Thread: If We Should Not Use Instruments: Then Why Does 95% of the Church Use Them?

Good question, huh?

Panta?

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Good question, huh?

Why? because we should use them and their argument is found wanting

Originally Posted by Roldan

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Good question, huh?

Why? because we should use them and their argument is found wanting

That is profound

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Panta?

at work, but in brief - argumentum ad nostalgium

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by Roldan

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Good question, huh?

Why? because we should use them and their argument is found wanting

That is profound

I know I said "man I got to get real deep on this one" lol

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Good question, huh?

Because 95% of the church either does not know the case for unaccompanied psalms only or has not been presented with a case that is provably biblical.

Historical questions.
When did organs first appear in Presbyterian Churches in the North America?
When did organs first appear in old school / old light Presbyterian Churches in North America?
When did organs first appear in Dutch Reformed Churches in the North America?
When did organs first appear in German Reformed Churches in North America?
When did organs first appear in Congregationional hurches in New England?
When did organs first appear in Baptist [other then free will and missionary] Churches in the US?
When did organs first appear in Episcopal Churches in the US?
I suspect that the acceptance of organs is a post second great awakening phenomena. I wonder what the historical facts are.

Because 95% of the church either does not know the case for unaccompanied psalms only or has not been presented with a case that is provably biblical.

When that proof comes, we'll have to see what happens

Originally Posted by yeutter

Historical questions.

When did organs first appear in Congregationional Churches in New England?

I suspect that the acceptance of organs is a post second great awakening phenomena. I wonder what the historical facts are.

I know that Cotton Mather saw the organ coming into New England as a way for the Anglicans (no offense to you sir) to steal away the Puritan youth, much like the rock band in the church has stolen away many of today's youth from 'traditional' worshiping churches!

Here is the quote:

"Attempts to propagate the Church of England among us, by a most conspicuous and marvelous blast of heaven upon them, do very much come to nothing. Even the organs introduced into the chapel in this metropolis of the English America, signify very little to draw over our people unto them." -Cotton Mather, in a letter to John Stirling, 1714.

Originally Posted by TimV

Because 95% of the church either does not know the case for unaccompanied psalms only or has not been presented with a case that is provably biblical.

When that proof comes, we'll have to see what happens

I would say it's a lot more than 95%.

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by yeutter

Historical questions.

When did organs first appear in Congregationional Churches in New England?

I suspect that the acceptance of organs is a post second great awakening phenomena. I wonder what the historical facts are.

I know that Cotton Mather saw the organ coming into New England as a way for the Anglicans (no offense to you sir) to steal away the Puritan youth, much like the rock band in the church has stolen away many of today's youth from 'traditional' worshiping churches!

Here is the quote:

"Attempts to propagate the Church of England among us, by a most conspicuous and marvelous blast of heaven upon them, do very much come to nothing. Even the organs introduced into the chapel in this metropolis of the English America, signify very little to draw over our people unto them." -Cotton Mather, in a letter to John Stirling, 1714.

It is fascinating to hear that organs were in Anglican Churches in the Americas that early.
An early historian of the Episcopal Church in Maryland viewed organs and the singing of hymns as a Methodist or Lutheran infection.

How often in Israel's history did they have worship right? How often were we told that a King did what was right in the sight of the Lord, but the high places were not removed? How often were they removed? Not very many.

It seems we are not doing much better than OT Israel.

I will respond to this question as I would a new member to the PB!

or

Originally Posted by Davidius

I would say it's a lot more than 95%.

I bet it is a lot LESS if we included the Eastern churches as well as many of the African churches.

In the US and Europe it is probably 98-99%

African churches use drums...a lot

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

African churches use drums...a lot

As does Latino churches

Bottom line is Davidius came through again with his unusual insightfulness. The 95% figure is way too low; I should have thought of that myself. I don't believe I've ever seen or heard of any African church that didn't use instruments, after 9 years there, and there sure aren't many US churches that don't.

David Hume's naturalistic fallacy. Because something is the case, absolutely does not mean it ough to be the case. This is like me asking: "If we aren't supposed to murder babies, why do so many people have abortions?" The "is" and the "ought" are completely severed metaphysically. They have no hold on each other except that the "is" sometimes pursues the "ought."

