Still Chewing on EP/Acapella ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. My understanding of the RPW is that we only worship God in ways commanded by him (putting it simply). Therefore in reading the Psalms there are many positive commands to worship the Lord with singing and with instruments. I understand what anti-instrument people will say: "The instruments were used in the temple worship and are now abrogated". But my questions remains....the RPW looks for positive commands, which it seems we do have for instruments (e.g., Psalm 98). Further, it seems to me that there is not a single verse in ALL of the bible that states that instruments are abrogated or are now forbidden in worshipping the Lord. To be clear instruments should not become idols or a performance.

Grant, great questions. I'll answer this one first and then others if I have time. Not sure why I picked this one first. First, I'd challenge you to think about first - where does God command instruments to be used in His public worship? The first command is under the time of David (during temple worship only), you'll see it in the Chronicles. And this was to cover (grace) the noises and grusomeness of the sacrifices happening. The Psalms that bring about instruments dealing with public worship are all revolved around the temple and sacrifices. All those Psalms are pointing us to Christ, and really is Christ singing with us (as we sing them) [Another doctrine often missed in Psalm singing - union with Christ]. So I would say if there are no commands outside of the Psalms and the OT, then it is a fair implication that instruments were for temple worship and were fulfilled in Christ (and ended/abrogated). It's interesting to look further at the Synagogue worship (public worship) in Scripture - there is never a sliver of reference to instruments in Synagogue worship. Further, just historical until 1950 AD, instruments were not used in the Jewish Synagogue. That shows a bit of understanding post-Christ in the Jewish world. The same however goes for Christian worship, there is no mention of it NT-speaking after Christ's sacrifice on the cross in public worship. The only mention is the following:

Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

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

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

2. On the surface at least, it seems to me to be inconsistent to say "instruments are abrogated but all 150 Psalm lyrics should be sung and none of the lyrics are abrogated". I am not advocating for Psalm Singing to be abrogated, but rather trying to work out the logic.

3. If one takes the position of EP and sings Psalm 98, but forbids instruments, it seems this is a contradiction (with more than 1 of the Psalms).

Not at all brother. Because when we sing of the sacrifices, when we sing of the instruments, when we sing of the temple, in it all we are to be recalling all that is contained in those words (whole doctrine of Christ's love, grace, sacrifice, propitiation, mercy, etc). It isn't simply singing of the temple. It's singing of everything the temple foreshadows, all the temple points us to, all that we would never have if Christ didn't die for us on the cross. Why am I singing of David's righteousness? I'm singing because it's not David's, it's Christ's righteousness which I have in Christ. Same thing. Apply union with Christ to the Psalms. Christ' union with us and our union with Him.

I guess another way to look at it is, for example, when in Ruth, Boaz is the kinsman redeemer. You look to Christ there don't you? Of course, the Psalms are no different, yet sometimes we are tempted to apply different standards because it is the Psalms. The whole of Leviticus - is about Christ. The Psalms are no different.


Hope this gets you thinking more. :)
 
Last edited:
Regarding Psalm Singing, simply sharing something from another perspective to provide information to think on:


http://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplant...an_church_ga/lee-irons-exclusive-psalmody.pdf

I found it easy to read with some good points. Thanks for all your replies thus far. I have much to still work through.

Update: It would seem my speed bumps for Acapella Only have been removed, except my terrible sounding voice of course (jk). So I MAY be leaning toward the AO position. Still praying through this. My personality type wants to make a quick conclusion, but I hope to continue to patiently study and land smoothly somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Grant, a helpful thing to me was to realize that David, like Moses, was careful to furnish the worship of God exactly according to the pattern given by God. 2 Chronicles 29:25-30 says that all [i.e. the furnishing out of the singers and instruments, and other Levitical roles in worship) was done "according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the command of the Lord by his prophets.” So David didn’t appoint one musical instrument of his own volition; just as Moses didn’t design one aspect of the Tabernacle according to his own volition. Each musical instrument, and its place in worship, was prescribed by God through his prophets.
 
that the voice does not now take up what instruments did then by proxy
This worship-by-proxy line of reasoning is fascinating and could be potentially precious to those of us who would have been pushed to the outer courts of the temple but who have now been brought near through the work of Christ.
 
@Grant Jones Another question:

Do you think instruments are positively commanded? The references you have given to Old Testament passages (such as Psalm 98: "Sing unto the Lord with the harp...") would seem to indicate that musical instruments are required. In that case, it would be sinful to absent musical instruments from worship. Consider carefully the logical consequences of your views.

So, are you agreeing with what I wrote above (post #22)? Sounds like it.
 
So, are you agreeing with what I wrote above (post #22)? Sounds like it.

Quite the contrary. I was making the point that either musical instruments have been done away with or they are still required. Whichever way you look at it, there does not seem to be a middle ground (consistently, at least) where musical instruments are merely optional. I said to consider logical implications of saying that the psalms require musical instruments.
 
