Thread: Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Where is your scriptural proof for this? Excepting John's visions of angles in heaven in Revelation and descriptions of Temple worship the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all.

"...the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all." Exactly - including no statements whatsoever banning them from worship.

I believe that instruments are part of the "indifferent matters" of the Bible. The burden of the New Testament is to promulgate and explain the gospel; this being so, the NT has no interest in pronouncing on the subject of musical instruments. What's probable is that there is an assumption among the NT writers that, since instruments were used in the OT, they are to be used in the NT, too.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Where is your scriptural proof for this? Excepting John's visions of angles in heaven in Revelation and descriptions of Temple worship the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all.

"...the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all." Exactly - including no statements whatsoever banning them from worship.

I believe that instruments are part of the "indifferent matters" of the Bible. The burden of the New Testament is to promulgate and explain the gospel; this being so, the NT has no interest in pronouncing on the subject of musical instruments. What's probable is that there is an assumption among the NT writers that, since instruments were used in the OT, they are to be used in the NT, too.

Hi:

Musical Instruments were a matter of the Temple Worship. The Temple and its worship service was overthrown and destroyed at 70 AD. Thus, musical instruments were no longer used in the Church for the next 1500 years because they pertain to the infancy of the Church found in the OT Temple worship.

The use of instruments today does not effect Spiritual worship, but is carnal and edifying only to the flesh.

Blessings,

-CH

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Where is your scriptural proof for this? Excepting John's visions of angles in heaven in Revelation and descriptions of Temple worship the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all.

"...the New Testament does not speak once as to Musical Instruments in worship at all." Exactly - including no statements whatsoever banning them from worship.

I believe that instruments are part of the "indifferent matters" of the Bible. The burden of the New Testament is to promulgate and explain the gospel; this being so, the NT has no interest in pronouncing on the subject of musical instruments. What's probable is that there is an assumption among the NT writers that, since instruments were used in the OT, they are to be used in the NT, too.

Why would they assume that if they were not used in the synagogue worship to which they were accustomed? In the context of corporate worship instruments were not used outside of the temple. As a reminder according to the RPW we need positive direction to do something in Christian worship. Is their a positive statement concerning instruments in the New Testament?

QUOTE=armourbearer;451298]

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I am not making David a private muse when I say that some psalms predate his setting up regular sung worship. David was a musician for years before he was king and for part of the time he was a court musician. The duties of a court musician usually include composition. Finally David was anointed by the Holy Spirit before entering Saul's service. So it is entirely possible for him to have composed Holy Spirit inspired psalms before he entered his kingship.

Exegesis is not concerned with "possibilities," but with what can be ascertained from the text of Scripture. While David possibly composed songs as a court musician, there is no evidence that the canonical Psalms were composed for private use. To the contrary, the canonical Psalms show that David wrote as a representative man, as Hengstenberg established in the 19th century. [/QUOTE]

I had hoped to cease this discussion: but your post demands comment.

Exegesis is indeed what can be ascertained from Scripture.

One simply cannot establish from the Scripture when all the psalms were composed, or the purpose for which they were composed. You give neither sources or citations for Hengstenberg’s assertion so how can it be judged biblical or not? This is the third time I have asked "ad fontes" in this thread.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

The phrase "of X" in the psalm superscriptions is usually held to refer to the author since Ps 18 is explicitly attributed to David in 1 Samuel. Ps 90 is a is identified as a prayer written by Moses. Some psalms superscriptions specifically identify historical events e.g., Ps 18 was definitely written after David's deliverance from Saul and perhaps after other enemies later as its placing in 1 Sam suggests. But there is no doubt that Ps 34, referring to David feigning madness before a Philistine king, may well have been written as early as before Saul's death. The superscription lacks "For the director of music" which when appearing in front of such psalms as Ps. 52 and 54, implies that they were written after David had put such an individual in place, whether in his court in Hebron or in later Jerusalem we know not.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Ps. 90 does not say the prayer was written by Moses, but only presents itself as a prayer of Moses.

I don't think you really want to deploy this double edged sword. If you take away the argument that “of Moses” refers to the author of the psalm, how will you reply to anyone who wishes to take away the Davidic authorship of "of David" psalms not specifically attributed to him in the NT?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

These experiences of David were Messianic; he suffered as the anointed of God; and Psalms 34, 52, and 54 are orientated towards corporate appropriation. 34:3, "O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together." Verse 8, 9, "O taste and see that the Lord is good ... O fear the Lord, ye his saints." Verse 11, "Come, ye children." 52:title, "To the chief musician." Verse 9, "for it is good before thy saints." 54:title, "to the chief musician." There is no reason for supposing any psalm was composed for private use.

I never said any psalm including 34 was not composed for a didactic purpose and I don't say that now. What I do say is that we don't know when Ps 34 was composed and that is no evidence in the Scripture to place it any later than before Saul's death. David may have composed it for his raiding band's edification. We just don't know and we cannot deploy arguments that rely on a foundation of ignorance.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

[The reconstruction of the text is by definition a higher critical enterprise. Your fanciful suggestion depends on the presupposition that Jeremiah intended to write chronologically; but the suggestion of conservative scholars that the prophecies might be grouped by "theme" is perfectly acceptable. At any rate, even if you could prove transposition in the case of Jeremiah, there is no evidence for foisting this on the book of Psalms.

