EP Question?

[ww]

I really enjoy singing the Psalms when I have had the opportunity but I've always had a question about the consistency of not using instrumentation when the Tunes to the Psalms were developed with the use of instruments? For instance I'm on a site now which states:

These tunes are not intended to replace/accompany human voices in worship. They are meant to help those who can not read music learn the tunes.

Music is intended to be accompanied by instruments and you would agree in most instances except for within the Worship of God in the Church. How do you reconcile this seeming inconsistency? Is it ONLY based on the fact that "God hasn't commanded it and therefore we should not use what God has not commanded?" or is there more to this?

 

[Christusregnat]

I really enjoy singing the Psalms when I have had the opportunity but I've always had a question about the consistency of not using instrumentation when the Tunes to the Psalms were developed with the use of instruments? For instance I'm on a site now which states:

These tunes are not intended to replace/accompany human voices in worship. They are meant to help those who can not read music learn the tunes.

Music is intended to be accompanied by instruments and you would agree in most instances except for within the Worship of God in the Church. How do you reconcile this seeming inconsistency? Is it ONLY based on the fact that "God hasn't commanded it and therefore we should not use what God has not commanded?" or is there more to this?

Wayne,

This may be out of turn for me to say so, but a Psalm is literally an ode set to musical instrumentation; in particular, the harp. Therefore, exclusive psalmody would be voices and harps. I guess the Irish have some things right

Cheers,

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Wayne,

Exclusive Psalmody and the non-use of instruments in Corprate Worship are two separate issues. I would check out the 100's of Non-nstrument Threads to see the reasoning behind it.

 

[larryjf]

First, i don't think that we have the musical scores that the Psalms were set to, so we can't use them to accompany the singing of Psalms.

Second, as Backwoods Pres. mentioned, music is a separate issue.

From The James Begg Society

In Eph. v. 19, the word rendered "making melody" is one that was used in the Old Testament times to describe one mode of eliciting music from an instrument, and this is associated with the "heart." There, and there alone, is the psalm now to be. The accompaniment of the singing is to be the gladness of a broken heart.

Singing with the lips is again and again declared to bethe prescribed mode of rendering praise, and the only accompaniment, about which we are instructed to be careful, is the thankfulness and spiritual joy of a true heart.

 

[JohnV]

I really enjoy singing the Psalms when I have had the opportunity but I've always had a question about the consistency of not using instrumentation when the Tunes to the Psalms were developed with the use of instruments? For instance I'm on a site now which states:

These tunes are not intended to replace/accompany human voices in worship. They are meant to help those who can not read music learn the tunes.

Music is intended to be accompanied by instruments and you would agree in most instances except for within the Worship of God in the Church. How do you reconcile this seeming inconsistency? Is it ONLY based on the fact that "God hasn't commanded it and therefore we should not use what God has not commanded?" or is there more to this?

Have you ever wondered why we don't have the original notation for the Psalms? Why aren't some of those tunes, even one of them, still in existence? And if one does still exist, why don't we know about it?

Why is there no clear notation until the Thirteenth Century? The notation that existed before then don't really tell us much about the notes themselves. What existed before that earlier notation?

Matthew Henry says that the 150 Psalms were likely compiled by Ezra. That would be after the exile then. But I would guess that they would still know the "melodies". Why, then, have they been forgotten by the Church? Or were they forgotten before the NT?

Interesting questions, don't you think?

So far I'm only guessing, so I can't really tell you what my impression is yet. But it is giving me something to think about, and giving me stuff for further study.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I really enjoy singing the Psalms when I have had the opportunity but I've always had a question about the consistency of not using instrumentation when the Tunes to the Psalms were developed with the use of instruments? For instance I'm on a site now which states:

These tunes are not intended to replace/accompany human voices in worship. They are meant to help those who can not read music learn the tunes.

Music is intended to be accompanied by instruments and you would agree in most instances except for within the Worship of God in the Church. How do you reconcile this seeming inconsistency? Is it ONLY based on the fact that "God hasn't commanded it and therefore we should not use what God has not commanded?" or is there more to this?

