Musical Instruments in Worship

[Calvibaptist]

Preaching the Word is not "worship." Praying is not "worship." Singing the Psalms a cappella is not "worship." Singing a hymn to an electric guitar is not "worship." Taking the Sacraments is not "worship."

And, yet, we are commanded to do all these things (except maybe the electric guitar) during corporate worship.

Rev. Dr. Judson Cornwall writes:

Worship predates music, for Adam worshipped God in the garden of Eden, although music is not mentioned until the birth of Jubal (see Genesis 4:21), and even king David kept music as subsidiary to worship.

I respectfully disagree with Rev. Cornwall. Instruments are not mentioned until Genesis 4. But music was present at the creation (a metaphorical reference at least in Job 38:7).

This very fact establishes the truth that music in itself is not worship. No musical instrument is "an instrument of worship"; it may assist the musician in his worship, but worship cannot be mechanical or inanimate. Worship is a person's spirit responding to God's Spirit, not a horn sounding musical tones throughout an auditorium. The same principle pertains to choir anthems, orchestral presentations, solos, or ensemble vocal songs sung at Christian gatherings ... Far too frequently they are artistic performances that draw more attention to the musician(s) than to God Himself. Cornwall, Judson, Elements of Worship, (Bridge Publishing, Inc., South Plainfield, NJ, 1985), pgs., 129-130.

Worship is in Spirit and in Truth, as Jesus says. It is the uniting of the Spirit of God with the heart of man. It is not spirit only - for that would be enthusiasm. It is not in Truth only - for that would be dead orthodoxy. It is Spirit and Truth. The Spirit does not work "outside" of the Truth.

I don't necessarily mind the rest of his quote, as long as we are clear that God requires certain elements to accompany (not in the musical sense) His worship.

Now, musical instruments are either a matter of the true worship of God, or, they are not. Does anyone have a Biblical argument for musical instruments and not simply a practical one?

Since there is ample biblical evidence of musical instruments used in the Old Covenant, and there is a continuity in the covenants, does anyone have a Biblical argument against musical instruments?

 

[Herald]

Sister Baldwin - I concur completely. Well said. This coming from someone who's musical talent is next to nil.

 

[panta dokimazete]

The Psalms were sung without musical instruments in the synagogue worship services.

Curious: Can you give a definitive historical reference for this assertion?

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Submitted humbly and respectfully....

In Post #23 Wyeth County Calvinist demands Biblical evidence for the forbidding of musical instruments in Public worship. But, then he "amens" an argument that does not have a shred of Biblical evidence to it, and is simply "practical" in nature?

I would not presume to demand anything from the members of this board.

Please notice that in the same post sited I also said....

Though, for the record, I must state that I have yet to come across any argument that has convinced me of (i.e. bound my conscience) either EP or non-instrumental singing. But as always, I will seriously and prayerfully consider views that oppose my own, as long as they are accompanied by Scripture and well reasoned.

(Emphasis added this time.)

I'm only asking for more information and scripture for personal study. If the last 10 years of my Christian life have taught me anything, it is that I don't have all the answers sewed up in a bag, and certainly never will this side of glory.

in my opinion, the Ephesians 5:19 passage is sufficient Biblical grounds to allow for a non-EP and therefore a non-a cappella use of music in worship. But never having come across the argument that AV1611 referenced in his post I thought it the better part of wisdom to enquirer about it and to study this issue from that point of argument. Again, so that I might have a chance to reassess my own conclusions on the matter. I thought I worded my reply in post #23 so as to indicate that.