I am fully aware that Jeremiah is not presented chronologically, but the sequence from chapter 37-44 is chronological and out of sequence with the events of chs. 36 and 45 which preced and follow it. Ch 45 took place at the same time as ch 36 and is linked to specific events of that chapter for Baruch had made his complaint at that time. Now, whether Jeremiah put the message to Baruch away from its chronological location or whether somebody else did, that displacement is an editorial function (and I never claimed that Jeremiah was not the final editor). Consequently, my point still stands: the order in which materials appear in the OT cannot be presumed to be chronological. This is especially true in the Psalms where we know that the psalms were written by different authors and the authors are not identified such as the sequence from Ps 91-100. Since we don't know who the authors of these psalms were, what their dates were, and when they were composed, ANY theological rationale based on suppositions about their chronology is simply unprovable.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

[Marvin Tate has nothing to gain from this debate, but he comments (Word series), "in brief, Pss. 96-99 can be treated as a literary unity, divided into two psalm-pairs." The superscription at Ps. 98 only serves to mark off one pair from another, and is not imposing enough to create a distinct literary unit. Howard (Structure) has noted that Pss. 98 and 99 have thirteen words in common and clear thematic links. Pss. 96 and 97 also have numerous verbal and thematic links. Taken in conjunction it is clear that the two pairs are designed to parallel one another. Your atomistic interpretation is contrary to all evidence; so you are effectively left without any examples for your view of musical worship.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that just because an authority figure states a hypothesis, that hypothesis is necessarily true and need not be tested. The fact that two documents have words in common and clear thematic links is not enough to prove that they were written together. By that argument Ps. 45 was written at the same time, and for the same purpose, as the Song of Songs. Now it may have been so written, but we cannot prove it must have been so written, for if such similarities always proved the union of purpose and date between documents, we could prove the LXX version of Ps. 23 and John 10:1-18 were written at the same time something we know is not the case.

And finally you have never addressed the problem Ps 150:1 c presents for your view. That clause commands praise everywhere under heaven unless you want to postulate that the angels breathe air.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

[What Hebrew divisions? There are none.

Which is exactly what I said:

[quote=timmopussycat;451024]there is no evidence that the original editor or editors of Psalms divided originally united material into separate psalms. Lacking such evidence, we can assume that the original Hebrew divisions were correct./quote]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

"Psalm 1," "Psalm 2," "Psalm 3," etc., do not exist as headings in the Hebrew. One only has to note the structural affinity of Pss. 7-9, and the broken acrostic of Pss. 9 and 10 to see that larger literary units exist within the book of Psalms. These literary units prove that the book of Psalms was not intended to be read as a disparate collection of poems.

I never denied that the Psalm numbers we have do not exist in the Heb bible nor did I ever deny that some of we now know as separate psalms were originally united in the Heb. These are points of which I am well aware. All I asserted is that some psalms are marked off by superscriptions including Ps. 98.

[quote=armourbearer;451298}The New Testament receives the book of Psalms as prophetic. One ignores the New Testament evidence at his own peril. [/QUOTE]

While the NT receives the book as prophetic, the NT nowhere tells us it receives the book as exclusively prophetic in function. More importantly for our discussion, it does not tell us in what specific ways Ps. 98 is either prophetic or exhortal. If the book is exclusively prophetic, shall we therefore say that its author intended a historically accurate testimony such as Ps 126's testimony to the awstruck state of the Jew's minds on seeing how the Lord had restored Jerusalem and the historicity of their enemies reaction? You will properly say no. But accepting the historical accuracy of these statements leaves you open to considering the historical contexts and authorial intent of other non-prophetic statements.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The canonical approach is well established, and a far safer method of interpretation than the old form critical method which atomised books of Scripture and speculated about the text's pre-history.

Unfortunately what the text of Psalms tell us is not what you think they tell us. The psalms tell us when some, but not all of them, were composed and many do not tell us the specific purpose for which the author composed them. While the NT does call some psalms prophetic it never denies that the psalms had exhortal purposes as well. Finally even if one concedes your point the psalms are exclusively prophetic, Ps. 98 will therefore prophetically command the nations to worship with accompanied praise, which unless you can refute other aspects of the argument, establishes my position rather than yours.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

As already noted, your objection would pertain as equally to progressive revelation; the command to worship is merely a subset of revelation, and is therefore as progressive as the revelation itself; your objection is simply ridiculous.

It would be helpful if you referenced the point to which you are replying. Because you do not do that here, I don't know what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Your argument depends solely on your dislike of the principle announced in Deut. 12:32.

May I ask why you are descending to ad hominem arguments? I do not do anything that the Lord has not commanded. What is at issue here is two different understandings of what exactly is commanded.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The author of Hebrews 8-10 is of the opinion that the temple worship is obsolete because it belonged to the old covenant. I will listen to HIM, and suggest you ought to do the same.

