Covenant Theology, RPW, and Musical Instruments

[timmopussycat]

So for 600 years, 99.9% of the church got it wrong, and the Pope came along in 666 AD and set things right. Ok . . . . . .

As I mentioned, usage was still sparse until much later, and during the Reformation, the reformers got rid of them. So, all the reformers also got it wrong. Ok . . . . . . .

BUT - the brilliant minds of the 19th and 20th century (like the Dispensationalists and Arminians) enlightened everyone, and now we are safe and secure.

Riiiiggghhhttttt . . . . . . .

I realize that numbers alone don't establish truth, but when the heavy hitters of theology over 1700 years (and still many in the 19th and 20th century, who still found their arguments from Scripture sound) stand side by side on this issue, it would be wise for one to at least sit up and take notice. But alas, the vast majority today (and sadly, even reformed scholars) don't even bother.

I am one who fully agrees that the teachings of great men of God are a Holy Spirit touched commentary on the Scriptures that we ignore at our peril. But I never dare deploy the argument that unamimity of the Reformd worthies opinions necessarily trumps a solid exegetical argument from Scripture that they are, on a given point incorrect. For what such a practice suggests to me is that the user of it really does not believe in sola Scriptura. Scripture commands us to test all things, not just the ones that our particular heroes of faith disagree on. So if somebody presents an exegetical case that seems to challenge anything I think is biblical, I address myself to the substance of the case presented.

The problem is the issue of what counts as a solid exegetical argument. When you have such a weight of ancient to not so ancient exegetical argumentation that points to one conclusion, but then there is a new wave of argumentation and exegesis that points to a different conclusion; there seems to have been a change in the philosophy of exegesis and hermeneutics. (By this I mean what counts as a good hermeneutic argument and what a good exegetical exposition looks like). To defend such a change is a HUGE deal. It is such a big deal you start to run up against Jude 1:3 contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, type issues.

There is little difference between this and saying "Up until year 17xx/18xx, we did not have an accurate Biblical text."

CT

Whlile what you have said is a possibility requiring investigation in all cases where recent exegesis differs from a longstanding traditional consensus, sometimes what you get is the discovery that the conensus rests on errors of fact or errrors of Scriptural application. It was precisely this grammatical, historical and Scriptural analysis that Calvin and others used to prove that the papacy's claims were unfounded and critical RC doctrines were in error; it is not saying that "up untill the 1800's we did not have an accurate biblical text". When I put forward evidence from the history of both Greece, Israel and provide a Scriptural consideration all of which appearing to prove that Calvin and those who rely on his argument are simply wrong in thinking that Paul must have meant to include instrumental accompaniments within the stricture of his forbidding multiplicity of untranslated languages in the assembly, I may be right or I may be wrong. I recognize that my hypothesis needs to be tested every bit as much as I tested Calvin's. But the needed test is not blind faith is some Reformed worthy or longstdanding historical consensus or the deployment of straw man arguments: what is needed is a serious anlysis of the argument put forward. People should be asking and answering such questions as these that address the justification for the differing view:

Did the Greeks think of music as a language? They will find the answer is no for inasfar as the Greeks related music to any other subject, that subject was Math.

Are the following valid syllogisms?
God commanded instrumental accompaniment of OT sung praise.
God is not the author of confusion but of peace.
Therefore instrumental accompaniment of sung praise in the OT must have been capable of being practiced in a way that was not confusing.

If IA was ever practiced in a way that was not confusing it is likely (given the dynamics of the situation i.e, a conservative religious traditional establshment and such establishments tend to have rigourous worship rules to minimize confusion) that IA would be practiced in a non-confusing way in the temple at Jerusalem.
Paul was well acquainted with temple worship.
He therefore may have known from first hand experience that unconfusing IA was possible.

Paul may well have known that unconfusing IA was possible.
He nowhere explicitly prohibits IA.
We therefore do not have enough evidence to read a prohibition of IA into his statements prohibiting confusionin the church.