Originally Posted by davidsuggs

David Hume's naturalistic fallacy. Because something is the case, absolutely does not mean it ough to be the case. This is like me asking: "If we aren't supposed to murder babies, why do so many people have abortions?" The "is" and the "ought" are completely severed metaphysically. They have no hold on each other except that the "is" sometimes pursues the "ought."

Sounds like you are arguing for the PCA to get back to roots of acapella worship?

Originally Posted by Davidius

I would say it's a lot more than 95%.

Yeah, I would say about 99%

Edit:
Yes, if you include the Eastern churches than the ratio probably changes. But still more than 90%

Originally Posted by yeutter

When did organs first appear in Baptist [other then free will and missionary] Churches in the US?

Good question, don't know. I'd suspect that the piano came before the organ, but that's not your question.

BTW, I highly don't that my church will ever have an organ. We do use a piano though.

The organ probably came first since the piano wasn't invented until the 1700s. There have been portable organs in existence since the middle ages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsuggs
David Hume's naturalistic fallacy. Because something is the case, absolutely does not mean it ough to be the case. This is like me asking: "If we aren't supposed to murder babies, why do so many people have abortions?" The "is" and the "ought" are completely severed metaphysically. They have no hold on each other except that the "is" sometimes pursues the "ought."

Sounds like you are arguing for the PCA to get back to roots of acapella worship?

I'm not arguing either way, I just get bugged by fallacious reasoning

I read on one website that "a magnificent organ was added in 1834" in the Baptist church in Providence, RI, being the church that Roger Williams started in the 1600's. That's all I've found so far.

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

The organ probably came first since the piano wasn't invented until the 1700s. There have been portable organs in existence since the middle ages.

Ah, yes, that makes sense.

And then there was Mozart!

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Good question, huh?

Thread title: If We Should Not Use Instruments: Then Why Does 95% of the Church Use Them?

If this is the justification for having musical instruments, then can we also conclude that Athanasius was wrong? Or to put another way, since when does consensus determine practice within Christian churches?

So, no, it is a bad question. Fallacious questions always are.

Actually, there was no fallacious reasoning in the OP.

To be fallacious, there must be an improper movement from premise to conclusion. There was no conclusion in the OP, only a question.

It's interesting to see how several people have jumped to their own conclusion, assuming that the OP is using an appeal to majority to assert that instruments are good.

In fact, if you clicked the link and read it, you would know the author is actually pointing people in the opposite direction.

The answer is: because 95% (or more) of the church is right.

Originally Posted by bookslover

The answer is: because 95% (or more) of the church is right.

Except for all of the Westminster Divines, of course, right?

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by bookslover

The answer is: because 95% (or more) of the church is right.

Except for all of the Westminster Divines, of course, right?

Where does the WS prohibit instruments?

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by bookslover

The answer is: because 95% (or more) of the church is right.

Except for all of the Westminster Divines, of course, right?

Where does the WS prohibit instruments?

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by bookslover

The answer is: because 95% (or more) of the church is right.

Except for all of the Westminster Divines, of course, right?

Where does the WS prohibit instruments?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/do-w...salmody-16682/

Majority doesn't mean correct but it does say something else. If 95% of the church uses instruments then there must be a legitimate argument out there for using them. Even though Arius was wrong, he was making an argument that at face value made a lot of sense (it would have had too, 95% of the church was convinced!). But alas, Arius did not have the BEST argument, because it didn't best account ALL the biblical data, unlike Athanasius' trinitarian argument which eventually won the day.

So the question that has to be asked is why RPW and EP is not really all that convincing to a majority of Christians, even reformed typed Christians.

Either RPW's argument is weak (Arius), or those who are making it aren't being heard (Athanasius). What do you guys think is the crux of the problem? Or is it just a rebel heart that prevents people from embracing RPW? But why would so many Christians have such a rebellious heart on such an important issue unless you want to say that only those who practice RPW are true Christians. But then you would be adding to the Gospel. So that brings it back to the start of this paragraph: Either RPW's argument is weak (Arius), or those who are making it aren't being heard (Athanasius). Which is it?

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

Actually, there was no fallacious reasoning in the OP.

To be fallacious, there must be an improper movement from premise to conclusion. There was no conclusion in the OP, only a question.