This is a good question. And further if I would allow instruments does that mean i must also allow dance (honest reflection)?
No, because dance was not part of Temple worship, but instruments were. Different categories. I believe "dance" is a poetic and allegorical way to describe the joy we have at worshipping God.
 
However, when it comes to instruments, there is literally, silence
There are both harps and trumpets spoken of in Revelation, being used in God's worship. Not saying these are commands for the NT church to use them on earth, but I think it bears consideration.
My question would run thus: Is it wrong after Christ to use instruments in His worship?
If so, what changes that God gives them His own harps ("The harps of God") when they get to glory?
It would make no sense to bring back the things abrogated: sacrifices, sprinklings, etc. But instruments are brought back (if they were ever abrogated at all)
 
This is true; at least if you hold to the regulative principle of worship. If you argue use of instruments from prescription (which includes appealing to approved example), they are not optional. Where exactly in scripture are they said to be optional? You must hand instruments out as folks walk into the service and let folks do the best they know how just as with their singing. Of course we don't see any mention of that in the NT and the church. And it is not like folks could not hand make at least rustic instruments of some sort. And even if they did have such instruments there is no record of such use and it is not until monarchs for bragging rights paid for the new invention the pipe organ starting and spreading slowly in c900 I think, that anything other than the voice was heard in Christian worship.
Quite the contrary. I was making the point that either musical instruments have been done away with or they are still required. Whichever way you look at it, there does not seem to be a middle ground (consistently, at least) where musical instruments are merely optional. I said to consider logical implications of saying that the psalms require musical instruments.
 
There are both harps and trumpets spoken of in Revelation, being used in God's worship. Not saying these are commands for the NT church to use them on earth, but I think it bears consideration.
My question would run thus: Is it wrong after Christ to use instruments in His worship?
If so, what changes that God gives them His own harps ("The harps of God") when they get to glory?
It would make no sense to bring back the things abrogated: sacrifices, sprinklings, etc. But instruments are brought back (if they were ever abrogated at all)

This is a good question, brother. I think you already hint on the resolution of the difficulty: the book of Revelation is not exactly a place where Christ expects us to receive those things which are prescriptive in worship.

Besides, the temple, the incense, the bowls, etc. all return in Revelation as well. It is a highly symbolic book in many ways; showing pattern and fulfillment. If anything, the presence of instruments in connection with temple, incense, bowls, lampstands, etc., are suggestive that the Acapella position is correct.
 
Last edited:
Also, I just wanted to mention for our Baptist brethren: the acapella position is not only held by Presbyterians. It was also held by Baptists such as Spurgeon. If you open up the Treasury of David, to Spurgeon's commentary on Psalm 42:4 you will read:

"What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettinesses of a quartette, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it."
C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 27-57, vol. 2 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 272.

Also, you may wish to investigate the following work by John Price (Baptist minister in New York): Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical, and Psychological Study, Simpson Publishing Company, 2005.

From p.119, Price states: "Thus they [the Puritans] interpreted the harps in the book of Revelation figuratively as being the human heart filled with the Holy Spirit".

Hope that is helpful as places to look at Baptist commentary. Neither men are Exclusive Psalmody, but they are advocates of acapella singing in worship.
 
Also, I just wanted to mention for our Baptist brethren: the acapella position is not only held by Presbyterians. It was also held by Baptists such as Spurgeon...

And dont forget Benjamin Keach 1640-1704 who wrote a treatise on psalmody.

"The breach repaired in God's worship, or, Singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, proved to be an holy ordinance of Jesus Christ with an answer to all objections : as also, an examination of Mr. Isaac Marlow's two papers, one called, A discourse against singing, &c., the other, An appendix : wherein his arguments and cavils are detected and refuted by Benjamin Keach ..."
 
Quite the contrary. I was making the point that either musical instruments have been done away with or they are still required. Whichever way you look at it, there does not seem to be a middle ground (consistently, at least) where musical instruments are merely optional. I said to consider logical implications of saying that the psalms require musical instruments.

Well, the logical implication of saying that the psalms require musical instruments is that the psalms require musical instruments. Believers sang with instruments in the Old Testament, and there are no prohibitions against instruments in the New Testament, so there's your logical implication.

By the way, while I was typing this answer, the power went out in my house (and others on my block, I assume)! Came back on immediately - and it's not even storming outside!
 
Without arguing for or against instrumentation, I find the argument "if one uses an instrument then all must" to be specious. The scriptures make plenty of differentiation within the church, such as the hand/foot analogy in 1 Cor. 12, the care Paul uses to write Timothy about roles in the body, and the NT specification of offices: he gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists ....
 