Now testing the points made above is necessary when considering a rethiink of a doctrine and on a board where sola scriptura is the theoretical norm, I might have expected that such testing of contoversial hypotheses would also be the norm. But to date, nobody on the con side of this argument has engaged in this kind of analysis of the differing argument. What has been posted is nothing more than justifications of non-IA traditionalism rathe than engaging with the grammatico, Scriptural and historical details of the argument that challenges their view.

Don Carson makes an interesting comment somehere in the introduction to Exegetical Fallacies. "The essence of all critical thought...is the justification of opinions". To show a hypothesis to be incorrect, it is not enough to cite contrary opinions, one must demonstrate that the justification of the hypothesis is unsound in fact or reasoning. Calvin did this routinely.
Will those who wish to hold to unaccompanied worship follow his example?

 

[timmopussycat]

I simply find it amazing that for essentially 1700 years, the NON-use of instruments in worship was considered a no-brainer by just about everyone; then in the mid to late 19th century (a very bad century for Christianity in many ways), all of that changed.

Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, sincel the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?

The odd thing about this argument is that it is exactly the same argument given by my pro-Women's Ordination friends here at PTS.

And I hope you answer it by demonstrating from Scripture and logic the insufficinecy of their arguments. Why arn't you doing likewise with the IA matter?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

William Ames, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship, pp. 404-406:

Cathedrall mufick with Organs.

The firft question was, If the Primitive Church had fuch chaunting Idol-service, as is in our Cathedrall Churches? The Rejoynder after fome words fpent about finging (about which he bringeth not the leaft refemblance of that in question, untill the fourth age after Chrift) excepteth firft, that Organall muficke was gods ordinance in the old Teftament, and that not fignificant, or typicall; and therefore is finfully called Idol-fervice. 2. That all men whofe hearts are not averfe, by diftraction, ftupidity, or prejudice, feele fuch muficke to worke much upon their affections. To this I fay 1. that his denying of Organall muficke to have beene fignificant or typicall, is without reafon, and againft the current of our Divines; taken (as it may feeme) out of Bellarmine de miffa. lib. 2 cap. 15.) who ufeth this evafion againft thofe words of P. Martyr: Musicall organs perteyne to the Iewifh Ceremonie and agree no more to us, then Circumcifion. So that we may neglect it, and take him as faying, that nothing which was ordained in the old Teftament (no not facrificing of beafts) is now an Idol-fervice. 2. For that, and the other, both together, it is fit the Rejoynder fhould be put in minde how many, and what kinde of men, he accufeth of diftraction, ftupidity, or prejudice!

Thomas Aquinas (in whofe time this faction was not in generall requeft, much leffe in the Primitive) in 22.q.91.a.2.4 oppofeth thus: The Church ufeth no mufick for divine praifes, left it fhould feeme to Iudaize, and anfwereth thus: Muficall instruments doe more ftirre up the minde to delight, then frame it to a right difpofition. In the old Teftament there was fome need of them, both, &c. and alfo becaufe they did figure out fomething. Erafmus, in 1. Cor. 14. fayth thus: We have brought a tedious and player-like muficke into the Church, a tumultuous noyfe of many voyces, fuch as I thinke was not heard among the Theaters of Grecians or Romans. For which purpofe, whole flockes of boyes are maintained at great charges, whofe age alfo is all fpent in learning fuch gibble gabble. At fuch coft is the Church for a [] thing, &c.

It is evident that that fame Ecclefiafticall chanting and roarings in our Temples (fcarfe alfo underftood of the Priefts themfelves) is a moft foolifh and vaine abufe, and a moft pernicious let to piety. I make no queftion but that all kinde of muficke was a part of the legall pedagogie. In the solemne worfhip of God, I doe not judge it more futable, then if we fhould recall the incenfe, tapers, and other fhadowes of the Law, into ufe. I fay againe, to goe beyond what we are taught, is moft wicked pervivacy.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Why are you surprised or moved by this argument? An error is an error no matter how many years it has been regarded as the truth. Or, sincel the papacy was regarded as a no-brainer for almost 900 years in the Western church, why don't we all become papists?

The odd thing about this argument is that it is exactly the same argument given by my pro-Women's Ordination friends here at PTS.

