Still Chewing on EP/Acapella ONLY

[Grant]

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.

As an example during our service we use the common lightbulbs to light the sanctuary instead of using a disco ball or strobe light.

Once man-made songs are permitted, anything can come in.

Tom, I do not believe this is entirely fair. If a church does choose to sing hymns, for example, the session would still need to ensure that these hymns are theologically sound. Otherwise this logic could also be placed on a sermon. According to your comment could one not also say “ well once you let a Pastor write his own sermon or his own prayer get ready for some Joel Osteen theology”? Of course it “could” happen but that does mean it “must” or that it is inevitable. Error can potentially enter any worship service (even at at EP/AO gathering), because WE (humans) are involved.

Now, to be clear, you have made some good remarks to cause me to re-think things, but let’s be fair. The HS has gifted some saints in writing edifying and biblically accurate songs. Now, whether they should be used privately, family, or corporately is the question. Do you say “NO” to all three?

Instruments:
As I stated in my last update, I feel I MAY be coming around to AO. However, I am still greatful for the piano we use because it does help us stay in tune, further when i was a visitor who did not now about hymns or psalm singing the piano helped me learn how to sing the songs. Same goes for the 1650 Psalter App, the piano recordings have helped me learn.

If I were to become AO, would you advocate that I remain silent during the singing portion of our worship service, since we use instruments for hymns and Psalms (an honest reflection)? Remember that I also serve as a Deacon, if that makes a difference to your answer.

 

[Grant]

Are there congregations/denominations that are AO and not EP today, or are both usually served like PB&J?

 

[Ben Zartman]

"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

I wish Calvin would give a Scripture reference for this.
I agree, as I said before, that instrumental music as an element is against the RPW; I agree also that man seeks out many inventions, and perpetually turns lawful things into licentious ones by abuse and misuse. But that doesn't mean we should toss out something good and prudent because it has or could be misused.
Because we have difficulty reining in the horse once instruments and man-made hymns are allowed, doesn't mean we shouldn't lawfully use the horse: we simply need to train it well. It is the same with alcohol. Because it gets often abused, the Fundamentalist would fain make it's use sinful altogether. But it is a lawful and good thing--it just requires prudence and self-control to use rightly.

 

[Ben Zartman]

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.

Consistency does not require an unregulated free-for-all when a circumstance is used rightly: there are principles at play that must be applied. Deuteronomy 12:30 has to me the clearest command in this regard. When considering the circumstances of worship, we are not to look to what the world does, and make our worship similar.

 

[Rom]

Instruments could not be a circumstance. The argument against that is simple. They were commanded. Particular instruments at that.

Review WCF 1.6, in which the divines lay out the distinction between circumstances and the things expressly set down in Scripture. These two things are set against each other. Something expressly set down in Scripture (or deduced from it by Good and Necessary Consequence) is not a circumstance.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (John 6:45, 1 Cor 2:9–12) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.​

Look at how King Hezekiah understood instruments were to be treated in the Old Testament dispensation. From 2 Chronicles 29:25:

And he [King Hezekiah] stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.​

So the instruments are from the "commandment of the LORD by his prophets". That is not a circumstance but one of the things which the LORD has commanded ("Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.", Dt 12:32). Given that David is long dead (as well as Nathan and Gad), you see that Hezekiah understands these instruments to be prescriptive. Not circumstantial.

In the next verse, we read:

The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets.​

Levites and priests stood with the prescribed instruments. Part of the sacrificial system. How do you know? Look at the next couple of verses:

Then Hezekiah commanded them to offer the burnt offering on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord also began, with the trumpets and with the instruments of David king of Israel. So all the assembly worshiped, the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded; all this continued until the burnt offering was finished.​

This is part of the burnt offering and the sacrificial system. Once more, the "instruments of David king of Israel".

Cotton Mather states:

The instrumental musick used of the old church of Israel was an institution of God: it was (2 Chron. 20:25) the commandment of the Lord "by the prophets." And the instruments are called "God's instruments" (1 Chron. 16:52) and "instruments of the Lord" (2 Chron. 7:6).​

Because of the divine warrant for the particular instruments, they cannot be a circumstance but fall under a thing commanded and are under Deuteronomy 12:32. This is what King Hezekiah saw.

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.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Rom, I think the argument of some at least is that while they were a ceremonial element of the OT, some convenient form of musical instrument is circumstantially useful to aid singing, that the passing of the form and use of the OT ceremony doesn't negate and may indeed 'clear the way' for a circumstantial use now of a different form and use. As I said above, it is almost never used that way solely once introduced, but that's the argument I guess. Are you saying because they were solely elemental and ceremonial it is impossible to use them as a circumstance? I suppose I would also ask, what would be the parallel sort of thing of another OT ceremonial element that we may treat as a circumstance now?

Instruments could not be a circumstance.

 

[Grant]

what would be the parallel sort of thing of another OT ceremonial element that we may treat as a circumstance now?