I do not seek contention, only an atmosphere where I can interact and learn from the brethren.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Yes, the Broadly evangelical churches have too much milk and little or no meat at all, so the congregation remain eternal babes, but we on the other hand too often take up the reverse policy and never provide any milk and then are surprised and depressed that babies reject a steak diet.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

you guys better not let Brian Schwertley see you arguing on behalf of musical instruments He will create new adjectives for you

 

[SEAGOON]

Hi Rob,

This is your particular hobby horse, not mine, clearly the poll was designed to provoke yet another discussion of a position that you have made your up about long ago and I'm not getting the impression that you are hearing me. You presume that anyone who has a musical instrument in a worship service believes that instrumental music is an element of worship I have stated repeatedly that I do not believe it is an element. I approve of the use of an instrument as a circumstance to assist in congregational singing, just as a pitch pipe is also a musical instrument used as a circumstance to assist in congregational singing. I don't personally believe that the Apostles had "harp solos" in the Apostolic church, however I don't think they would have gone ballistic over the news that someone in a gentile church used a harp to accompany the singing of their congregation. Clearly, merely using an instrument to accompany singing was not inherently sinful in the Old Testament, or I might add, the New:

"Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:8-10)

Rob, can you explain to me why this issue is so important to you that you bring it up as a subject for argument again and again?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Preaching the Word is not "worship." Praying is not "worship." Singing the Psalms a cappella is not "worship." Singing a hymn to an electric guitar is not "worship." Taking the Sacraments is not "worship."

And, yet, we are commanded to do all these things (except maybe the electric guitar) during corporate worship.

Rev. Dr. Judson Cornwall writes:

I respectfully disagree with Rev. Cornwall. Instruments are not mentioned until Genesis 4. But music was present at the creation (a metaphorical reference at least in Job 38:7).

Worship is in Spirit and in Truth, as Jesus says. It is the uniting of the Spirit of God with the heart of man. It is not spirit only - for that would be enthusiasm. It is not in Truth only - for that would be dead orthodoxy. It is Spirit and Truth. The Spirit does not work "outside" of the Truth.

I don't necessarily mind the rest of his quote, as long as we are clear that God requires certain elements to accompany (not in the musical sense) His worship.

Now, musical instruments are either a matter of the true worship of God, or, they are not. Does anyone have a Biblical argument for musical instruments and not simply a practical one?

Since there is ample biblical evidence of musical instruments used in the Old Covenant, and there is a continuity in the covenants, does anyone have a Biblical argument against musical instruments?

Greetings:

Surprising that a Baptist is arguing "continunity in the covenants"?

I think that the forbidding of musical instruments in worship is a fine example of how paedo-baptism teaches that there is a non-continunity between the Covenants.

In my first post on this thread I hinted at the argument. In the Old Testament musical instruments in the public worship of God were a matter of the Tabernacle/Temple worship:

Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. 3And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 4And if they blow but with one trumpet, then the princes, which are heads of the thousands of Israel, shall gather themselves unto thee. 5When ye blow an alarm, then the camps that lie on the east parts shall go forward. 6When ye blow an alarm the second time, then the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journey: they shall blow an alarm for their journeys. 7But when the congregation is to be gathered together, ye shall blow, but ye shall not sound an alarm. 8And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with the trumpets; and they shall be to you for an ordinance for ever throughout your generations. Numbers 10:2-9

This is the first mention of instruments in the worship of God. Though Miriam used a cymbol - that was a matter of celebration, and not a formal worship service. Notice several things:

1) The fashioning of them was commanded "of silver; of a whole piece" the people were not to use the instruments they brought out of Egypt.

2) What they will be used for: "the calling of the assembly and the journeying of the camps."

3) Where they are to be used, "at the door of the tabernacle."

4) The manner in which they are to be used is shown in verse 3-9.

5) Who are to use these two trumpets, "the sons of Aaron, the priests."

Putting all other agendas aside: One has to admit that the use of instruments in worship is a matter of divine command, and not a matter of a practical nature. No other instruments were used during the wanderings until the time of David and the settling of the Tabernacle in the Temple. The Rev. John Price notes:

The Levites were no longer needed to transport the Tabernacle and all its furnishings. The time had come for their role in God's worship to be changed. David begins to use them as professional singers and musicians (1 Chron. 16:1-6, 23:1-5). David acknowledges, "The LORD God of Israel has given rest to His people, and He dwells in Jerusalem forever. And also, the Levites will no longer need to carry the tabernacle and all its utensils for its service" (1 Chron. 23:25-26), From: Price, John, Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, A Theological, Historical and Psychological Study, (Simpson Publishing Company, Avinger, TX, 2005) - probably the best book I have ever read on the subject.