And I hope you answer it by demonstrating from Scripture and logic the insufficiency of their arguments. Why arn't you doing likewise with the IA matter?

Because Scripture speaks clearly on this matter.

 

[MW]

So you allow that there were worship contexts in which there was unaccompanied singing - but you claim that temple worship required the use of instruments for sacrifices only? Please explain why Ps. 61 (which is set to stringed instruments) does not mention sacrifice or Ps 66 is silent likewise?

First, the title commits it to the chief musician, who is associated with the temple music. Secondly, Ps. 61:8 speaks of performing vows, which is usually connected with the presentation of an offering to the Lord. Thirdly, Ps. 66:13 mentions the burnt offerings.

The hidden premise under your argument is that we are not allowed to do what God has not commanded. The fact is, before David, God never commanded that he be worshipped by sung praise: although songs were used as a teaching device in some places e.g., Deut. 32. So if we were never allowed to do what God has not commanded, one would expect no singing of praise to God before the command came in David's day to do so. Or if people did engage in sung praise uncommanded we might expect an immediate judgment. But this is not what we find.

Al least you acknowledge the hidden premise under my argument is the regulative principle -- what God has not commanded is fobidden. I would suggest that anyone working from a contradictory premise is not following the confessional guidelines of this board.

The idea that this was uncommanded praise is irrelevant given that these praise songs were inspired.

The Davidic economy was a genuine development in the history of redemption. The divine institutions of worship under David were a fitting expression of that development.

 

[panta dokimazete]

And the inspired praise songs give warrant and guidance concerning composing "uninspired" praise song, just as the inspired prayers of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" prayers and the inspired preaching of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" preaching.

All within the parameters of the RPW.

 

[MW]

And the inspired praise songs give warrant and guidance concerning composing "uninspired" praise song, just as the inspired prayers of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" prayers and the inspired preaching of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" preaching.

All within the parameters of the RPW.

You forgot to mention that the inspired writing of Scripture provides warrant for composing uninspired writing of Scripture, and the inspired institution of sacraments gives warrant for uninspired instituting of sacraments.

All within the parameters of the Romish magisterium, but completely contradictory to the RPW. The uninspired prayers and preaching are not made set forms imposed on the congregation. They are the compositions of individuals which the individual delivers and the congregation judges.

 

[panta dokimazete]

You forgot to mention that the inspired writing of Scripture provides warrant for composing uninspired writing of Scripture, and the inspired institution of sacraments gives warrant for uninspired instituting of sacraments.

All within the parameters of the Romish magisterium, but completely contradictory to the RPW. The uninspired prayers and preaching are not made set forms imposed on the congregation. They are the compositions of individuals which the individual delivers and the congregation judges.

non sequitur and category error - Please give one instance where it says in Scripture or gives guidance to look to the OT to "write to the Lord a new Word" or "make unto the Lord a new sacrament" as normative for the NT church.

The canon is closed, the sacraments set.

One may however categorize music, preaching and prayer as having Scriptural warrant and guidance for "uninspired" and permissible components.

 

[Bygracealone]

And the inspired praise songs give warrant and guidance concerning composing "uninspired" praise song, just as the inspired prayers of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" prayers and the inspired preaching of Scripture give warrant and guidance concerning "uninspired" preaching.

All within the parameters of the RPW.

Each element of worship is subject to the RPW. As it pertains to the element of song, the RPW requires that we only sing inspired songs in worship.

As it pertains to prayer, we are simply commanded to pray. The Lord hasn't given us an inspired book of prayer and commanded its use in worship like He has in providing us with the Psalter.

As it pertains to preaching, the same is true. We're not given a book of homilies to be recited in worship.

But, we are given a song book, the psalter, and we're commanded to sing those particular songs.

Prayer, preaching, and singing are all distinct elements of worship and each is subject to the RPW in its own right. It's wrong to take one element and equate it with another; they're each distinct and serve a particular function within the worship service.

 

[MW]

non sequitur and category error - Please give one instance where it says in Scripture or gives guidance to look to the OT to "write to the Lord a new Word" or "make unto the Lord a new sacrament" as normative for the NT church.

The canon is closed, the sacraments set.