Maybe using candles for lighting the sanctuary if the power were to go out during a PM service? (This has happened to us before)

 

[Tom Hart]

Tom, I do not believe this is entirely fair. If a church does choose to sing hymns, for example, the session would still need to ensure that these hymns are theologically sound. Otherwise this logic could also be placed on a sermon. According to your comment could one not also say “ well once you let a Pastor write his own sermon or his own prayer get ready for some Joel Osteen theology”? Of course it “could” happen but that does mean it “must” or that it is inevitable. Error can potentially enter any worship service (even at at EP/AO gathering), because WE (humans) are involved.

Prophesying (preaching) is commanded, and singing is commanded. But they are not the same. The difference is that the songs we are to sing have been given to us.

The HS has gifted some saints in writing edifying and biblically accurate songs. Now, whether they should be used privately, family, or corporately is the question. Do you say “NO” to all three?

I will sometimes sing a hymn to my son as a lullaby. In family worship we always sing psalms. I would not on principle object to singing man-made hymns in family or private worship. But now I have tasted the richness of psalm-singing, I really do not care to sing anything else!

If I were to become AO, would you advocate that I remain silent during the singing portion of our worship service, since we use instruments for hymns and Psalms (an honest reflection)? Remember that I also serve as a Deacon, if that makes a difference to your answer.

I stand but remain silent during the singing at my church. I don't mean to draw attention to myself, but I will not do what God has not commanded.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

From the oil lampstand? I guess but it may be tough finding one close enough. I suppose room freshener could be argued from incense. But let's assume that is an exact or at least suitable parallel. Do you use them to the level of a performance? Do we clap when we like the look of the light? Does it cause one to worship (i.e. like a tune of an offertory is meant to bring words to mind or at least the feeling of that particular tune and associated words).

Maybe using candles for lighting the sanctuary if the power were to go out during a PM service? (This has happened to us before)

 

[Tom Hart]

Consistency does not require an unregulated free-for-all when a circumstance is used rightly: there are principles at play that must be applied. Deuteronomy 12:30 has to me the clearest command in this regard. When considering the circumstances of worship, we are not to look to what the world does, and make our worship similar.

You need to prove that instruments are a circumstance.

 

[Grant]

Prophesying (preaching) is commanded, and singing is commanded. But they are not the same. The difference is that the songs we are to sing have been given to us.



I will sometimes sing a hymn to my son as a lullaby. In family worship we always sing psalms. I would not on principle object to singing man-made hymns in family or private worship. But now I have tasted the richness of psalm-singing, I really do not care to sing anything else!



I stand but remain silent during the singing at my church. I don't mean to draw attention to myself, but I will not do what God has not commanded.

Tom thanks for sharing that.

 

[timfost]

Grant,

I’m glad that you’re chewing on these things. The strong pro-EP membership on this board has challenged me, helped me understand (and even respect) their position as well as become clearer on my own position. Hopefully I can break down succinctly some helpful points.

Instruments

What is an instrument? It’s a tool. It could be argued that musical instruments were an element of temple worship as was singing (1 Chron. 15), but to argue that their use in worship was exclusive to temple worship is problematic.

1 Sam. 10:5b: “And it will happen, when you have come there to the city, that you will meet a group of prophets coming down from the high place with a stringed instrument, a tambourine, a flute, and a harp before them; and they will be prophesying.”

This account occured before David authorized their use in temple worship by God’s direction.

1 Sam 18:6: “Now it had happened as they were coming home, when David was returning from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women had come out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with joy, and with musical instruments.”

Again, this use of instruments was not related to temple worship, but rather with the praise to God for his deliverance over his enemies.

2 Sam. 6:5 “Then David and all the house of Israel played music before the Lord on all kinds of instruments of fir wood, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on sistrums, and on cymbals.”

Certainly this passage demonstrates God’s displeasure with disobedience when He struck down Uzzah for touching the ark that was unlawfully carried on a cart. Nevertheless, notice that both David and Israel (not only Levites) played instruments. This proves that a) David used instruments in worship and b) other Israelites used instruments in worship as well. God did not discipline them for this. To play an instrument, one needs to practice it. It is unlikely that the Israelites made musical instruments for this occasion and miraculously played under some kind of prophetic inspiration on the spot.

What is a psalm? By definition, it’s a song of praise accompanied by an instrument. Certainly one can sing a psalm originally written with instrumentation without an instrument (Matt. 26:30 was likely a Psalm and it seems unlikely to be accompanied). Similarly, the Israelites would not have been prohibited from singing psalms without an instrument present. The point is that instruments are not necessarily an element of worship in the OT since not all praise accompanied by instruments was executed by a Levite in the temple.

But even throwing out all these arguments, an instrument is a tool. A tool is used to accomplish something. Simeon and Levi are called “instruments [Hebrew keli] of cruelty” by their father. Blacksmiths are said to make instruments (keli) for their work (Is. 54:16), etc. David constructed musical instruments (keli) “for giving praise” (1 Chron.23:5). The instrument itself did not give praise, but it was used as a tool in giving praise to God.