And why are you descending to straw man arguments. I have repeatedly affirmed with Hebrews that the temple and its sacrifices are obsolete. But the writer to the Hebrews says not one word about how the praise ordinances relate to those sacrifices. Does abandoning the temple and the sacrifices mean we no longer praise God? No.

Not all practices mentioned in the Scriptures are ipso facto acceptable. It is clear that Hebrews is corrective. It teaches something "better" in Christ.

Indeed it does. But while it teaches that we have a better covenant, a better high priest, a better sacrifice, a better holy place and a better covenant, it never teaches a word about worship practices.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

After being entertained with the fancies of the higher critical rationalism, we are now treated to the superstition of high-church ritualism. Communion is not a sacrifice, but a commemoration of a sacrifice.

And I believe I so identified communion as "he remembrance of Christ's sacrifice" in an earlier post. It is fine to disagree with an opponent, provided you state his position correctly but you make yourself look at least unwise if you fail to do so.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The very first commemoration of our Lord's one only sacrifice was instituted by the Lord Himself after the Passover. At this commemoration He and His disciples sang an hymn, with no mention of accompaniment.

Granted, but your point would only be valid if the disciples were musicians and who said they were? Paul's general command against a background of accompanied praise leaves room for accompaniment but does not prescribe it.
[quote=armourbearer;451298]Occasional commands are not treated by the Assembly because they are no part of the reformed faith. For the divines' view one need only read Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici to see what constitutes a warrant for offering anything to God in worship. [QUOTE]

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Did the Assembly err by not treating occasional commands and by not including the praise commands within that category? Arguably it did. And while I know the burden of proving that assertion on this board is on me, outside this board...

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Be that as it may, you are presently arguing against the Confession on a confessional board after you have promised to abide by board rules. Please do your Christian duty and keep your word.

Sorry, my confession is the LBC. Although the writers of that confession may have practiced unaccompanied psalms only, they did not mandate that view, or your understanding of the RPW as confessional. Since they did not so mandate, I am within the board rules that those who seek to “… modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confession i.e. the WCF will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.” I have stated the thesis, supplied the proof and shown that you have provided insufficient rebuttals, all within the parameters of the fellowship of this board.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

You are dodging the question. Both of us depend on the positive institution of the NT to make sung praise a regular part of worship. I have shown that Paul's general statement instituting sung praise referred back to contexts in which both accompanied and unaccompanied praise were used and that the context in which accompanied praise was used continues although modified in the NT. Consequently it is eisegesis to read his general statement instituting sung praise in a way that necessarily excludes accompaniment from Christian praise.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

If one depends on a NT institution to prove what is acceptable in NT worship, then an OT association is irrelevant. Besides, it has been proven that the mechanical instruments were not merely accompaniments to the praise but were themselves an act of worship commanded by God to accompany the sacrifices.

Ps 98 disproves your contention. Here is a psalm clearly addressed to Gentiles telling them to worship with accompanied sung praise without telling them to worship at the Jerusalem sacrifices.

[QUOTE=armourbearer;451298Further, the reality is that the apostle does not exclude accompaniment from his instruction because he specifically says the singer is to make melody in his heart. Therefore, as far as the NT is concerned, heart melody suffices as accompaniment to singing psalms without the use of mechanical instruments.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, the consequence does not follow, for making melody in the heart does not necessarily prohibit forms of outward expression for Paul says “singing to one another.”
Paul’s comment is a general statement covering all forms of Christian get-togthers; it is not a specific ordering of worship services and as I have previously shown, given the background of ongoing Christian temple attendance at the time Paul wrote together with the remembrance of Christ’s death at communion, it cannot be stretched to prohibit accompaniment to praise by necessary consequence.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

One simply cannot establish from the Scripture when all the psalms were composed, or the purpose for which they were composed. You give neither sources or citations for Hengstenberg’s assertion so how can it be judged biblical or not? This is the third time I have asked "ad fontes" in this thread.

My apologies; I was assuming a knowledge of Psalms studies given the dogmatic way you present your case. Hengstenberg (Works, 7:vi.): "All the Psalms are songs of Israel, as David describes his Psalms in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. This implies the whole religious community to have been respected in them. They all not only bore a religious character, but were also appointed to be used in the services of the sanctuary, for which nothing can be proper, but what the individual sings as the organ of the church. The individual comes here into account only in so far as he presents a general aspect."

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I don't think you really want to deploy this double edged sword. If you take away the argument that “of Moses” refers to the author of the psalm, how will you reply to anyone who wishes to take away the Davidic authorship of "of David" psalms not specifically attributed to him in the NT?

I simply accept the NT testimony that these are the Psalms of David. Those who have studied the superscriptions know that the "lamed" prefix can't refer to authorship in each and every case. Psalm 72 is clearly "for" Solomon because the subscription at verse 20 ascribes this literary unit to David.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I never said any psalm including 34 was not composed for a didactic purpose and I don't say that now. What I do say is that we don't know when Ps 34 was composed and that is no evidence in the Scripture to place it any later than before Saul's death. David may have composed it for his raiding band's edification. We just don't know and we cannot deploy arguments that rely on a foundation of ignorance.