I hardly think it is specious. May some not sing and let some with that gift do it for us? We are talking about elements of worship and the regulative principle when we use scripture to prescribe a practice. Those scriptures talking of instruments don't limit it to someone with that gift. If the argument is instruments are a circumstance (like to aid the singing) maybe we can bring in the different gifts of the body for that.
Without arguing for or against instrumentation, I find the argument "if one uses an instrument then all must" to be specious. The scriptures make plenty of differentiation within the church, such as the hand/foot analogy in 1 Cor. 12, the care Paul uses to write Timothy about roles in the body, and the NT specification of offices: he gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists ....
 
This is a good question, brother. I think you already hint on the resolution of the difficulty: the book of Revelation is not exactly a place where Christ expects us to receive those things which are prescriptive in worship.

Besides, the temple, the incense, the bowls, etc. all return in Revelation as well. It is a highly symbolic book in many ways; showing pattern and fulfillment. If anything, the presence of instruments in connection with temple, incense, bowls, lampstands, etc., are suggestive that the Acapella position is correct.
I remain unconvinced, but thanks for your thoughts.
For me, it boils down to whether instruments are an element or circumstance. If they were elemental, we would be required to use them. But I think they are a circumstance, to be used or not used according to prudence. Sadly, they are often misused, which is what I believe Spurgeon was speaking against: being used as if the playing were the worship. Which it isn't.
I would most gladly go acappella in our church, if everyone would put forth the effort to sing well--I find the piano a distraction at times, and unnecessary. But I can't affirm that a piano (or other suitable accompaniment) is wrong.
 
I remain unconvinced, but thanks for your thoughts.
For me, it boils down to whether instruments are an element or circumstance. If they were elemental, we would be required to use them. But I think they are a circumstance, to be used or not used according to prudence. Sadly, they are often misused, which is what I believe Spurgeon was speaking against: being used as if the playing were the worship. Which it isn't.
I would most gladly go acappella in our church, if everyone would put forth the effort to sing well--I find the piano a distraction at times, and unnecessary. But I can't affirm that a piano (or other [you]suitable [/you]accompaniment) is wrong.
Thanks Ben your distinction helps me think through this.
 
I remain unconvinced, but thanks for your thoughts.
For me, it boils down to whether instruments are an element or circumstance. If they were elemental, we would be required to use them. But I think they are a circumstance, to be used or not used according to prudence. Sadly, they are often misused, which is what I believe Spurgeon was speaking against: being used as if the playing were the worship. Which it isn't.
I would most gladly go acappella in our church, if everyone would put forth the effort to sing well--I find the piano a distraction at times, and unnecessary. But I can't affirm that a piano (or other [you]suitable [/you]accompaniment) is wrong.

https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017/10/16/is-instrumental-music-a-circumstance-of-worship/
 
Well, the logical implication of saying that the psalms require musical instruments is that the psalms require musical instruments. Believers sang with instruments in the Old Testament, and there are no prohibitions against instruments in the New Testament, so there's your logical implication.

You seem to have missed my point.
 
But I can't affirm that a piano (or other [you]suitable [/you]accompaniment) is wrong.

The trouble with this is that it's arbitrary. Who determines what is suitable? A piano to you might be suitable, but others will demand an orchestra. Generally speaking, once musical instruments are allowed, the sheep come to depend on them. It's a tragedy, really.
 
Sadly, [musical instruments] are often misused, which is what I believe Spurgeon was speaking against: being used as if the playing were the worship.

Spurgeon believed instruments to belong to Old Testament worship, although he appears not to have gone so far as to say that they are unlawful today.
 
On the aid the singing argument. One problem from the Presbyterian historical perspective at least is that they were not introduced to aid the singing, but for all the wrong reasons folks innovate today, the rich folks wanted it, to put folks in seats, it was the latest "thing" etc. Or in the PCUS historical case to keep folks from running off to the Episcopal church down the street that had an organ (to cite Dabney's comment on the subject). There was no high ground from the get go for them. And it is also true that despite the claim it is only used to aid the singing, I've never seen that, though some claim it. There is all the mood music and of course the clapping and amens if the folks like the performance a lot. We have a basic piano in the am worship service, and a strong song leader. In the PM we just have the song leader and we do better I think. At least no worse unless hearing each other is not the goal. The piano in our case at least or something similar simply does not seem necessary. And we did fine since the Reformation until the late 19th century without them.

The trouble with this is that it's arbitrary. Who determines what is suitable? A piano to you might be suitable, but others will demand an orchestra. Generally speaking, once musical instruments are allowed, the sheep come to depend on them. It's a tragedy, really.
 
Last edited:
The trouble with this is that it's arbitrary. Who determines what is suitable? A piano to you might be suitable, but others will demand an orchestra. Generally speaking, once musical instruments are allowed, the sheep come to depend on them. It's a tragedy, really.