The word “psalms” in Greek (psalmos) carries the same basic definition as “psalm” (zmrah) in Hebrew. It is true that words can change meaning over time. The etymology of psalms in both languages does not itself prove that instruments are permissible. However, if the word was historically inclusive of musical instruments up through Christ’s earthly ministry before death, one needs to argue that either instantly or over a relatively short period of time the use of musical instruments was prohibited. Since advocates of no instruments in worship make this case, the burden of proof lies on them to substantiate the claim that the etymology of the word did not evolve into something different but rather quickly changed within a short period of time. Since scriptural evidence for this is not available, the point is conjecture at best.

In conclusion, the use of instruments in praise was practiced by people other than the Levites in temple worship and therefore arguing that they were only ceremonial is inaccurate. Furthermore, advocates for the exclusion of instruments discard the etymology of the word and its historical use to make their point. Finally, if we regard an instrument as a tool, it’s proper place is in circumstance, not element.

 

[Rom]

Rom, I think the argument of some at least is that while they were a ceremonial element of the OT, some convenient form of musical instrument is circumstantially useful to aid singing, that the passing of the form and use of the OT ceremony doesn't negate and may indeed 'clear the way' for a circumstantial use now of a different form and use. As I said above, it is almost never used that way solely once introduced, but that's the argument I guess. Are you saying because they were solely elemental and ceremonial it is impossible to use them as a circumstance? I suppose I would also ask, what would be the parallel sort of thing of another OT ceremonial element that we may treat as a circumstance now?

New Testament worship is meant to be spiritual. Dwelling on Old Testament types and shadows is to return to an age prior to Christ's tearing of the veil. Let altars, incense, and musical instruments be altogether abolished. This is how Paul sees the distinction in glory between the Old order and the New:

"For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious." (2 Corinthians 3:11)​

Do we believe that unaccompanied singing (psallo) with heartstrings being plucked (1 Corinthians 14:15), the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips (Hebrews 13:15) is more glorious than dead instruments? If so, our worship service ought to reflect it. I believe it is far more glorious than the "sounding brass or tinkling cymbal".

In keeping with this idea of Spirit-filled worship, I deny that there is a need for instrumental music as an aid to singing. Our congregation has managed to, over the years, sing just fine acapella (well, we manage to carry on) without musical talent. It is incredible how quickly God's people can learn to sing simple tunes. I suppose that is because God designed us to sing to His glory. I hear it all the time as feedback on my 1650 Split Leaf app - "I didn't know how to sing, but I learned a few tunes and my family can sing the psalm book competently in family worship now". Are they going to rival a choir? Probably not. But they can do their God-given duty to sing with plucked heartstrings.

Even if instrumental accompaniment assisted the singing, would not the goal of it be to get the congregation to sing with their own voice unaccompanied? Spurgeon has some good thoughts on training for congregational singing in "Sword and Trowel", an excerpt of which can be found here. He too, believed in the potential for congregations to sing.

Don't we exert significant energy catechizing? Don't we spend a lot of time teaching our children to read so they don't need "icons" to instruct them in the faith, contra the EO? Surely we can do the same for our singing so that our worship may be more spiritual. Even if we are off key sometimes, I believe that the sacrifice of praise is still a "pleasing aroma" to our God who sees us sing by faith.

If the argument is that instruments are a circumstantial aid for singing, then they should be removed once a congregation learns to sing. But is that how it goes? Not that I am aware. I believe you hint at this in your query.

Congregations that use accompaniment, don't want to remove them. I think this undermines the argument. They have become required in their worship of God. Many even pay musicians to be "on staff". Like with Levites, we slowly create a new office in the church. So we slowly return to Old Testament shadows, unaware of it, like the slowly boiling frog.

How unlike this is of our brother Grant's use of candles! He used them because they truly were a circumstance. If he were worshipping in the morning, candles would never have found their place into the service. But when does a church with accompaniment ever forsake its instruments?

I think we must tread carefully when we take something full of Old Testament religious significance and introduce it into worship services, ignorant of what they signified. Particularly, if it is connected to the sacrificial system. Reformed people rightly despise having "altars" in worship or lighting an "Advent Candle" (sadly not so much this anymore). So I maintain that we must be very careful introducing instruments into New Testament spiritual worship.

 

[timfost]

Exclusive Psalmody

What is a psalm? Did David and other authors write words for the book of Psalms or did they write psalms that were included in the book of Psalms? The fact is, the book of Psalms does not define what a psalm is, but rather is a collection of psalms. This distinction is important, because often the EP argues as if the compilation of 150 songs itself defines what a psalm is. Rather, all the book of Psalms is is a collection of (inspired) songs that are called psalms. The argument itself that claims every reference to psalms must be of the 150 is again conjecture and argues as if the book of Psalms actually defines a psalm. It does not.

Were OT worshippers EP? Consider Moses, Miriam, Deborah, Habakkuk, etc. Were NT worshippers EP? Consider Mary, the angels in heaven (Revelation), etc. Yes, one can argue that their prophesying was indeed inspired and so fits into its own category. But since all of scripture is inspired, it is impossible to find an “uninspired” song in scripture. We can likewise find no uninspired sermon or prayer simply because every sermon and prayer is inspired in its inclusion in the Word of God.