That's correct; you just don't know. Your form critical approach is all conjecture. So let's work with what we do know. Scripture specifically states that these are the psalms of Israel; this has been established over and again, with nothing to gainsay it. Therefore we are justified on the basis of explicit scriptural testimony to interpret the psalms in the context of Israel's worship, and have no reason for understaning them any other way.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Consequently, my point still stands: the order in which materials appear in the OT cannot be presumed to be chronological. This is especially true in the Psalms where we know that the psalms were written by different authors and the authors are not identified such as the sequence from Ps 91-100. Since we don't know who the authors of these psalms were, what their dates were, and when they were composed, ANY theological rationale based on suppositions about their chronology is simply unprovable.

The Jeremiah example is still mere speculation. The Psalms are received according to their canonical form. In the absence of any other evidence we have no basis to depart from the order in which the text has come down to us.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

You seem to be operating on the assumption that just because an authority figure states a hypothesis, that hypothesis is necessarily true and need not be tested. The fact that two documents have words in common and clear thematic links is not enough to prove that they were written together. By that argument Ps. 45 was written at the same time, and for the same purpose, as the Song of Songs. Now it may have been so written, but we cannot prove it must have been so written, for if such similarities always proved the union of purpose and date between documents, we could prove the LXX version of Ps. 23 and John 10:1-18 were written at the same time something we know is not the case.

No, I don't work on any such "ad verecundiam" assumption. I cited a couple of scholars who have done much research on the subject, and who cannot be claimed to be biased one way or the other. I provided you with facts concerning the verbal and thematic links between these psalms as noted by these scholars. The compositional unity of the psalter is a well-established discipline.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

And finally you have never addressed the problem Ps 150:1 c presents for your view. That clause commands praise everywhere under heaven unless you want to postulate that the angels breathe air.

Ps. 150 calls for universal praise. It commences by calling for praise "in his sanctuary." Earlier psalms have established the association of the musical instruments with the service of the sanctuary.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I never denied that the Psalm numbers we have do not exist in the Heb bible nor did I ever deny that some of we now know as separate psalms were originally united in the Heb. These are points of which I am well aware. All I asserted is that some psalms are marked off by superscriptions including Ps. 98.

If one reads the Psalms without the printer's headers, the larger literary units are obvious. When this is accepted there is no reason to break off Ps. 98 from Ps. 99.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

While the NT receives the book as prophetic, the NT nowhere tells us it receives the book as exclusively prophetic in function. More importantly for our discussion, it does not tell us in what specific ways Ps. 98 is either prophetic or exhortal. If the book is exclusively prophetic, shall we therefore say that its author intended a historically accurate testimony such as Ps 126's testimony to the awstruck state of the Jew's minds on seeing how the Lord had restored Jerusalem and the historicity of their enemies reaction? You will properly say no. But accepting the historical accuracy of these statements leaves you open to considering the historical contexts and authorial intent of other non-prophetic statements.

The Psalms as a whole is prophetic, Luke 24:44. Ps. 126 is prophetic. The captivity of Zion was turned by Christ, as Matthew chapter 1 makes clear. Anything other than a canonical interpretation of the Psalms is unworthy of the dignity of the book.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

While the NT does call some psalms prophetic it never denies that the psalms had exhortal purposes as well.

All biblical exhortation is eschatological by nature. The exhortation flows out of the prophetic strain.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

May I ask why you are descending to ad hominem arguments? I do not do anything that the Lord has not commanded. What is at issue here is two different understandings of what exactly is commanded.

It wasn't an argument, but an observation. If one accepts Deut. 12:32 then there is no room for a distinction between commanded and permissive elements of worship. If it is commanded it must be done; and if it is not commanded it must not be done.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

And why are you descending to straw man arguments. I have repeatedly affirmed with Hebrews that the temple and its sacrifices are obsolete. But the writer to the Hebrews says not one word about how the praise ordinances relate to those sacrifices. Does abandoning the temple and the sacrifices mean we no longer praise God? No.

Hebrews prescribes the offering of the sacrifice of praise, chap. 13:15. No mention of mechanical instruments; but it does mention the means -- through Jesus. Clearly it regards Jesus as the fulfilment of the OT mechanical instruments.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Indeed it does. But while it teaches that we have a better covenant, a better high priest, a better sacrifice, a better holy place and a better covenant, it never teaches a word about worship practices.

Temple, priesthood, and sacrifice were the centre of Israel's worship.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

And I believe I so identified communion as "he remembrance of Christ's sacrifice" in an earlier post. It is fine to disagree with an opponent, provided you state his position correctly but you make yourself look at least unwise if you fail to do so.

If communion is accepted as a commemoration of a sacrifice, then there is no basis for alleging the use of sacrificial accompaniments like mechanical instruments.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Granted, but your point would only be valid if the disciples were musicians and who said they were? Paul's general command against a background of accompanied praise leaves room for accompaniment but does not prescribe it.