David was a skilled musician, 1 Sam. 18:10. Yet, he did not include himself among the Temple musicians. It was only the Levites who were commanded to perform in the Temple. Hezekiah picks up on this:

And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets, 2 Chron. 29:25,26.

It was the Levites in the Temple who were commanded to play instruments. The children of Israel would do nothing in the worship of God that was not commanded. Apparently, they learned their lesson from Nadab and Abihu.

One cannot argue instruments in worship today based upon the Old Testament understanding of it. The Levitical priesthood has been abolished by the priesthood (Melchisedec) of Jesus Christ:

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 7:11-18

The Temple worship services have also been abolished:

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Hebrews 9:8-14

The instruments commanded in the Jewish Temple during the infancy of the church (as a paedo-baptist I can use the term "church" to refer to the OT saints), have been done away with by the destruction of the same Temple. We now live in a more mature age with a greater manifestation of the Spirit of God. The Temple worship with all of its "carnal ordinances" have been done away, and the Church in its adulthood has now emerged from the worship of the synagogue. This is the universal testimony of the godly throughout all ages:

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.

What trumpet of God is now heard--unless it is in the entertainments of the heretics? (Tertullian, c. 210)

Why should I speak of strings set vibrating to noise? Even if these things were not dedicated to idols, they should not be approached and gazed upon by faithful Christians. (Novatian, c. 235)

The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms. (Eusebius, Commentary on Psalm 91:2-3, c.320)

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."

Thomas Aquinas wrote, "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize."

John Calvin, in his "Commentary on Exodus," 15:20, writes, "Instrumental music is reckoned among the number of legal ceremonies which Christ hath abolished, where as now we must retain a gospel simplicity."

The Synod of Holland and Zealand, convened in 1554, gave the following instruction:

"That ministers should endeavour to prevail with the magistrates to banish organs and instrumental music out of the churches." Twenty-seven years later, in 1581, the National Assembly convened in Middleburg, again called for the removal of organs from the churches. Therefore, those who champion the use of instrumental music in Christian worship are in direct opposition to the Apostolic Simplicity of Worship as held by the fathers of the Dutch Reformation."

Even the Catholics admit this: "For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant, without any instrumental or harmonic addition, was the only music connection with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant. It gave the pitch to the singers and added brilliancy and sonority. (Instruments which replaced the songs were strongly condemned). Catholic Encyclopaedia online.

John Calvin, “Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things from the Jew. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise: but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to Him.” (Commentary on Psalms 33)

John Wesley, “I have no opposition to the organ in our chapel provided it is neither seen nor heard.” (Adam Clark’s Commentary, Volume 4, page 868)

Adam Clark, “I am an old man, and an old minister; and I here declare that I never knew them to be productive of any good in the worship of God; and have had reason to believe that they were productive of much evil. Music, as a science, I esteem and admire; but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor.” (Adam Clark’s Commentary, Volume 4, page 686)

Charles Spurgeon, when asked why, in the twenty years he preached in London, never used the organ in worship, cited 1 Cor. 14:15 and said “I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also, I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. I would as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery.”

Finally,

James W. McKinnon examined 150 references to Christian music up to the Middle Ages and found opposition to instruments ‘uniform, vehement, and monolithic’.

The Biblical argument of all of these men is simple: Instruments in worship was a matter of the Jewish/Infancy of the Church. They have been abolished as the Temple has been abolished. We now worship God in our hearts and by the Spirit.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[JBaldwin]

J. Baldwin:

I would like to see your reference. Because Strong's disagrees with your assessment of psalmos. The Psalms were sung without musical instruments in the synagogue worship services. According to Strong: psallo means to "play a musical instrument." The psalms could be accompanied "with a voice, harp. or other instrument" but this is referring back to the Temple worship, and not to the synagogue.

Yes, that is what Strong's says in his dictionary of Bible words. Vines says, "Psalmos" primarly denoted a striking or twitching with fingers (on musical strings); then, a sacred song, sung to musical accompaniment, a psalm." From this definition, we get both possibilities.