What is a psalm more broadly? David sings to the Lord on occasion of defeating his enemies in 2 Sam. 22:50: “Therefore I will give thanks to You, O Lord, among the Gentiles, And sing praises to Your name.” It is true that all psalms are praises, but not all praises are psalms. We sometimes speak praises and sometimes sing them. Are we allowed to speak uninspired praise but not sing it? Does the human melody itself make the otherwise acceptable praise unacceptable before God? David says in the Psalms, “Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion! Declare His deeds among the people” (Psalm 9:11). We praise God for what He has done. If we are limited in our sung praise to the OT, we cannot properly sing of what He did at Calvary, but only reference it as a future occurrence since the Psalms only look forward to the incarnation, not back on it.

Since not all praises are psalms, the burden of proof lies on the EP advocate to prove that in every scripture it says to sing praises it actually only can mean “sing inspired book of Psalms.” Again, since this is not possible, it is conjecture.

So if a) praises are to be sung, and b) not all praises are psalms, then what are we to sing? All kinds of praises, namely psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). Is this any different than singing in the OT? The NT? Our EP brethren argue that these are three categories of Psalms that can be found in the LXX. It is true, all three of these categories exist in the LXX. However, the LXX does not limit either psalms, hymns or odes (songs) to the 150 Psalms. Naturally, the most frequent reference to psalms, hymns and songs in the LXX is in relation to the book of Psalms, which is only natural, since this is the largest compilation of sung praises in scripture.

Furthermore, the adjective “spiritual” in Eph. and Col. is not an LXX adjective. Some have argued that “spiritual” (Greek pneumatikos) refers to all three categories, further substantiating that these are “inspired divisions of the Psalms.” However, “spiritual” most naturally is joined to “songs” since both adjective and pneumatikos are feminine while both psalms (psalmos) and hymns (hymnos) are masculine nouns.

Granted, psalms in Eph./Col. likely refers to biblical Psalms, though possibly not only the 150 since there are other psalms in scripture. Hymns in Greek are inherently religious in nature. They possibly refer to scripture songs themselves or paraphrases of scripture. “Odes” in Greek were not inherently religious, which explains the qualifier “spiritual.” If “odes” was meant to clearly refer to scripture alone, more particularly the 150 Psalms themselves, the qualifier “spiritual” would be redundant.

Should we carefully distinguish psalms, hymns and spiritual songs so that we make sure we have all three categories in every worship service? No. There is overlap between the terms for certain. What is Paul’s point? He’s counseling his hearers to sing praises! God’s people throughout history are called to sing praises! Since praises through history are not confined to the 150 Psalms, why must we confine Paul’s instruction to refer to only the Psalms? Why must we so carefully parse out each category and miss the thrust of the passage that Paul is exhorting us to the same thing David instructed, that we should sing praises! This certainly includes Psalms, but is not limited to them.

Much more could be said, but I wanted to spell out some of the main arguments that are helpful in understanding the continuity between biblical praise in all dispensations. I am always puzzled at the conjecture necessary to “prove” EP. Biblical saints were never confined to EP. Arguments from the LXX are not consistent with the LXX’s own use of the terms. Leaps in logic are taken to define all sung praises as Psalms alone. Paul’s language itself is inclusive of all praises, not Psalms alone. By understanding the inclusive nature of Paul’s argument, this part of our worship is consistent with all the other parts, namely that we are not restricted to the inspired words alone. Singing is no longer the anomaly of our praise.

Let me reiterate that I bring these arguments respectfully. I have many friends on this board whom I love and respect deeply who are EP. I have learned a lot from them and their fervent desire to sing the Psalms has awakened in me a deeper desire to sing them myself (I have put many of them to music verbatim).

I hope this helps.

In Christ,

Tim

 

[Grant]

New Testament worship is meant to be spiritual. Dwelling on Old Testament types and shadows is to return to an age prior to Christ's tearing of the veil. Let altars, incense, and musical instruments be altogether abolished. This is how Paul sees the distinction in glory between the Old order and the New:

"For if what is passing away was glorious, what [you]remains[/you] is [you]much more[/you] [you]glorious[/you]." (2 Corinthians 3:11)​

Do we believe that unaccompanied singing (psallo) with heartstrings being plucked (1 Corinthians 14:15), the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips (Hebrews 13:15) is more glorious than dead instruments? If so, our worship service ought to reflect it. I believe it is far more glorious than the "sounding brass or tinkling cymbal".

In keeping with this idea of Spirit-filled worship, I deny that there is a need for instrumental music as an aid to singing. Our congregation has managed to, over the years, sing just fine acapella (well, we manage to carry on) without musical talent. It is incredible how quickly God's people can learn to sing simple tunes. I suppose that is because God designed us to sing to His glory. I hear it all the time as feedback on my 1650 Split Leaf app - "I didn't know how to sing, but I learned a few tunes and my family can sing the psalm book competently in family worship now". Are they going to rival a choir? Probably not. But they can do their God-given duty to sing with plucked heartstrings.