The disciples praised God at communion without the use of musical accompaniment; hence there is no need for musical accompaniment in order to fulfil the duty of praise to God at the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice. Paul's command does prescribe accompaniment of singing when he requires the singer to make melody in his heart; hence one fulfils his duty of singing praise when he makes melody in his heart without the use of mechanical instruments.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Sorry, my confession is the LBC. Although the writers of that confession may have practiced unaccompanied psalms only, they did not mandate that view, or your understanding of the RPW as confessional. Since they did not so mandate, I am within the board rules that those who seek to “… modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confession i.e. the WCF will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.” I have stated the thesis, supplied the proof and shown that you have provided insufficient rebuttals, all within the parameters of the fellowship of this board.

You seem to have become confused as to what is the issue at this point. The issue is not non-instrumental psalmody, but your addition to the regulative principle of worship. The Confession and Catechisms speak of worship in terms of God's own appointment. It makes no provision for your view of "permissible" practices. You have failed to make any case let alone meet any burden of proof for the vindication of your unreformed view.

Having asked you politely, I now speak as a moderator and call upon you to desist propagating this unconfessional view. You may argue for the use of instruments, but it must be within the guidelines of this board.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Ps 98 disproves your contention. Here is a psalm clearly addressed to Gentiles telling them to worship with accompanied sung praise without telling them to worship at the Jerusalem sacrifices.

Already answered. (1.) One must consult the surrounding context provided by the larger literary unit. (2.) Prophetic statements are accommodated to the understanding of the people to whom they were delivered -- in this case, Zion.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Sorry, the consequence does not follow, for making melody in the heart does not necessarily prohibit forms of outward expression for Paul says “singing to one another.”

And presumably if "singing to one another" was not edifying in itself the apostle would have required the use of musical accompaniment.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

You seem to have become confused as to what is the issue at this point. The issue is not non-instrumental psalmody, but your addition to the regulative principle of worship. The Confession and Catechisms speak of worship in terms of God's own appointment. It makes no provision for your view of "permissible" practices. You have failed to make any case let alone meet any burden of proof for the vindication of your unreformed view.

Having asked you politely, I now speak as a moderator and call upon you to desist propagating this unconfessional view. You may argue for the use of instruments, but it must be within the guidelines of this board.

Though I am not EP, I must back up Matthew on this. You need to use an argument built upon a view of worship within the bounds of the RPW and not introduce a novel concept of permissible practices to skirt the requirement that an element of worship must be prescribed. My own view is that instruments are a circumstance but I do not have time to engage in this debate. My sole point is that we need to form our arguments here on the basis of the RPW.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

The Temple and its worship service was overthrown and destroyed at 70 AD. Thus, musical instruments were no longer used in the Church for the next 1500 years because they pertain to the infancy of the Church found in the OT Temple worship.

There's no necessary connection between these two statements with regard to the use of instruments. Yes, the Temple worship came to an end, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that fact's interpretation includes the banishment of musical instruments from Christian worship services. Just because Calvin says so doesn't make it so.

The use of instruments today does not effect Spiritual worship, but is carnal and edifying only to the flesh.

This is a personal opinion (to which you are entitled), not a biblical fact.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

The Temple and its worship service was overthrown and destroyed at 70 AD. Thus, musical instruments were no longer used in the Church for the next 1500 years because they pertain to the infancy of the Church found in the OT Temple worship.

There's no necessary connection between these two statements with regard to the use of instruments. Yes, the Temple worship came to an end, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that fact's interpretation includes the banishment of musical instruments from Christian worship services. Just because Calvin says so doesn't make it so.

The use of instruments today does not effect Spiritual worship, but is carnal and edifying only to the flesh.

This is a personal opinion (to which you are entitled), not a biblical fact.

That would be nice if it was only Calvin making the argument. And as has been shown ad nauseum in this and other threads there is oodles of Biblical evidence to make this point.

Hi:

Bookslover writes:

There's no necessary connection between these two statements with regard to the use of instruments. Yes, the Temple worship came to an end, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that fact's interpretation includes the banishment of musical instruments from Christian worship services. Just because Calvin says so doesn't make it so.

I think there is a necessary connection evidenced by the historical facts. The church stopped using musical instruments after the fall of the Temple. In the OT musical instruments were only associated with Temple/Tabernacle worship. This is so abundantly clear that even the Samaritans understood what the Jews were saying, John 4:20.

Worship in the New Testament is not modeled after Temple worship, but after the worship found in the Synagogue. The whole argument of Paul in Hebrews attests to this: that the Temple and its services prefigured the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now that we possess the fulfillment and the reality of the figures - the shadows are no longer necessary.

It is on this point that we understand musical instruments to have been abolished, because the instruments of the Temple prefigured the Joy of Salvation in Jesus Christ - a joy that cannot be elicited any longer through the use of musical instruments, but by the inward work of the Spirit of God. Thus, David Dickson writes of Psalm 150:

the typical ceremonies of musical instruments in God's public worship, belonging to the pedagogy of the church, in her minority before Christ, be now abolished with the rest of the ceremonies; yet the moral duties shadowed forth by them, are still to be studied, because this duty of praising God, and praising him with all our mind, strength, and soul, is moral, and whereunto we are perpetually obliged, Commentary on the Psalms, pg. 536.