One may however categorize music, preaching and prayer as having Scriptural warrant and guidance for "uninspired" and permissible components.

Anyone who has studied the progressive nature of revelation knows that the Scripture leaves open the possibility of further revelation up to the point that the canon was closed in Rev. 22. Numb. 12:6, "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." Eph. 3:4, 5, "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

The cateogrical mistake is yours. You set apart music, preaching, and prayer, because you want to have liberty in these areas beyond what the regulative principle of worship permits you.

 

[panta dokimazete]

But, we are given a song book, the psalter, and we're commanded to sing those particular songs.

And be taught and admonished by those same songs - which teach the composition and singing of new "uninspired" songs as well as the use of instruments in worship.

 

[Bygracealone]

But, we are given a song book, the psalter, and we're commanded to sing those particular songs.

And be taught and admonished by those same songs - which teach the composition and singing of new "uninspired" songs as well as the use of instruments.

How do they teach the composition of uninspired songs and use of instruments? Please explain.

 

[panta dokimazete]

non sequitur and category error - Please give one instance where it says in Scripture or gives guidance to look to the OT to "write to the Lord a new Word" or "make unto the Lord a new sacrament" as normative for the NT church.

The canon is closed, the sacraments set.

One may however categorize music, preaching and prayer as having Scriptural warrant and guidance for "uninspired" and permissible components.

Anyone who has studied the progressive nature of revelation knows that the Scripture leaves open the possibility of further revelation up to the point that the canon was closed in Rev. 22. Numb. 12:6, "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." Eph. 3:4, 5, "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

Is it normative for the NT church to expect new Scripture past the apostolic age?

The cateogrical mistake is yours. You set apart music, preaching, and prayer, because you want to have liberty in these areas beyond what the regulative principle of worship permits you.

I do not want a single thing past the Scriptural prescription - one might say that you refuse to see the accuracy of the proposition presented to protect a dearly held and defended error.

Matthew, let's try and keep to Scriptural arguments and not ad hominum, what do you say?

 

[MW]

This is what Scripture prescribes with respect to the free compositions of men in the days of continuing revelation -- 1 Cor. 14:29, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge."

 

[panta dokimazete]

Should the NT church expect new and continuing revelation as normative?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Not after the close of the canon. Revelation has ceased in that sense.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

But, we are given a song book, the psalter, and we're commanded to sing those particular songs.

And be taught and admonished by those same songs - which teach the composition and singing of new "uninspired" songs as well as the use of instruments.

How do they teach the composition of uninspired songs and use of instruments? Please explain.

Good Question...

 

[R Harris]

Now testing the points made above is necessary when considering a rethiink of a doctrine and on a board where sola scriptura is the theoretical norm, I might have expected that such testing of contoversial hypotheses would also be the norm. But to date, nobody on the con side of this argument has engaged in this kind of analysis of the differing argument. What has been posted is nothing more than justifications of non-IA traditionalism rathe than engaging with the grammatico, Scriptural and historical details of the argument that challenges their view.

Don Carson makes an interesting comment somehere in the introduction to Exegetical Fallacies. "The essence of all critical thought...is the justification of opinions". To show a hypothesis to be incorrect, it is not enough to cite contrary opinions, one must demonstrate that the justification of the hypothesis is unsound in fact or reasoning. Calvin did this routinely.
Will those who wish to hold to unaccompanied worship follow his example?

Doug Comin and Benjamin have cogently laid out the scriptural arguments for the non-use of musical instruments. I know you have seen them in this thread, but you either reject them or ignore them.

Regarding historical interpretation, the rejection of historical precedent can cut both ways.

Dispensationalists of the 19th century and early 20th century rejected the traditional eschatological positions up to that point. In fact, John Walvoord made that very point in one of his books (The Blessed Hope, I think) in that he stated dispensational belief was indeed apostolic, but was "quickly lost" after the turn of the century. It was thereafter buried for 1720 years, until Darby and Irving made the recovery in the 1820s, with Scofield sealing the restoration in the early 20th century. Of course, Joseph Smith did the same thing, when the "angel" visited him in New York about the same time as Darby and Irving made their "discoveries." So, Smith was tasked with setting everybody straight with his new book of Mormon.