Even if instrumental accompaniment assisted the singing, would not the goal of it be to get the congregation to sing with their own voice unaccompanied? Spurgeon has some good thoughts on training for congregational singing in "Sword and Trowel", an excerpt of which can be found here. He too, believed in the potential for congregations to sing.

Don't we exert significant energy catechizing? Don't we spend a lot of time teaching our children to read so they don't need "icons" to instruct them in the faith, contra the EO? Surely we can do the same for our singing so that our worship may be more spiritual. Even if we are off key sometimes, I believe that the sacrifice of praise is still a "pleasing aroma" to our God who sees us sing by faith.

If the argument is that instruments are a circumstantial aid for singing, then they should be removed once a congregation learns to sing. But is that how it goes? Not that I am aware. I believe you hint at this in your query.

Congregations that use accompaniment, don't want to remove them. I think this undermines the argument. They have become required in their worship of God. Many even pay musicians to be "on staff". Like with Levites, we slowly create a new office in the church. So we slowly return to Old Testament shadows, unaware of it, like the slowly boiling frog.

How unlike this is of our brother Grant's use of candles! He used them because they truly were a circumstance. If he were worshipping in the morning, candles would never have found their place into the service. But when does a church with accompaniment ever forsake its instruments?

I think we must tread carefully when we take something full of Old Testament religious significance and introduce it into worship services, ignorant of what they signified. Particularly, if it is connected to the sacrificial system. Reformed people rightly despise having "altars" in worship or lighting an "Advent Candle" (sadly not so much this anymore). So I maintain that we must be very careful introducing instruments into New Testament spiritual worship.

Thanks for writing this out very much food for thought.

 

[Rom]

The first passage that is quoted here deals with prophets prophesying (1 Samuel 10:5). This is not a public worship service.

1 Samuel 18:6 - deals with a victory celebration. All such celebrations appear to have dancing connected to them along with instruments. You will have to deal with connected difficulties to dancing in the worship of God.

2 Samuel 6:5, is truly an extraordinary providence and a unique event in Israel's life. Notice what happens in verse 14: once more dancing: David dances before the LORD.

These things do not make a clear case. Using them is as difficult as it is to make the book of Acts prescriptive: they deal with extraordinary providences in a unique dispensation and an unsettled time in Israel's history. Just as would using Deborah as a proof text for women elders.

What is an instrument? It’s a tool. It could be argued that musical instruments were an element of temple worship as was singing (1 Chron. 15), but to argue that their use in worship was exclusive to temple worship is problematic.

1 Sam. 10:5b: “And it will happen, when you have come there to the city, that you will meet a group of prophets coming down from the high place with a stringed instrument, a tambourine, a flute, and a harp before them; and they will be prophesying.”

This account occured before David authorized their use in temple worship by God’s direction.

1 Sam 18:6: “Now it had happened as they were coming home, when David was returning from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women had come out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with joy, and with musical instruments.”

Again, this use of instruments was not related to temple worship, but rather with the praise to God for his deliverance over his enemies.

2 Sam. 6:5 “Then David and all the house of Israel played music before the Lord on all kinds of instruments of fir wood, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on sistrums, and on cymbals.”

 

[Grant]

Exclusive Psalmody

What is a psalm? Did David and other authors write words for the book of Psalms or did they write psalms that were included in the book of Psalms? The fact is, the book of Psalms does not define what a psalm is, but rather is a collection of psalms. This distinction is important, because often the EP argues as if the compilation of 150 songs itself defines what a psalm is. Rather, all the book of Psalms is is a collection of (inspired) songs that are called psalms. The argument itself that claims every reference to psalms must be of the 150 is again conjecture and argues as if the book of Psalms actually defines a psalm. It does not.

Were OT worshippers EP? Consider Moses, Miriam, Deborah, Habakkuk, etc. Were NT worshippers EP? Consider Mary, the angels in heaven (Revelation), etc. Yes, one can argue that their prophesying was indeed inspired and so fits into its own category. But since all of scripture is inspired, it is impossible to find an “uninspired” song in scripture. We can likewise find no uninspired sermon or prayer simply because every sermon and prayer is inspired in its inclusion in the Word of God.

What is a psalm more broadly? David sings to the Lord on occasion of defeating his enemies in 2 Sam. 22:50: “Therefore I will give thanks to You, O Lord, among the Gentiles, And sing praises to Your name.” It is true that all psalms are praises, but not all praises are psalms. We sometimes speak praises and sometimes sing them. Are we allowed to speak uninspired praise but not sing it? Does the human melody itself make the otherwise acceptable praise unacceptable before God? David says in the Psalms, “Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion! Declare His deeds among the people” (Psalm 9:11). We praise God for what He has done. If we are limited in our sung praise to the OT, we cannot properly sing of what He did at Calvary, but only reference it as a future occurrence since the Psalms only look forward to the incarnation, not back on it.