It's interesting to see how several people have jumped to their own conclusion, assuming that the OP is using an appeal to majority to assert that instruments are good.

In fact, if you clicked the link and read it, you would know the author is actually pointing people in the opposite direction.

"The Fallacy of Many Questions: On the Notions of Complexity, Loadedness and Unfair Entrapment in Interrogative Theory"

I was responding to the question not the linked site.

Originally Posted by tellville

Majority doesn't mean correct but it does say something else. If 95% of the church uses instruments then there must be a legitimate argument out there for using them.

This is an interesting comment. I am just going to take a step back from the specific subject of the OP and make an observation.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that people adopt a certain theological position by default. That is, they have never even heard that there is a debate on that particular issue.

So, if you go to a certain church and ask, why do you not use instruments (***EDIT: should read "why do you use instruments"***), you will not get this:

"Well, I have given this matter a great deal of thought. I have studied the continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT, I have studied the function of the Levitical priesthood and the regulative principle of worship, the early practices of the church, the Westminster Divines, Calvin, Girardeau, etc. And have come to the conclusion ________"

No, instead you will likely get a blank stare. They will also likely never have been taught the regulative principle of worship and how it is demonstrated from scripture.

I have recently sought to introduce a church elder and church piano player to the RPW. They were just never taught this, so I am trying to do it kindly and charitably, just as those who showed me this did for me when I first learned about reformed theology.

Originally Posted by Tim

Originally Posted by tellville

Majority doesn't mean correct but it does say something else. If 95% of the church uses instruments then there must be a legitimate argument out there for using them.

This is an interesting comment. I am just going to take a step back from the specific subject of the OP and make an observation.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that people adopt a certain theological position by default. That is, they have never even heard that there is a debate on that particular issue.

So, if you go to a certain church and ask, why do you not use instruments, you will not get this:

"Well, I have given this matter a great deal of thought. I have studied the continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT, I have studied the function of the Levitical priesthood and the regulative principle of worship, the early practices of the church, the Westminster Divines, Calvin, Girardeau, etc. And have come to the conclusion ________"

No, instead you will likely get a blank stare. They will also likely never have been taught the regulative principle of worship and how it is demonstrated from scripture.

I have recently sought to introduce a church elder and church piano player to the RPW. They were just never taught this, so I am trying to do it kindly and charitably, just as those who showed me this did for me when I first learned about reformed theology.

This is a good point in favour of "Athanasius" syndrome.

Personally, I think people have lumped together the snotty people who were against new worship songs as opposed to the classic hymns with the people who actually have a biblical argument to make with the RPW and EP.

The presumed scholar of the moment on the subject of Westminster and exclusive psalmody/musical instruments in worship is Nick Needham. He concedes the historical point that not just the Westminster Assembly, but Puritanism in general were opposed to instrumental music in worship. As far as his views on EP and some faults in his handling of musical instruments, see the forthcoming review by Matthew Winzer in The Confessional Presbyterian volume 4 (2008). I believe Matthew's work will challenge the presumption, and very much smashes Needham's conclusion that the Assembly allows for anything but psalms in the documents they produced.

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Except for all of the Westminster Divines, of course, right?

Where does the WS prohibit instruments?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/do-w...salmody-16682/

Originally Posted by Tim

Originally Posted by tellville

Majority doesn't mean correct but it does say something else. If 95% of the church uses instruments then there must be a legitimate argument out there for using them.

This is an interesting comment. I am just going to take a step back from the specific subject of the OP and make an observation.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that people adopt a certain theological position by default. That is, they have never even heard that there is a debate on that particular issue.

So, if you go to a certain church and ask, why do you not use instruments, you will not get this:

"Well, I have given this matter a great deal of thought. I have studied the continuity and discontinuity between the OT and the NT, I have studied the function of the Levitical priesthood and the regulative principle of worship, the early practices of the church, the Westminster Divines, Calvin, Girardeau, etc. And have come to the conclusion ________"

No, instead you will likely get a blank stare. They will also likely never have been taught the regulative principle of worship and how it is demonstrated from scripture.

I have recently sought to introduce a church elder and church piano player to the RPW. They were just never taught this, so I am trying to do it kindly and charitably, just as those who showed me this did for me when I first learned about reformed theology.