And, importantly, which many often miss, when worship by proxy is installed, and the door is open on instruments, then, well, its open. One cannot have a piano and tell someone else that an electric guitar or a brass orchestra is somehow "unsuitable". Either instruments are in, or they are not. At that point, its not the RPW dictating suitableness, but personal taste of the congregation and the abity to play an instument. Dont tell 18 year old Mike that his heavy metal band can't play in worship, or 38 year old Bob, that his jazz ensemble is out. And will women be in there helping lead worship by music while playing an instrument on the worship team? The argument for "just a piano" because its "most suitable" is the height of hypocrisy.

Not to mention it was the Roman Pontiff Vitalian who first introduced the organ in the 8th century.

What did the church for 750 years before the pope introduced musical instruments into worship? They must have had worship wrong! :think:
 
One problem from the Presbyterian historical perspective at least is that they were not introduced to aid the singing ...
Now here's a point where we may agree, brother! The historic use of a limited number of settings by metre and tunes designed for congressional singing are what we need to aid singing in the church!
 
What about the positive commands to use specific instruments in worship? Do we dare not to use harps if we think it is correct to use instruments? I dare say there is no answer to these questions other than the obvious answer to not use the elements God commanded in the OT.
 
The trouble with this is that it's arbitrary. Who determines what is suitable? A piano to you might be suitable, but others will demand an orchestra. Generally speaking, once musical instruments are allowed, the sheep come to depend on them. It's a tragedy, really.
And that is the difficulty which would make it so nice if I could jump onto the acapella bandwagon (grin). If all instruments were unlawful, the electric guitar VS piano debate would be irrelevant. Even so, admitting instruments as circumstance does not mean that we abandon all reason and elevate the circumstance above the element it serves. Surely that is hard to parse, but worth it I think, since the same can apply to any circumstance (should we only worship standing up? lying down? kneeling? May we use electric lights, microphones, heaters?), and all circumstances require careful and judicious use.
 
"To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery," says Calvin, "unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures, but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving."[1] He says again: "With respect to the tabret, harp, and psaltery, we have formerly observed, and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark, that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments until the coming of Christ. But now, when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time."[2] He further observes: "We are to remember that the worship of God was never understood to consist in such outward services, which were only necessary to help forward a people as yet weak and rude in knowledge in the spiritual worship of God. A difference is to be observed in this respect between his people under the Old and under the New Testament; for now that Christ has appeared, and the church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the gospel should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation. From this it appears that the Papists, as I shall have occasion to show elsewhere, in employing instrumental music cannot be said so much to imitate the practice of God's ancient people as to ape it in a senseless and absurd manner, exhibiting a silly delight in that worship of the Old Testament which was figurative and terminated with the gospel."[3]

1. On Ps. lxxi. 22.
2. On Ps. lxxxi. 3.
3. On Ps. xcii. 1.

The organ was characterized as the “Devil’s Bagpipe,” the “Pope’s Bagpipe,” the “Devil’s Trumpet,” and a “Seducer to the Worship of the Roman Anti-Christ.”
 
And, importantly, which many often miss, when worship by proxy is installed, and the door is open on instruments, then, well, its open. One cannot have a piano and tell someone else that an electric guitar or a brass orchestra is somehow "unsuitable". Either instruments are in, or they are not. At that point, its not the RPW dictating suitableness, but personal taste of the congregation and the abity to play an instument. Dont tell 18 year old Mike that his heavy metal band can't play in worship, or 38 year old Bob, that his jazz ensemble is out. And will women be in there helping lead worship by music while playing an instrument on the worship team? The argument for "just a piano" because its "most suitable" is the height of hypocrisy.

Right. The "contemporary vs. traditional" debate misses the point completely.

I have asked some of those who favour instruments if they would allow jazz or hip-hop worship and they are forced by consistency to say they would.

The same principle applies to songs not from the psalter. Once man-made songs are permitted, anything can come in. Hence Hillsong and Jesus Culture's entry into otherwise non-charismatic churches. I ask people whether it's appropriate to sing a song by a heretic (there are a fair few around these days) and I find most say yes. It just has to mean something to the one singing, they say. (Never mind what God might have to say!) It's a peculiar, and popular, sort of relativism. It also basically individualistic, but that gets into another big topic.

The same people find worship without instruments "dry" or "boring" or "dead". They can't bear to hear the saints sing without accompaniment.

All this is to the detriment of the church. The theology of worship is of the utmost importance.
 
I'm sorry if I did. What is your point?

If the statements in the psalms concerning instruments are taken to mean that musical instruments in worship are commanded, then it follows that any worship without musical instruments is improper.

Of course I doubt that anyone would go that far, but the logical conclusion should cause one to reconsider those statements in the psalms.

The point is that, for the sake of logical consistency, there can be no middle ground, no optional accompaniment. Either the words in the psalms are binding, requiring musical instruments in the assembly, or they can be taken in another sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top