So it is funny that you bring that up, because the Dispensationalists, Mormons, Transcendentalists, Christian Scientists, and other assorted strange cults all basically came up with new "insights" to the Scriptures that everyone else in the previous 1700 years had apparently been too stupid to figure out. (This is why I stated in a previous post that the 19th century was not a good century from a theological perspective.)

Therefore, yes, one should be careful to simply throw out the window the positions of conservative, historic, orthodox believers of 1700 years without careful treading. And if one does come forward with the new position, a little bit of humility in doing so is never a bad thing.

 

[panta dokimazete]

And be taught and admonished by those same songs - which teach the composition and singing of new "uninspired" songs as well as the use of instruments.

How do they teach the composition of uninspired songs and use of instruments? Please explain.

Good Question...

I am shifting my responses to this thread - come ask there

 

[timmopussycat]

Doug Comin and Benjamin have cogently laid out the scriptural arguments for the non-use of musical instruments. I know you have seen them in this thread, but you either reject them or ignore them.

I answered the only one that I saw which was Calvin's misuse of I Cor 14's proscription of unknown tongues in the assembly.

[Regarding historical interpretation, the rejection of historical precedent can cut both ways.

Indeed it can. Jusification by faith alone was lost for 1000 years.

[So it is funny that you bring that up, because the Dispensationalists, Mormons, Transcendentalists, Christian Scientists, and other assorted strange cults all basically came up with new "insights" to the Scriptures that everyone else in the previous 1700 years had apparently been too stupid to figure out. (This is why I stated in a previous post that the 19th century was not a good century from a theological perspective.)

We have historically answered such errors by Scriptural exegesis, not appeals to tradition. And in the case of music, the Lutherans have recognized, from long before the 1900's, that the NT does not prohibit uninspired song in the worship services of the church. And they were certainly protestant at the time they began the practice.

[Therefore, yes, one should be careful to simply throw out the window the positions of conservative, historic, orthodox believers of 1700 years without careful treading. And if one does come forward with the new position, a little bit of humility in doing so is never a bad thing.

As noted above, the Luthans also rejected the Psalms only misapplication of the RPW. And when people will, engage the arguments for the new position, instead of merely respoding "Tradition!" or putting forth unsound arguments, I will be happy to moderate my tone.

 

[MW]

As noted above, the Luthans also rejected the Psalms only misapplication of the RPW.

The Augsburg Confession rejects the RPW: Concerning ecclesiastical rites (made by men), "they teach that those rites are to be observed which may be observed without sin, and are profitable for tranquillity and good order in the church; such as are set holidays, feasts, and such like. Yet concerning such things, men are to be admonished that consciences are not to be burdened as if such service were necessary to salvation."

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

As Matthew said the Lutherans reject thee Reformed distinctive of the RPW. Yet they also did not use instruments in worship for the first 100 years of their existence.

 

[timmopussycat]

So you allow that there were worship contexts in which there was unaccompanied singing - but you claim that temple worship required the use of instruments for sacrifices only? Please explain why Ps. 61 (which is set to stringed instruments) does not mention sacrifice or Ps 66 is silent likewise?

First, the title commits it to the chief musician, who is associated with the temple music. Secondly, Ps. 61:8 speaks of performing vows, which is usually connected with the presentation of an offering to the Lord. Thirdly, Ps. 66:13 mentions the burnt offerings.

Bad examples granted but consider better ones. Ps. 72:22-24 makes the point that the psalmist will sing praises with the harp “all day long”. The sacrifices were at set times not all day. Ps. 98: 4, 5 link singing and accompaniment with no limitations to the temple as does Ps. 108:1-3, Ps. 144:9. And of course Ps. 150 1c is (unless you want to posit the angels as air breathers) a poetic way of saying that praise should be carried out everywhere as well as v. 1b’s instruction to carry out praise in the temple.

The hidden premise under your argument is that we are not allowed to do what God has not commanded. The fact is, before David, God never commanded that he be worshipped by sung praise: although songs were used as a teaching device in some places e.g., Deut. 32. So if we were never allowed to do what God has not commanded, one would expect no singing of praise to God before the command came in David's day to do so. Or if people did engage in sung praise uncommanded we might expect an immediate judgment. But this is not what we find.