Just the fact that the word psalm is so tightly connected to playing an instrument is enough to make me, a simple person, think that the Holy Spirit wanted us to use instruments in worship. Why else would He have led the apostle to use two words "psallos" and "psalmos" both having to do with musical instruments in the same verse?
I contend that the Spirit of God in His wisdom knowing the future and the possibility for confusion would have made sure we knew what He was talking about. Therefore, He would not have chosen confusing words like "psallos" if musical instruments were not allowed in worship.

By the way, Strongs doesn't say anything about temple worship. Again, the verses in question where not written to Jews, but Gentiles. They didn't necessarily have a clue about temple worship.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi Rob,

This is your particular hobby horse, not mine, clearly the poll was designed to provoke yet another discussion of a position that you have made your up about long ago and I'm not getting the impression that you are hearing me. You presume that anyone who has a musical instrument in a worship service believes that instrumental music is an element of worship I have stated repeatedly that I do not believe it is an element. I approve of the use of an instrument as a circumstance to assist in congregational singing, just as a pitch pipe is also a musical instrument used as a circumstance to assist in congregational singing. I don't personally believe that the Apostles had "harp solos" in the Apostolic church, however I don't think they would have gone ballistic over the news that someone in a gentile church used a harp to accompany the singing of their congregation. Clearly, merely using an instrument to accompany singing was not inherently sinful in the Old Testament, or I might add, the New:

"Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:8-10)

Rob, can you explain to me why this issue is so important to you that you bring it up as a subject for argument again and again?

Why Andy? I believe this is the first time I have ever mentioned Musical instruments in worship in your presence? Wasn't our conversation on the Warfield site about Exclusive Psalmody? And did you not delete my answer to your post on the grounds that you think it not worth arguing about? On your blog you mentioned the same thing, and I honored you by not replying and continuing the argument.

I have over 300+ posts on this site, and you will find that EP and Instruments fill up less than 2% of my writings. Why such nasty accusations from a minister of the gospel? Saying things like "hobby horse" is considered loving and kind and gentle? From a man who does not know me - except through a few posts - you are quick to judge.

Can you Biblically defend your view that instruments are a "circumstance" in worship? Your example of a microphone is not Scriptural in nature. I have shown in posts above that God does not consider instruments "circumstantial" but a very part of the Temple worship. You claim the RPW yet even the circumstances in worship are subject to Christian prudence as outlined in the Bible - we should not build a church near a nudist colony, for example.

Grace and Peace to you brother,

-CH

 

[SEAGOON]

Dear Rob,

My apologies, I still had the "Hymn Singers" thread on Warfield in mind. If this wasn't something like that then I stand (or rather sit) duly corrected. I hope you can forgive me, but I'll admit to getting riled by the accusation that I have no concern for the Second Commandment or that I break it in a cavalier or thoughtless fashion. Not that I'm not a big sinner saved by grace - in that respect I'm probably the worst wretch on the board, and I don't mean that as hyperbole.

But as a minister who will someday have to give an account for how I instructed Christ's lambs to go about worshipping Him, I have given quite a bit of thought to worship and the RPW is something I do take very seriously. My only exception to the 1789 revision of the WCF is over exclusive psalmody, and I didn't come to that conclusion without much fear and trembling, or in any sense "pragmatically." Please believe me that my fear of God and the flak I've taken over the years about things like not observing Holy Days should speak to the fact that I have no desire to do anything I don't genuinely believe is prescribed merely to please men and I can swear an oath before God to that with a clear conscience.

In any event, speaking of sitting and the use of the biblical evidence for every circumstance in worship, let me ask, does your congregation have seats? Do you sit in them? If so, can you please prove to me from the bible that you are allowed to sit on them during the preaching of the word and also while praying? If you can't can you please explain why you feel you are allowed to sit on them during worship?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Chiefmusician]

I don't want to offend my Presbyterian brothers, but after reading the worship forums for the last several days I have an observation.

I find it interesting that when it comes to music in particular many of you take a really strict stand on the regulative principal. At times as if it trumps scripture itself. However, it becomes a little less strict when needed to justify other elements of corporate worship.

One last observation. Those that keep referring to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 in your defense of accapella singing are reading a lot into that passage. A whole lot.