Since not all praises are psalms, the burden of proof lies on the EP advocate to prove that in every scripture it says to sing praises it actually only can mean “sing inspired book of Psalms.” Again, since this is not possible, it is conjecture.

So if a) praises are to be sung, and b) not all praises are psalms, then what are we to sing? All kinds of praises, namely psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). Is this any different than singing in the OT? The NT? Our EP brethren argue that these are three categories of Psalms that can be found in the LXX. It is true, all three of these categories exist in the LXX. However, the LXX does not limit either psalms, hymns or odes (songs) to the 150 Psalms. Naturally, the most frequent reference to psalms, hymns and songs in the LXX is in relation to the book of Psalms, which is only natural, since this is the largest compilation of sung praises in scripture.

Furthermore, the adjective “spiritual” in Eph. and Col. is not an LXX adjective. Some have argued that “spiritual” (Greek pneumatikos) refers to all three categories, further substantiating that these are “inspired divisions of the Psalms.” However, “spiritual” most naturally is joined to “songs” since both adjective and pneumatikos are feminine while both psalms (psalmos) and hymns (hymnos) are masculine nouns.

Granted, psalms in Eph./Col. likely refers to biblical Psalms, though possibly not only the 150 since there are other psalms in scripture. Hymns in Greek are inherently religious in nature. They possibly refer to scripture songs themselves or paraphrases of scripture. “Odes” in Greek were not inherently religious, which explains the qualifier “spiritual.” If “odes” was meant to clearly refer to scripture alone, more particularly the 150 Psalms themselves, the qualifier “spiritual” would be redundant.

Should we carefully distinguish psalms, hymns and spiritual songs so that we make sure we have all three categories in every worship service? No. There is overlap between the terms for certain. What is Paul’s point? He’s counseling his hearers to sing praises! God’s people throughout history are called to sing praises! Since praises through history are not confined to the 150 Psalms, why must we confine Paul’s instruction to refer to only the Psalms? Why must we so carefully parse out each category and miss the thrust of the passage that Paul is exhorting us to the same thing David instructed, that we should sing praises! This certainly includes Psalms, but is not limited to them.

Much more could be said, but I wanted to spell out some of the main arguments that are helpful in understanding the continuity between biblical praise in all dispensations. I am always puzzled at the conjecture necessary to “prove” EP. Biblical saints were never confined to EP. Arguments from the LXX are not consistent with the LXX’s own use of the terms. Leaps in logic are taken to define all sung praises as Psalms alone. Paul’s language itself is inclusive of all praises, not Psalms alone. By understanding the inclusive nature of Paul’s argument, this part of our worship is consistent with all the other parts, namely that we are not restricted to the inspired words alone. Singing is no longer the anomaly of our praise.

Let me reiterate that I bring these arguments respectfully. I have many friends on this board whom I love and respect deeply who are EP. I have learned a lot from them and their fervent desire to sing the Psalms has awakened in me a deeper desire to sing them myself (I have put many of them to music verbatim).

I hope this helps.

In Christ,

Tim

Tim,

Thank you brother. I know this took some time to type up. I unconvinced of the EP position. Still wrestling with AO. Thanks for providing another perspective, which helps increase the quality of the thread!

 

[timfost]

The first passage that is quoted here deals with prophets prophesying (1 Samuel 10:5). This is not a public worship service.

1 Samuel 18:6 - deals with a victory celebration. All such celebrations appear to have dancing connected to them along with instruments. You will have to deal with connected difficulties to dancing in the worship of God.

2 Samuel 6:5, is truly an extraordinary providence and a unique event in Israel's life. Notice what happens in verse 14: once more dancing: David dances before the LORD.

These things do not make a clear case. Using them is as difficult as it is to make the book of Acts prescriptive: they deal with extraordinary providences in a unique dispensation and an unsettled time in Israel's history. Just as would using Deborah as a proof text for women elders.

My point is that the Israelites were accustomed to using instruments in worship. David was accustomed to using them, too. Instruments in relation to praise did not originate with temple worship. If there is any historical significance to the etymology of "psalm," were they not psalms (accompanied songs) prior to their use in temple worship? I'm sure you see my point.

Again, one can say "exception" all day long but it doesn't change the fact (as I see it) that the "no instruments" position is simply conjecture, especially considering that instruments are only tools.

The Levitical use of Psalms is abrogated entirely in Christ. We don't depend on choirs of Levites with particular instruments to sing God's praises in a temple. Rather, we sing God's praises similarly to how God's people sang them through history, with or without instruments.

 

[Afterthought]

Even if instrumental accompaniment assisted the singing, would not the goal of it be to get the congregation to sing with their own voice unaccompanied?

If the argument is that instruments are a circumstantial aid for singing, then they should be removed once a congregation learns to sing.