We have an abundant testimony in Scripture that we are no longer to use instruments in worship, but are to praise God with our own hearts:

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

And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God; and the prisoners heard them, Acts 16:25

Let the word of Christ dwell 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, Col. 3:16.

Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory, 1 Pet. 1:8.

As Jesus says to the Samaritan woman:

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship hin in spirit and in truth, John 4:23,24.

The non-use of musical instruments in the Spiritual worship of God in the New Testament is not simply a matter of the testimony of John Calvin, but has been the conviction of the Church throughout the ages - beginning with the 1st Century. The Rev. Price (whose book was mentioned earlier) has gathered many quotes from the Early Church Fathers and onward concerning the Church's attitude towards musical instruments:

Justin Martyr ... "The use of singing with instrumental music was not received in the Christian churches as it was among the Jews in their infant state, but only the use of plain song ... Musical organs pertain to the Jewish ceremonies and agree no more to us than circumcision."

Clement of Alexandria ... "Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and are intent on their idol-worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wineless feasts ... 'Praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute, praise Him,' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit ... But for us to make use of one instrument alone: only the Word of peace, by whom we pay homage to God, no longer with ancient harp or trumpet or drum or flute.

Origin ... "The kithara (lyre) is the active soul being moved by the commandments of God, the psalterion (harp) is the pure mind being moved by spiritual knowledge. The musical instruments of the Old Covenant understood spiritually are applicable to us. The kithara, speaking figuratively, is the body, the psalterion the spirit. These are in tune for the wise man who employs the members of the body and powers of the soul as strings. He who makes melody with the mind makes melody well, speaking spiritual songs and singing in his heart to God."

Chrysostom ... "It was only permitted to the Jews, as sacrifice was, for the heaviness and grossness of their souls. God condescended to their weakness, because they were lately drawn off from idols: but now instead of organs, we may use our own bodies to praise him withal."

Augustine ... "Praise the Lord with harp; sing unto Him with the psaltery of ten strings,' For this even now we sang, this expressing with one mouth, we instructed your hearts. Hath not the institution of these Vigils in the name of Christ brought it to pass that harps should be banished out of this place? ... Let none turn his heart to instruments of the theatre."

The Council of Laodicea (367) forbids the use of musical instruments in worship, and this has remained the policy of the Eastern Orthodox Church to the present day. In 416 the Council of Carthage addressed this issue and declared, "On the Lord's day let all instruments of music be silenced."

The use of musical instruments in American Presbyterianism dates back to only the middle of the 19th century. The use of the organ was strenuously opposed by Dabney, Warfield, Thornwell, and Peck to name a few. C. H. Spurgeon opposed the use of musical instruments among Baptists during his time:

“David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. 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” (Commentary on Psalm 42:4).

There is no doubt in my mind that the use of a mechanical means to worship God, who is a Spirit, is a carnal, and not a spiritual ordinance.

Though it may be an "opinion" of mine I do believe I have the Scriptures as well as Church Tradition on my side.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

One simply cannot establish from the Scripture when all the psalms were composed, or the purpose for which they were composed. You give neither sources or citations for Hengstenberg’s assertion so how can it be judged biblical or not? This is the third time I have asked "ad fontes" in this thread.

My apologies; I was assuming a knowledge of Psalms studies given the dogmatic way you present your case. Hengstenberg (Works, 7:vi.): "All the Psalms are songs of Israel, as David describes his Psalms in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1. This implies the whole religious community to have been respected in them. They all not only bore a religious character, but were also appointed to be used in the services of the sanctuary, for which nothing can be proper, but what the individual sings as the organ of the church. The individual comes here into account only in so far as he presents a general aspect."

There are others reading this thread besides myself. They may not be familiar with the literature.
The premise that the psalms are were consciously composed for Israel's temple use simply does not follow by necessary consequence from David's words at this point. Although he claims anointing by the Spirit, that he was Israel's singer of psalms and V. 2 repeats the claim of the Spirit speaking through him, we cannot absolutely determine whether David intended the latter claim as a true general statement describing his psalms (if we take it as linked to v.1) or whether that he intended v. 2 to preface what he says in vv. 3b and 4. Even if one can establish that v.2 is linked specifically to his psalms only, David here says nothing about any limitations the Holy Spirit placed on their use.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

I don't think you really want to deploy this double edged sword. If you take away the argument that “of Moses” refers to the author of the psalm, how will you reply to anyone who wishes to take away the Davidic authorship of "of David" psalms not specifically attributed to him in the NT?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I simply accept the NT testimony that these are the Psalms of David. Those who have studied the superscriptions know that the "lamed" prefix can't refer to authorship in each and every case. Psalm 72 is clearly "for" Solomon because the subscription at verse 20 ascribes this literary unit to David.

Does the NT ever identify the entire book as Davidic or does it limit Davidic identification to particular psalms? Moreover the subscription has to be looked at a little more carefully. This subscription clearly identifies this one psalm as a prayer of David, but there is no evidence in any other psalm that "Of x" refers to anything else than authorship as in the case of Psalm 18.
It cannot be proved that "Of Moses" in Ps. 90 does not identify the author.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

That's correct; you just don't know. Your form critical approach is all conjecture. So let's work with what we do know. Scripture specifically states that these are the psalms of Israel; this has been established over and again, with nothing to gainsay it. Therefore we are justified on the basis of explicit scriptural testimony to interpret the psalms in the context of Israel's worship, and have no reason for understaning them any other way.