 

[AV1611]

Honestly, this is almost silly. If the instruments are mere shadows of something else, then why aren't the voices in the Old Testament mere shadows of something else? Where in the New Testament does it tell us that we are to sing out loud in corporate worship?

Singing is a moral duty. Although I posted those quotes to demonstrate what the early church believed why they should not use musical instruments. Whether they were typical of praise, as incense was of prayer, I will leave the reader to judge but the fact remains they were tied to the sacrificial system.

Seeing you are a Baptist I shall point you to John Gill:

To consider another objection made against singing the psalms of David. The singing of there was formerly attended with. the use of musical instruments; such as the harp, timbrel, cymbals, and the like: If then they are to be sung now, why not with these instruments, as heretofore? and if these are disused, why should not singing it self? I reply, That the use of musical instruments was not essential to singing; therefore, though’ these are laid aside, that continues. The Old Testament dispensation was a showy, gaudy, and pompous one, suited to the then infant state of the church; there were many ceremonious rites which attended the worship of God, even that part of it which was of a moral nature; which ceremonious rites, though now abolished, the worship being of a moral nature, remains in full force: As for instance; it was usual to burn incense at the time of prayer; now the use of incense, which was typical of the acceptance of the prayers of the saints, through the mediation of Christ, is laid aside; but the duty of prayer, being of a moral nature, continues: So the use of musical instruments, which attended the work of singing the praises of God, and was typical of inward spiritual melody, is at an end, when singing, being equally of a moral nature with prayer, is still obligatory. It is now sufficient, if, when we sing vocally, at the same time we make melody in our hearts to the Lord. I close this with an observation of an ancient writer; "Barely to sing, says he, is not fit for babes, but to sing with inanimate instruments, with cymbals, and with dancing; wherefore, in the churches (i. e. under the gospel dispensation) the use of such instruments, and others, fit for babes, is taken away, and bare or plain singing remains."​

A Discourse on Singing of Psalms as a Part of Divine Worship.

It is observed, that David’s psalms were sung formerly with musical instruments, as the harp, timbrel, and cymbal, and organs; and why not with these now? if these are to be disused, why not singing not singing itself? I answer, these are not essential to singing, and so may be laid aside, and that continue; it was usual to burn incense at the time of prayer, typical of Christ’s mediation, and of the acceptance of prayer through it; that is now disused; but prayer being a moral duty, still remains: the above instruments were used only when the church was in its infant state, and what is showy, gaudy, and pompous, are pleasing to children; and as an ancient writer observes, "these were fit for babes, but in the churches (under the gospel dispensation, which is more manly) the use of these, fit for babes, is taken away, and bare or plain singing is left." As for organs, of which mention is made in Psalm 150:1-6, the word there used signifies another kind of instruments than those now in use, which are of a later device and use; and were first introduced by a pope of Rome, Vitalianus, and that in the seventh century, and not before.​

Of Singing Psalms.

 

[AV1611]

Music is therefore a necessary circumstance of singing, do you have singing without music?

I know some Presbyterians justify musical instruments arguing they are a circumstance of worship yet the OT demonstrates that they were a part of worship and the fact that one can sing without instruments sort of disproves the whole circumstance thing anyway.

 

[jbergsing]

Not forbidden, but fulfilled. We don't use instruments anymore for the same reason we don't slice open goats and cows. Because Jesus fulfilled it all. Every part of the sacrificial system was wrapped up in the cross; we continue only those parts specifically commanded in the new covenant.

So, forbidden? Yes, but by way of fulifillment.

How, then, is using instruments in worship a sacrifice?

 

[jbergsing]

Eusebius the “Father of Church History” who lived between 260 AD and 341 AD wrote

"Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms."

Honestly, this is almost silly. If the instruments are mere shadows of something else, then why aren't the voices in the Old Testament mere shadows of something else? Where in the New Testament does it tell us that we are to sing out loud in corporate worship?

 

[AV1611]

Eusebius the “Father of Church History” who lived between 260 AD and 341 AD wrote

"Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshipping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and cithara and to do this on Sabbath days... We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living cithara with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms."