Al least you acknowledge the hidden premise under my argument is the regulative principle -- what God has not commanded is fobidden. I would suggest that anyone working from a contradictory premise is not following the confessional guidelines of this board.

The idea that this was uncommanded praise is irrelevant given that these praise songs were inspired.

The problem is not that they were inspired, the problem is that up until David, the Lord did not explicitly allow for any such songs in his worship. If the interpretation of the RPW is correct that says whatever not explicitly commanded is forbidden, God was bound, in faithfulness to his name to judge Deborah for doing something he had not explicitly permitted. Otherwise God has become the author of confusion, which as you note is impossible. So something has to give and that something is the notion that the RPW permits only that which is explicitly commanded by God.

The Davidic economy was a genuine development in the history of redemption. The divine institutions of worship under David were a fitting expression of that development.

Indeed so.
But since Scripture records no amendment of the Mosaic covenant to include the new institutions, they cannot be proven by GNC to be part of the Mosaic covenant. Lacking such demonstration, they cannot be presumed to expire with it.

 

[MW]

Bad examples granted but consider better ones. Ps. 72:22-24 makes the point that the psalmist will sing praises with the harp “all day long”. The sacrifices were at set times not all day. Ps. 98: 4, 5 link singing and accompaniment with no limitations to the temple as does Ps. 108:1-3, Ps. 144:9. And of course Ps. 150 1c is (unless you want to posit the angels as air breathers) a poetic way of saying that praise should be carried out everywhere as well as v. 1b’s instruction to carry out praise in the temple.

Psalms is not a collection of disparate writings but a book, Luke 20:42, Acts 1:20. The "temple" context which makes your previous examples inappropriate continues to overshadow your new examples. One cannot take individual psalms out of the book's original setting and insist that these must be interpreted differently than other psalms.

The problem is not that they were inspired, the problem is that up until David, the Lord did not explicitly allow for any such songs in his worship. If the interpretation of the RPW is correct that says whatever not explicitly commanded is forbidden, God was bound, in faithfulness to his name to judge Deborah for doing something he had not explicitly permitted. Otherwise God has become the author of confusion, which as you note is impossible. So something has to give and that something is the notion that the RPW permits only that which is explicitly commanded by God.

I don't abide by your concept of God being bound to do this or that. Our God hath done whatsoever He hath pleased. Revelation is what God has been pleased to make known of Himself, not a predetermined concept of what He is able to do. If God inspired His servants with songs prior to the time of David it was more than in His right to do so.

But since Scripture records no amendment of the Mosaic covenant to include the new institutions, they cannot be proven by GNC to be part of the Mosaic covenant. Lacking such demonstration, they cannot be presumed to expire with it.

The concept of a place for God's Name was appointed by Moses, but the identification of that place with "Jerusalem" was not made known until the times of David. Yet the Lord Jesus specifically contrasts worship in Jerusalem with worship in spirit and truth. Clearly, therefore, the Davidic development of the Mosaic institutions was abolished with the Mosaic institutions themselves. Trumpets were ordained with the Mosaic economy, and these were extended by David to include various other mechanical sounding instruments. Both the Mosaic rite and its Davidic extension are physically abolished under New Testament worship. As Hebrews 12:18, 19 says, we have not come to the sound of a trumpet.

 

[timmopussycat]

Bad examples granted but consider better ones. Ps. 72:22-24 makes the point that the psalmist will sing praises with the harp “all day long”. The sacrifices were at set times not all day. Ps. 98: 4, 5 link singing and accompaniment with no limitations to the temple as does Ps. 108:1-3, Ps. 144:9. And of course Ps. 150 1c is (unless you want to posit the angels as air breathers) a poetic way of saying that praise should be carried out everywhere as well as v. 1b’s instruction to carry out praise in the "sanctuary" (corrected).

Psalms is not a collection of disparate writings but a book, Luke 20:42, Acts 1:20. The "temple" context which makes your previous examples inappropriate continues to overshadow your new examples. One cannot take individual psalms out of the book's original setting and insist that these must be interpreted differently than other psalms.

