doctrines that they turn our eyes away from our Lord who is to be the focus of all our affection. When that happens, our doctrines have turned to idols. I would much rather focus my attention on the Lord.

 

[MW]

So, a building is used in a specific way for OT worship, but we can use a building in another way under the new covenant. Ergo, musical instruments were used in a specific way for OT temple worship under the old covenant (for sacrifices), but they can now be used in another way (for edification) under the new covenant.

In your syllogism you are compositing two things that are distinct -- building and temple. The building was circumstantial. The temple was the commanded element. The musical instrument was commanded element. Therefore the musical instrument is to be placed in the same category as the temple, not the building.

 

[JohnOwen007]

In your syllogism you are compositing two things that are distinct -- building and temple. The building was circumstantial. The temple was the commanded element. The musical instrument was commanded element. Therefore the musical instrument is to be placed in the same category as the temple, not the building.

Thanks for the reply Matthew. I remain unconvinced about the distinction between command and circumstance (mainly because I can't find this hermeneutical principle explicitly taught by Scripture itself). We could understand the data just as well this way:

The building used in specific way (the temple) was commanded. But we can use a building to help in edification today (because the elements can be unpredictable).

The musical instruments used in a specific way (in the sacrifices) were commanded. But we can use musical instruments today (because they can help with edification).

The NT principle for the gathering is edification, and that can be applied in many ways today as is fitting. That's precisely how Scripture leads in many other ways concerning issues it doesn't explicitly command. For example, the Bible doesn't explicitly command Hebrews to be in the canon. But beginning with the NT principle of apostolicity we can see it is canonical.

God bless you brother.

 

[MW]

The musical instruments used in a specific way (in the sacrifices) were commanded. But we can use musical instruments today (because they can help with edification).

Marty, how about this? Temple commanded; building circumstantial. Musical instruments commanded; melody circumstantial. Temple and musical instruments abolished under NT, but buildings and melodies to be ordered for the edification of the church. Blessings!

 

[JohnOwen007]

Marty, how about this? Temple commanded; building circumstantial. Musical instruments commanded; melody circumstantial. Temple and musical instruments abolished under NT, but buildings and melodies to be ordered for the edification of the church. Blessings!

To tell you the truth Matthew I'd love to agree! It would certainly make life much easier. However, I struggle with the command / circumstance distinction upon which it hangs. I can't find the Bible teaching this as a hermeneutical principle. Maybe one day the scales will fall from my eyes?!

 

[AV1611]

To tell you the truth Matthew I'd love to agree! It would certainly make life much easier. However, I struggle with the command / circumstance distinction upon which it hangs. I can't find the Bible teaching this as a hermeneutical principle. Maybe one day the scales will fall from my eyes?!

To help in said falling may I suggest this.