Honestly, this is almost silly. If the instruments are mere shadows of something else, then why aren't the voices in the Old Testament mere shadows of something else? Where in the New Testament does it tell us that we are to sing out loud in corporate worship?

See reply above

 

[JohnV]

I don't want to offend my Presbyterian brothers, but after reading the worship forums for the last several days I have an observation.

I find it interesting that when it comes to music in particular many of you take a really strict stand on the regulative principal. At times as if it trumps scripture itself. However, it becomes a little less strict when needed to justify other elements of corporate worship.

One last observation. Those that keep referring to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 in your defense of accapella singing are reading a lot into that passage. A whole lot.

Pastor Scott:

There is at least one Presbyterian who takes a strong stand on the RPW and therefore stands opposed to either EP or No-instruments. - Me.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This subject like others on the board often brings out passions, so just a reminder to take some time before you post as our FAQ suggests.

[3. Pause Before You Post
​

This is something that everyone can benefit from. Before you send the latest jab, punch, tweak, etc into cyberspace, take a minute (or two, or five) to make sure that you are doing so in a spirit of Christian maturity (cf. #4 below). Study first, pray, post after.]
​

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I think those now arguing for instrumental music as a circumstance and pragmatic matter, have to at least acknowledge that their ability to do this in Presbyterian churches today, is because musical instrumentation in worship is now common. It was not viewed as a circumstancial matter prior to, nor was that largely the reason for its introduction in, the late 19th century. One witness to this changeover was Robert L. Dabney who firmly believed the "innovation [was] merely the result of an advancing wave of worldliness and ritualism in the evangelical bodies...."

Dabney continues: "This melancholy opinion is combined, in our minds, with a full belief in the piety, good intentions and general soundness of many ministers and laymen who are now aiding the innovations. No doubt the advocates of instrumental music regard this as the sting of Dr. Girardeau's argument, that it seems to claim all the fidelity and piety for the anti-organ party. No doubt many hearts are now exclaiming, "This unjust, and thousands of our saintliest women are in the organ loft; our soundest ministers have organs," etc., etc. All this is perfectly true. It simply means that the best of people err and unintentionally do mischief when they begin to lean to their own understandings. The first organ I ever knew of in a Virginian Presbyterian church was introduced by one of the wisest and most saintly of pastors, a paragon of old school doctrinal rigor. But he avowedly introduced it on an argument the most unsound and perilous possible for a good man to adopt that it would be advantageous to prevent his young people from leaving his church to run after the Episcopal organ in the city. Of course such an argument would equally justify every other sensational and spectacular adjunct to God's ordinances, which is not criminal per se. Now this father's general soundness prevented his carrying out the pernicious argument to other applications. A very bad organ remained the only unscriptural feature in a church otherwise well-ordered. But after the church authorizes such policy, what guarantee remains that one and another less sound and staid will not carry the improper principle to disastrous results?... From Review: INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN THE PUBLIC WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH. By John L. Girardeau, D. D., LL.D., Professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, South Carolina. Richmond: Whittet & Shepperson. 1888. The Presbyterian Quarterly, July 1889. By Robert L. Dabney ----the full review here----.

 

[JohnOwen007]

I can't see how musical instruments are now absolutely forbidden, even if they were used only in temple worship. Just because Christ is the true temple, why does that mean instruments are forbidden? Sacrifices were done in a building, does that mean that Christians are allowed to meet in a building now? Instruments (and a building) may've been used with sacrifices but they're not the sacrifices themselves.

The chief purpose of the gathering in the NT is edification (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24-25). As far as I see it, if musical instruments help in the task of edification we should use them. If not, we shouldn't.

BTW I can't find anywhere in the NT where the purpose of the gathering is described as "worship". What is explicitly said of the gathering is that it's purpose is "edification" (oikodomeo).

 

[fredtgreco]

Music is therefore a necessary circumstance of singing, do you have singing without music?

I know some Presbyterians justify musical instruments arguing they are a circumstance of worship yet the OT demonstrates that they were a part of worship and the fact that one can sing without instruments sort of disproves the whole circumstance thing anyway.

Ok, now really?