You are missing the point.
However subsequent editors handled and collected the psalms to form a book, the editors were not inspired; rather they recognized that the authors were inspired much as the church later recognized that the authors of both OTand NT were inspired. The individual authors composed the psalms individually over a period of about 800 years and the individual settings in which they are composed must be taken seriously including the fact that some were composed before David set up musically accompanied worship in Jerusalem. I might also add the fact that they are poetry must also be taken equally seriously. Psalm 150:1a commands Praise, 1b and 1c establish once and for all that praise to the Lord was to take place inside and outside the sanctuary, and the rest of the psalm is a poetic exhortation to use all possible instruments and voices to do so. It is not a Directory along the lines of that produced by the Westminster Divines.

The problem is not that they were inspired, the problem is that up until David, the Lord did not explicitly allow for any such songs in his worship. If the interpretation of the RPW is correct that says whatever not explicitly commanded is forbidden, God was bound, in faithfulness to his name to judge Deborah for doing something he had not explicitly permitted. Otherwise God has become the author of confusion, which as you note is impossible. So something has to give and that something is the notion that the RPW permits only that which is explicitly commanded by God.

I don't abide by your concept of God being bound to do this or that. Our God hath done whatsoever He hath pleased. Revelation is what God has been pleased to make known of Himself, not a predetermined concept of what He is able to do. If God inspired His servants with songs prior to the time of David it was more than in His right to do so.

I agree that God has the right to do whatever He wants to do at any time unless He himself forecloses such a right for purposes as seem good to him.

But if your interpretation of the RPW is right God, by allowing uncommanded sung praise, whether inspired or not, without amending the covenant in which it was contained in order to righteously institute the change, an action which formally contradicts his previous commandment. Such contradictions create confusion not peace. So you may either maintain your version of the RPW or abandon the biblical postulate that God is not the author of confusion.

But since Scripture records no amendment of the Mosaic covenant to include the new institutions, they cannot be proven by GNC to be part of the Mosaic covenant. Lacking such demonstration, they cannot be presumed to expire with it.

The concept of a place for God's Name was appointed by Moses, but the identification of that place with "Jerusalem" was not made known until the times of David. Yet the Lord Jesus specifically contrasts worship in Jerusalem with worship in spirit and truth. Clearly, therefore, the Davidic development of the Mosaic institutions was abolished with the Mosaic institutions themselves.

Could a regenerate OT Jew worship in Jerusalem in spirit and in truth? If the answer is "no", your conclusion follws logically. But if any Jews in the OT Jerusalem could worship God in spirit and in truth, your conclusion does not follow. (And given what the NT tells us about unregenerates incapacity for spiritual things, the godly remnant must have been regenerate).

Finally, the context of Christ's discussion with the Samaritan woman did not address the "how" to worship but "where" to worship. Christ only states that neither Samaria ("this mountain") or Jerusalem are the only places to worship and that worship is no longer tied to geographical locations. Given such a context, the abolishing of all the Jewish worship "how-to's" is not a necessary consequence of Christ's words.

Lacking demonstration that David's innovations were formally incorporated into the Mosaic covenant, the most we can say is that they were occasional commands given to God's people. Since, as I have shown previously, they have rationales attached which transcend the Sinai covenant, those commands remain operative until the rationales cease to be valid

Trumpets were ordained with the Mosaic economy, and these were extended by David to include various other mechanical sounding instruments. Both the Mosaic rite and its Davidic extension are physically abolished under New Testament worship. As Hebrews 12:18, 19 says, we have not come to the sound of a trumpet.

The trumpet sound referred to is specifically identified in the text as the supernatural trumpet blast sounded at the institution of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai. Nothing about the regular order of worship within the Mosaic covenant covenant is mentioned or necessarily implied in this text. And you have yet to prove that the Davidic innovations were incorporated into that covenant.

 

[timmopussycat]

This is what Scripture prescribes with respect to the free compositions of men in the days of continuing revelation -- 1 Cor. 14:29, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge."