Unfortunately that contention has not been proven. See my comments on Hengstenberg above.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The Jeremiah example is still mere speculation. The Psalms are received according to their canonical form. In the absence of any other evidence we have no basis to depart from the order in which the text has come down to us.

The canonical form of Jeremiah tells us the dates on which the two prophecies of ch 36 and 45 were given which was the same year. The canonical form of Jeremiah intersperses betwen these two chapters material which it specifically dates at least 11 years later. It is the canonical form of Jeremiah that establishes once and for all that we cannot conclude that adjacent materials in the OT are necessarily given in chronological order.
And that is the only point I was making.

Now focusing on Jeremiah was a bit of a debating trick, because your answer tells me that you are so sure of your case you did not perform the biblical requirement to "test all things" before replying. Had you done so you would have gone to the Psalms and tried to establish whether the canonical Psalms answer the question of whether or not they are in chronological order. The fact is that at least 3 psalms are presented in the canonical book out of chronological sequence. If the book was ordered chronologically Ps. 30 should not come before either Ps. 34 or Ps. 142

[quote=timmopussycat]
You seem to be operating on the assumption that just because an authority figure states a hypothesis, that hypothesis is necessarily true and need not be tested. The fact that two documents have words in common and clear thematic links is not enough to prove that they were written together. By that argument Ps. 45 was written at the same time, and for the same purpose, as the Song of Songs. Now it may have been so written, but we cannot prove it must have been so written, for if such similarities always proved the union of purpose and date between documents, we could prove the LXX version of Ps. 23 and John 10:1-18 were written at the same time something we know is not the case. [quote]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

No, I don't work on any such "ad verecundiam" assumption. I cited a couple of scholars who have done much research on the subject, and who cannot be claimed to be biased one way or the other. I provided you with facts concerning the verbal and thematic links between these psalms as noted by these scholars. The compositional unity of the psalter is a well-established discipline.

Whatever may be true of the Psalms as a whole, that is not the question we face. We are concerned with whether the thematic and verbal correspondences between two psalms are enough to prove simultaneous composition or linked function of those two psalms. I provided a counter example to show that such cannot be necessarily proven and that demonstration if correct rebuts your point. Yet instead of showing my demonstration is flawed, you reply reiterating the opinion rather than proving the premise on which the opinion rests. This is a very unwise exegetical procedure and one in which a Christian teacher should never engage.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Ps. 150 calls for universal praise. It commences by calling for praise "in his sanctuary." Earlier psalms have established the association of the musical instruments with the service of the sanctuary.

Yes but you are ignoring the problem posed for your position by the next line and the last line. The entire rest of the psalm is clearly addressed to earth dwellers so what does "Praise him in the firmament of his power" mean? If heaven, the angels are air breathers, if the atmosphere is intended, it means Praise God everywhere. If the latter is intended, accompanied sung praise was biblically intended to be given everywhere.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

If one reads the Psalms without the printer's headers, the larger literary units are obvious. When this is accepted there is no reason to break off Ps. 98 from Ps. 99.

You are not, I hope, trying to tell us that unless a psalm has a heading we must assume it is part of the previous psalm, a proposition which entails the notion that the Heb editiors engage in a wholesale dividing of a multitude of previously united psalms to produce the ones we see in today's Hebrew bible. But that is the conclusion to which one must come if one asserts without sufficient evidence, as you have done, that larger literary units in the book are obvious. They are not obvious in this case. Ps 98 is a complete direction for all the earth to praise the Lord; Ps. 99 focuses on the Lord's reign and response. Although some pslams do change subject mid-psalm, not all do and of these two psalms it can be observed that as literary units, they can stand alone. While it is possible that they may have been one psalm or linked as a paired psalms originally, it is not enough to establish doctrine on a possibility. If we are going to rest doctrine on this propostion we must be certain of their unity or link, otherwise the doctrine will not follow by necessary consequence and need not be believed

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The Psalms as a whole is prophetic, Luke 24:44. Ps. 126 is prophetic. The captivity of Zion was turned by Christ, as Matthew chapter 1 makes clear. Anything other than a canonical interpretation of the Psalms is unworthy of the dignity of the book.

Ad fontes again, where in Matt. 1 is Ps. 126 cited or referred to?
That Ps. 126 would have been ultimately fulfilled in the turning of Zion's captivity by Christ I have no doubt. But that it would have also had earlier fulfillments I also have no doubt, just as Ps. 90 although perfectly and finally fulfilled in Christ was originally written "Of Solomon". In the case of Ps. 126 it would have been fulfilled in the return of the Jews to the land after the Babylonian captivity and even earlier in the deliverance from the surrounding enemies achieved by David.