Yes, this is my position also. Musical instruments could theoretically legitimately be used as a circumstantial aid, but it would not be ideal due to the OT prejudicing a merely circumstantial use of them and the spirituality of the NT worship pushing the worshipper away from these "carnal" ordinances. Hence, if they must be used, they should be gotten rid of once no longer "needed" (although based on what I've seen and testimony from other acapella churches, it is dubious that they would ever actually be needed anyway, except in private non-worship settings to help people learn tunes to use in worship).

 

[bookslover]

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.

And what other sense would that be?

 

[Rom]

My point is that the Israelites were accustomed to using instruments in worship. David was accustomed to using them, too. Instruments in relation to praise did not originate with temple worship. If there is any historical significance to the etymology of "psalm," were they not psalms (accompanied songs) prior to their use in temple worship? I'm sure you see my point.

To be consistent, one could say that the Israelites were familiar with dance in worship as well. The difficulty remains in your court, not mine.

If we are to use the etymology of words, which as you no doubt know, must be done carefully, then I will use the etymology of psallo (translated as sing in 1 Corinthians 14:15). It means to pluck an instrument.

[Fri] ψάλλω fut. ψαλῶ; strictly strike the strings of an instrument; hence sing to the accompaniment of a harp; in the NT sing praises​

Using such etymology, I will say that the typology of the instrument in the OT is fulfilled in unaccompanied singing. Etymology, however, cannot fully bear the burden of the argument.

Again, one can say "exception" all day long but it doesn't change the fact (as I see it) that the "no instruments" position is simply conjecture, especially considering that instruments are only tools.

I did not say "exception". I will leave it to the observer to see if the carefully laid out arguments in this thread are "simply conjecture".

 

[timfost]

To be consistent, one could say that the Israelites were familiar with dance in worship as well. The difficulty remains in your court, not mine.

If we are to use the etymology of words, which as you no doubt know, is a dangerous practice, then I will use the etymology of psallo (translated as sing in 1 Corinthians 14:15). It means to pluck an instrument.

[Fri] ψάλλω fut. ψαλῶ; strictly strike the strings of an instrument; hence sing to the accompaniment of a harp; in the NT sing praises​

Using such etymology, I will say that the typology of the instrument in the OT is fulfilled in unaccompanied singing. Etymology, however, cannot fully bear the burden of the argument.



I did not say "exception". I will leave it to the observer to see if the carefully laid out arguments in this thread are "simply conjecture".

The connection between musical instrument and song is obvious, in today's culture as well as ancient culture. Certainly I don't have to explain the connection. Dance is related, but neither is it so closely related in its nature, neither does "psalm" include in its very etymology the inclusion of dance.

I could also say that we are to make melody in our hearts as Paul teaches and say that singing aloud is of typological nature. I understand your position, but cannot understand how EP advocates use their classifications consistently to come to their positions and sort out what is typological and what is not.

Lastly, I said "exception" and you said "extraordinary." Extraordinary means not ordinary hence my use of exception. I feel like you're playing word games...

I don't have much time to keep responding to these kinds of objections. I highly doubt that my words will change anyone's mind on the issue. Rather, I am simply explaining a minority perspective on this thread.

Blessings,

Tim

 

[Grant]

So from an AO position, would that mean that someone should NOT listen to “Christian Music” outside of the corporate worship service? For example the Getty’s or Be Thou My Vision with instruments?

And again I ask does EP always go with AO or are the some congregations that only hold to AO but allow hymns?

 

[Rom]

The connection between musical instrument and song is obvious, in today's culture as well as ancient culture. Certainly I don't have to explain the connection. Dance is related, but neither is it so closely related in its nature, neither does "psalm" include in its very etymology the inclusion of dance.

If you are going to use these Scriptures, you must deal with all their difficulties, not just ones that arise for the acapella position. The question should be asked, "why no longer dance?", if these things prove, "yes to continue instruments?"

I could also say that we are to make melody in our hearts as Paul teaches and say that singing aloud is of typological nature. I understand your position, but cannot understand how EP advocates use their classifications consistently to come to their positions and sort out what is typological and what is not.

The context of the chapter (1 Corinthians 14) is in terms of vocalization in the midst of the congregation, so context would dictate this is not silence.

Besides, the word in the NT is used for a vocal utterance as the lexicons point out (the excerpt I provided was from Friberg's Analytical Greek Lexicon). From its etymology, we see the plucking of the strings. So by context (and its connection to singing as the lexicon points out) we have demonstration of Paul's intent: vocalized singing.

Lastly, I said "exception" and you said "extraordinary." Extraordinary means not ordinary hence my use of exception. I feel like you're playing word games...

It is not my intention to play "word games". I said this because of the dismissive phrases you have been using. You called arguments against instrumentation "simply conjecture" and dismissed my complaint against using these Scriptures as "saying exception all day long".

That is not a fair assessment of my contention. One ought not to dismiss them out of hand with such phrases. Perhaps, I was out of sorts when I wrote that. If so, I apologize.

God's blessings to you as well, brother.

 

[timfost]

If you are going to use these Scriptures, you must deal with all their difficulties, not just ones that arise for the acapella position. The question should be asked, "why no longer dance?", if these things prove, "yes to continue instruments?"