So what is wrong with judging the compositions of men by their doctrinal faithfulness to Scripture? If faithful use them, if not discard sooner than ASAP!

 

[timmopussycat]

The idea that this was uncommanded praise is irrelevant given that these praise songs were inspired.

Missed this the first time around. You really don't want to deploy this argument and not only because it places God in a formal contradiction with himself if your understanding of the RPW is correct.

An additional problem for you is that if inspired material does not contradict your understanding of the RPW, than you can have no objection to singing, say, Heb. 12:18-24 in a worship service.

 

[jaybird0827]

"Backwoods"

I am encouraged by your recent comment posted on my blog. Thank you!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

"Backwoods"

I am encouraged by your recent comment posted on my blog. Thank you!

You are quite welcome!!!

 

[MW]

You are missing the point.
However subsequent editors handled and collected the psalms to form a book, they were not inspired; it was the authors who were. The editors were not inspired: rather they recognized that the authors were inspired much as the church later recognized that the authors of the NT were inspired. The individual authors composed the psalms individually over a period of about 800 years and the individual settings in which they are composed must be taken seriously. I might also add the fact that they are poetry must also be taken equally seriously. Psalm 150:1a commands Praise, 1b and 1c establish once and for all that praise to the Lord was to take place inside and outside the sanctuary, and the rest of the psalm is a poetic exhortation to use all possible instruments and voices to do so. It is not a Directory along the lines of that produced by the Westminster Divines.

I consider form criticism dead and buried. If you want to revive it that is your preropgative, but it has no usefulness for understanding the book as we have received it from God. It is called the book of Psalms. In Hebrew it is Tehillim -- praises. Whatever might be said about the book being poetry, it is intended to be sung. The exchange between singular and plural indicates it is intended to be sung in a corporate setting. The inscription "to the chief musician" and various cultic allusions identify this corporate setting as that of the temple. The interpreter ignores these clear markers at their own peril.

But if your interpretation of the RPW is right. God, by allowing uncommanded sung praise, whether inspired or not, has, contradicted his previous commandment without amending the covenant in which it was contained in order to righteously institute the change. Such a contradiction makes havoc of the Biblical claim that God is not the author of confusion but of peace.

This is simply insupportable. Deut. 12:32, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Addition and detraction is not only forbidden so far as the things commanded are concerned (the RPW), but it applies equally to the commands themselves (the revelation). Yet we know very well that God gave further revelation (Heb. 1:1), and made full provision for it. Your argument denies God the right to give this further revelation of Himself and His will to His Church, contrary to Scripture's own testimony; therefore your argument is false.

The RPW only protects against human innovations in God's worship; it makes full scope for God to add and diminish from His own commandments.

Lacking demonstration that David's innovations were formally incorporated into the Mosaic covenant, the most we can say is that they were occasional commands given to God's people. Since, as I have shown previously, they have rationales attached which transcend the Sinai covenant, those commands remain operative until the rationales cease to be valid.

You have failed to deal with the fact that Moses made provision for a place for God's Name, but David identified the place with Jerusalem. One would have to be ignorant of basic biblical theology to suppose that the Davidic economy was not a development of the Mosaic institutions which reflected the fulfilment of land provision and theocratic government. One should at least study the Levitical orders and the transformation of their functions under the new temple setting. All of what was commanded under David was a development of the Mosaic arrangements. Chronicles specifies David as the supervisor of the temple as equally as Exodus identifies Moses as supervising the tabernacle.

Trumpets were ordained with the Mosaic economy, and these were extended by David to include various other mechanical sounding instruments. Both the Mosaic rite and its Davidic extension are physically abolished under New Testament worship. As Hebrews 12:18, 19 says, we have not come to the sound of a trumpet.

The trumpet sound referred to is specifically identified in the text as the supernatural trumpet blast sounded at the institution of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai. Nothing about the regular order of worship within the Mosaic covenant covenant is mentioned. And you have yet to prove that the Davidic innovations were incorporated into that covenant.

The judgment-trumpet at Sinai was later incorporated into the sacrificial ritual, and both were subsequently embellished by the Davidic provisions, as Chronicles makes clear.