The words "everything must be fullfilled that is written about me in the psalms" are simply not enought to establish your case that every reference in the psalms is prophetic. Christ did not say "everything in the psalms has prophetic reference to me." Rather he said that among the things written in the Law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms are things written about me and all of the things written about me must be fulfilled. Once again you are resting your case on an unprovable propostion.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

All biblical exhortation is eschatological by nature. The exhortation flows out of the prophetic strain.

Please support all your assertions with Scripture proofs. I do not accept and you should not accept unsupported assertions.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It wasn't an argument, but an observation. If one accepts Deut. 12:32 then there is no room for a distinction between commanded and permissive elements of worship. If it is commanded it must be done; and if it is not commanded it must not be done.

Unless the commands are given in such a way as to provide options. For example, God gave Israel the option to set up a king but he did not require them to do so. One may observe in the psalms that options are provided: the psalms exhort singing without mention of instruments, with mention of particular instruments and with mentions of differing instruments. All these options remain open unless proved foreclosed by the lawgiver.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Hebrews prescribes the offering of the sacrifice of praise, chap. 13:15. No mention of mechanical instruments; but it does mention the means -- through Jesus. Clearly it regards Jesus as the fulfilment of the OT mechanical instruments.

How does this text exclude accompanied sung praise? It is not mentioned pro or con. The very next verse makes it clear that for the writer, sacrifices involves more than sung praise.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Temple, priesthood, and sacrifice were the centre of Israel's worship.

And Christ's death and its remembrance is the centre of ours. After all he did say "Do this in remembrance of me."

Originally Posted by armourbearer

If communion is accepted as a commemoration of a sacrifice, then there is no basis for alleging the use of sacrificial accompaniments like mechanical instruments.

Um...your entire theological basis for excluding instruments has been that they were linked to the sacrifices and the sacrifices do not continue. Since communion remembers a sacrifice and thus is a sacrificial context, the link of instruments to sacrifice is no longer enough in itself to necessarily exclude their use in Christian worship.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The disciples praised God at communion without the use of musical accompaniment; hence there is no need for musical accompaniment in order to fulfil the duty of praise to God at the commemoration of Christ's sacrifice. Paul's command does prescribe accompaniment of singing when he requires the singer to make melody in his heart; hence one fulfils his duty of singing praise when he makes melody in his heart without the use of mechanical instruments.

As I previously observed none of them were known to be musicians or had instruments with them which they were forbidden from using. Given those circumstances, the fact that they took the option of singing unaccompanied does not in itself foreclose the option of singing accompanied if that option is not foreclosed elsewhere.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

You seem to have become confused as to what is the issue at this point. The issue is not non-instrumental psalmody, but your addition to the regulative principle of worship. The Confession and Catechisms speak of worship in terms of God's own appointment. It makes no provision for your view of "permissible" practices. You have failed to make any case let alone meet any burden of proof for the vindication of your unreformed view.

Having asked you politely, I now speak as a moderator and call upon you to desist propagating this unconfessional view. You may argue for the use of instruments, but it must be within the guidelines of this board.

And as I have pointed out my confession is not the WCF but LBC which simply does not mandate the RPW as you understand it, even if its writers presumed it. Ferguson in his "An Assembly of Theonomists" demonstrated that the Divines did not dot every last i and cross every last t in the Reformed faith. Some matters were left open to achieve a statment summarizing "generic Calvinism". Now when matters are left unadressed in a constitutional document, those matters remain not constitutional and open for debate since the writers did not foreclose it by incorporating the matter into the founding document. This problem is legitimate and bedevils any and all institutions based on constitutions.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Ps 98 disproves your contention. Here is a psalm clearly addressed to Gentiles telling them to worship with accompanied sung praise without telling them to worship at the Jerusalem sacrifices.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Already answered. (1.) One must consult the surrounding context provided by the larger literary unit. (2.) Prophetic statements are accommodated to the understanding of the people to whom they were delivered -- in this case, Zion.

You have failed to demonstrate flaws in my rebuttal to 1) and 2) is not provable from Scripture as applied to the case when someone outside Zion is specifically commanded to do something.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Sorry, the consequence does not follow, for making melody in the heart does not necessarily prohibit forms of outward expression for Paul says “singing to one another.”

Originally Posted by armourbearer

And presumably if "singing to one another" was not edifying in itself the apostle would have required the use of musical accompaniment.

I never denied unaccompanied singing was edifying. We use the practice routinely in our church. But I deny that accompanied sung praise is necessarily unedifying or an option foreclosed by Scripture.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

And as I have pointed out my confession is not the WCF but LBC which simply does not mandate the RPW as you understand it, even if its writers presumed it. Ferguson in his "An Assembly of Theonomists" demonstrated that the Divines did not dot every last i and cross every last t in the Reformed faith. Some matters were left open to achieve a statment summarizing "generic Calvinism". Now when matters are left unadressed in a constitutional document, those matters remain not constitutional and open for debate since the writers did not foreclose it by incorporating the matter into the founding document. This problem is legitimate and bedevils any and all institutions based on constitutions.

This is unacceptable. I'm not going to allow an "open door" interpretation of the RPW here that the LBCF writers "presumed" but did not mandate. We have to have some boundaries here. As I stated you will either argue within the boundaries of the RPW or will desist.

I suppose it's time to close the thread.