Can you talk without a microphone? If so, does that make a microphone an element? Can you preach without a pulpit? If so, does that make a pulpit an element?

Did you really mean to make such a spurious argument?

 

[caddy]

Profoundly stated...! Thanks Andy

Hello David,




As with almost any issue related to worship, the appeals to experience and pragmatics which one often hears show that the understanding and cherishing of the Regulative Principle are on a down-swing in general.

Well its always good to finally be someplace where I'm accused of not liking the RPW as opposed to the norm of being accused of over-venerating it. I'm new and still figuring the board out, does this kind of let me assess the condition of your heart because you aren't convinced of my position on a worship circumstance fly around a lot in here? Can I ask how you'd react if I assumed you didn't understand or cherish biblical eccelesiology because you remain in a denomination that ordains women to the office of deacon? (I don't assume that at all, but I wouldn't personally be able to stay in a denom that had female officers)

David, I would assume that we both agree that congregational singing is a commanded element of worship. You'd also have to assume that because it is singing, music is involved:

Music - "the tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony), and sounded or to be sounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both"

Music is therefore a necessary circumstance of singing, do you have singing without music? Not unless you have singing that is devoid of melody and harmony. Which is seldom if ever the case - even chants have a melody. The question is, in producing and organizing the music that is part and parcel of singing may we use an instrument other than simply the human voice? To me the question is akin to may I use electrical amplification in order that my relatively weak preaching voice might be heard instead of shouting myself hoarse? To which I would answer, yes as this is simply a necessary circumstance to assist with the element of preaching.

When we use an instrument to assist in singing we are not ADDING an element to the worship like say a liturgical dance routine, neither are we making the circumstance an element by having the instruments played by themselves and not simply assisting with another element as say a flute or harp solo would be.

Finally, please feel free to dismiss this out of hand as pragmatism if you wish. When it comes to visitors to conservative Reformed churches, the preaching of the whole gospel is going to be an offense to them, and a worship services that honors the RPW is going to be profoundly countercultural and weird, but those offences are necessary, and in some senses we should glory in them.

But on the other hand, my experience is that one of the reasons the majority of our visitors "don't stick" is that we add unnecessary hurdles and offenses to the necessary ones. Just one of the many we can add is not helping them to sing, they don't know the psalms and hymns we sing, and 9 times out of 10 they are embarrassed at the train wreck sound they produce trying to follow along accapella especially when they are sure everyone can hear them. Yes you can train a small congregation of committed Christians to sing accappella but you see there is far too much assumption that that is all that our congregations will ever be - the same small group of committed Christians and their kids that we started with plus perhaps a few heroic types who fought their way in. It's part of the reason why the majority of our church plants fail - we act like we are going to be working with the same group of committed Christians and do little or nothing to help or accommodate the outsiders we are supposed to want to convert.

Yes, the Broadly evangelical churches have too much milk and little or no meat at all, so the congregation remain eternal babes, but we on the other hand too often take up the reverse policy and never provide any milk and then are surprised and depressed that babies reject a steak diet.

 

[SRoper]

Music is therefore a necessary circumstance of singing, do you have singing without music?

I know some Presbyterians justify musical instruments arguing they are a circumstance of worship yet the OT demonstrates that they were a part of worship and the fact that one can sing without instruments sort of disproves the whole circumstance thing anyway.

Ok, now really?

Can you talk without a microphone? If so, does that make a microphone an element? Can you preach without a pulpit? If so, does that make a pulpit an element?

Did you really mean to make such a spurious argument?

I was thinking the same thing. The Eastern Orthodox seem to do fine without pews, etc.

 

[dcomin]

Clearly, merely using an instrument to accompany singing was not inherently sinful in the Old Testament, or I might add, the New:

"Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth." (Rev. 5:8-10)

Andy, if you are going to use Revelation 5:8-10 as an instance of harps being an authorized part of New Testament worship, then you will also have to maintain that the burning of insense continues under the New Covenant. But the passage clearly indicates that the incense spoken of here are symbolic and metaphorical, standing for the prayers of the saints. Likewise, the harps possessed by each of the elders are Old Covenant symbols used metaphorically in John's vision. They simply picture the joy of the twenty-four elders in Christ's fulfillment of His mission (also portrayed symbolically by His taking of the scroll). Revelation is filled with such application of the types and shadows of Old Covenant worship. Its employment of these symbols does not, however, teach us that the types and shadows are to be continued. If we took Revelation as a literal paradigm for New Covenant worship, with all of its references to the ceremonies of Israel, our churches would look more like Rome than Geneva.