The context of the chapter (1 Corinthians 14) is in terms of vocalization in the midst of the congregation, so context would dictate this is not silence.

Besides, the word in the NT is used for a vocal utterance as the lexicons point out (the excerpt I provided was from Friberg's Analytical Greek Lexicon). From its etymology, we see the plucking of the strings. So by context (and its connection to singing as the lexicon points out) we have demonstration of Paul's intent: vocalized singing.



It is not my intention to play "word games". I said this because of the dismissive phrases you have been using. You called arguments against instrumentation "simply conjecture" and dismissed my complaint against using these Scriptures as "saying exception all day long".

That is not a fair assessment of my contention. One ought not to dismiss them out of hand with such phrases. Perhaps, I was out of sorts when I wrote that. If so, I apologize.

God's blessings to you as well, brother.

Thanks for your interactions. Again, my disagreement with you in this issue does not mean I have a lack of respect.

I think I made my point clear enough and I don't think any of your objections are substantial enough to keep digging deeper, although I'm sure you would disagree.

I plan on continuing the discussion if I feel that something I said needs clarification or there is a substantial point made against my position.

Again, thank you for interacting.

Blessings,

Tim

 

[Ben Zartman]

Rom, I think the argument of some at least is that while they were a ceremonial element of the OT, some convenient form of musical instrument is circumstantially useful to aid singing, that the passing of the form and use of the OT ceremony doesn't negate and may indeed 'clear the way' for a circumstantial use now of a different form and use. As I said above, it is almost never used that way solely once introduced, but that's the argument I guess.

This, exactly. Thanks for putting it so well.

 

[Tom Hart]

My point is that the Israelites were accustomed to using instruments in worship. David was accustomed to using them, too. Instruments in relation to praise did not originate with temple worship.

All you have shown is that musical instruments were used outside of temple worship. It has already been said that these were extraordinary occasions (not exceptions). These passages are descriptive, not prescriptive; surely you don't think David dancing in a linen ephod is prescriptive? But that is consistent with your argument. Such passages have no bearing on the prescribed worship of the New Testament.

Moreover, you haven't shown how musical instruments could be understood as optional. I have said earlier in this thread that that does not appear to be consistent with the regulative principle.

The Levitical use of Psalms is abrogated entirely in Christ. We don't depend on choirs of Levites with particular instruments to sing God's praises in a temple. Rather, we sing God's praises similarly to how God's people sang them through history, with or without instruments.

Are you saying psalm-singing is Levitical? If that is the case, it would seem improper to sing them at all today, since the ceremonies have been fulfilled in Christ. Of course, it is rather difficult to square this with Paul's "psalm, hymns and spiritual songs". And I'd still have to see where Scripture directs us to compose our own songs for worship.

 

[Tom Hart]

And what other sense would that be?

In Psalm 118:27, we read,

"bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar."

Do we of the New Covenant understand this as a prescription to perform sacrifice? Of course not. Animal sacrifice belonged to temple worship, which has been fulfilled in Christ.

Musical instruments fall in the same category.

These ceremonies point us to Christ, always to Christ. I delight in singing Psalm 33 a capella, knowing that the helps there described are no longer needed. We have something far better.

 

[timfost]

All you have shown is that musical instruments were used outside of temple worship. It has already been said that these were extraordinary occasions (not exceptions). These passages are descriptive, not prescriptive; surely you don't think David dancing in a linen ephod is prescriptive? But that is consistent with your argument. Such passages have no bearing on the prescribed worship of the New Testament.

Moreover, you haven't shown how musical instruments could be understood as optional. I have said earlier in this thread that that does not appear to be consistent with the regulative principle.



Are you saying psalm-singing is Levitical? If that is the case, it would seem improper to sing them at all today, since the ceremonies have been fulfilled in Christ. Of course, it is rather difficult to square this with Paul's "psalm, hymns and spiritual songs". And I'd still have to see where Scripture directs us to compose our own songs for worship.

Please re-read my post. I've dealt with all of that.

 

[Ben Zartman]

You need to prove that instruments are a circumstance.

Gladly. Just as the printed split-leaf psalter is a circumstance, keeping everyone singing the same words, so an instrument aids in keeping people on key and on tempo. A circumstance is something that if done without does not negate that worship happened. Preaching must happen: a pulpit is a circumstance. Preaching can still be done without a pulpit.
Even so, singing can be done without accompaniment and it is still singing. But the accompaniment keeps it in decent order. I'll be the first to admit that instrumental music is abused more often than not, and I'm with Chris in his loathing of clapping and of "performance," as though a performance could be worship. A choir, an offertory, a postlude--none of these are regulated worship, and if called worship, done so wrongly.
But a discreet way of keeping the tune and tempo and pitch in place I cannot object to, though I personally would greatly prefer it not to be needed or used.
An AOEP congregation we visited used a precentor to sing "la" before each psalm so that everyone started on the same note. The "la" was not a part of the psalm: it was not worship in itself: it was a circumstance, just like a piano.