Interesting etymological note:
a cap·pel·la
–adverb, adjective Music.
1. without instrumental accompaniment.
2. in the style of church or chapel music.

Acapella literally means "as in chapel." This is, of course, not a Biblical argument. But it does point out that the practice of singing praise in public worship without musical accompaniment was once considered normative, however odd or counter-cultural it has become today.

 

[MrMerlin777]

If I can't do a bass solo, then no one gets to play.

I'm a bass man myself. Good one.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

Andy:

All is at peace between our spirits. I wish I could express at times the same Christian humility that you have. Blessings brother!

Calvibaptist, Fred Greco:

Singing was not only a matter of Temple worship. It was also used in the synagogue as well. The singing in the synagogue did not use musical instruments because instruments were commanded only for Temple worship. Even historians, like Philip Schaff, who held to instruments admitted that synagogue worship, and the worship of the Church through all ages was that of a capella singing.

Using instruments in the worship of God was a matter of the immaturity of the Jewish church. The Temple, the musicians (Levites) and the instruments themselves have been fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. We now do not worship God in "with Temples made by hands," but according to the Spirit working love and joy and peace in our hearts.

jbaldwin:

Can you show me a passage in Scripture where the word "psalmos" is used to mean a musical instrument? When a musical instrument is referred to in the fashion that you are mentioning I believe the word is "psaltery." Sometimes at Renaissance fairs there is a vendor who sells "psaltery's" if this is the same instrument described in the Bible, then it is a very beautiful sounding instrument. I intend to pick one up someday and learn how to play it (though not in a worship service).

In Jesus,

-CH

 

[panta dokimazete]

The singing in the synagogue did not use musical instruments because instruments were commanded only for Temple worship. Even historians, like Philip Schaff, who held to instruments admitted that synagogue worship, and the worship of the Church through all ages was that of a capella singing.

I'd still like to see a historical witness for this assertion. Not saying it's not there, but nonetheless...

 

[Coram Deo]

According to Josephus (1st century A.D.), the kinnor used by the Temple musicians had ten strings; the nevel, twelve. The Bible also mentions the nevel `asor or `asor, probably a ten-stringed nevel; the nevel `al - `alamot or `alamot, apparently an alto-pitched or "maidenly" nevel; and the kinnor `al - hashsheminit or hashsheminit, a "lyre upon the eighth". According to Suzanne Haïk-Vantoura, this last instrument (like the Greek magadis) may have had ten pairs of strings tuned so that each pair of strings was an octave apart.

He also states that it was restricted to temple worship and that synagogue worship was without musical instruments....

The singing in the synagogue did not use musical instruments because instruments were commanded only for Temple worship. Even historians, like Philip Schaff, who held to instruments admitted that synagogue worship, and the worship of the Church through all ages was that of a capella singing.

I'd still like to see a historical witness for this assertion. Not saying it's not there, but nonetheless...

 

[Calvibaptist]

So, here is a question regarding consistency...

Most of the people today who are opposed to instruments in worship are also advocates of EP. Now, understanding that the subtitles to the Psalms are not inspired, how can you advocate exclusive psalmnody when some of the Psalms were written specifically "to the chief Musician" who would have been an instrumentalist and some are written specifically for instrumentation like Psalm 84? And aren't you lying when you sing Psalms that talk about praising God with certain instruments when you have no intention of using instruments?

In a previous post, I brought up continuity in the covenants on purpose. We Baptists often get accused of having discontinuity in our views because we believe that since Baptism of infants isn't commanded in the NT and only Baptism of those who profess faith is obvious in the NT. But when you come along and believe that instruments in worship isn't commanded in the NT and only singing without instruments is obvious in the NT, you consider it continuity. I tend to think it seems a bit arbitrary.