Great question, Wayne. I've wondered that too. Don't we have plenty of Psalms in which we're commanded to praise God not merely with the voice but with instruments? Think, for example, of the opening words of Psalm 33:

Sing joyfully to the LORD, you righteous; it is fitting for the upright to praise him. Praise the LORD with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre. Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy [emphasis added].
​

The Shorter Catechism tells us that the whole Bible, namely, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only rule to direct us how we may glory and enjoy God. Paul instructed Timothy to direct the life and worship of the New Covenant church by the rule of the "sacred writings" which Timothy had known from childhood, i.e., the Old Testament. Indeed, the NT canon was not extant and available (as a whole) in the 1st century A.D. Of course, the OT Scripture must be interpreted in light of New Covenant revelation. Consequently, the old temple, the old priesthood and the old sacrifices were shadows of better things to come. But Scripture-based instruction was not replaced by something different. Prayer was not replaced. Singing was not replaced. And where do we read in the NT that the musical instruments of the Psalms were but types and shadows of some New Covenant reality? I haven't found any such teaching in the NT. Consequently, I think the singing of the Psalms with the use of instruments is natural, beautiful, edifying, and most importantly, warranted by Scripture itself.

 

[Kaalvenist]

The specific manner in which musical instruments were prescribed under the former dispensation demonstrates that they expired with that dispensation. We no longer have Levites to play the instruments; we no longer have a temple within which to play them; we no longer have bloody sacrifices during which to play them; we don't even have the forms of the particular instruments which were prescribed. This being the case, it's hardly a stretch to say that instruments belonged to the types and shadows of the Old Testament; and it is an illegitimate argument to argue from the OT commands for particular, specified musical instruments to be used in that typical worship, for a NT permission for our own modern instruments.

This was recognized by the early church as well: all of the early fathers are united in their testimony against musical instruments in Christian worship; and the first time an instrument was ever used in the this dispensation was when a pope (Vitalian, if memory serves right) had one used in a single church in the 7th century. Even into the middle of the 12th century, Thomas Aquinas was able to say that the church didn't use instruments (it occurred in only a few scattered instances), for fear of seeming to Judaize.

The Reformed, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches were all opposed to such innovations from the outset. It took centuries, and bitter infighting, for even organs to make it into our churches. The Continental Reformed can look to Calvin himself for argument and testimony against musical instruments in the public worship of the church; Presbyterians can turn to Dabney and Girardeau in more recent times, aside from those in Covenanter, Seceder, and other dissenting churches; and Baptists have Keach, Gill, Fuller, Spurgeon, and more (including the recent book by Reformed Baptist author John Price, Old Light on New Worship).

The Psalms are the very Word of God, and the Psalter is the God-given hymnal for His people to use until the end of the world; but the use of musical instruments was plainly a part of the typical worship of the Old Testament, never even hinted at in the New, and should be entirely excluded from our churches.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

The specific manner in which musical instruments were prescribed under the former dispensation demonstrates that they expired with that dispensation. We no longer have Levites to play the instruments; we no longer have a temple within which to play them; we no longer have bloody sacrifices during which to play them; we don't even have the forms of the particular instruments which were prescribed. This being the case, it's hardly a stretch to say that instruments belonged to the types and shadows of the Old Testament; and it is an illegitimate argument to argue from the OT commands for particular, specified musical instruments to be used in that typical worship, for a NT permission for our own modern instruments.

This was recognized by the early church as well: all of the early fathers are united in their testimony against musical instruments in Christian worship; and the first time an instrument was ever used in the this dispensation was when a pope (Vitalian, if memory serves right) had one used in a single church in the 7th century. Even into the middle of the 12th century, Thomas Aquinas was able to say that the church didn't use instruments (it occurred in only a few scattered instances), for fear of seeming to Judaize.

The Reformed, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches were all opposed to such innovations from the outset. It took centuries, and bitter infighting, for even organs to make it into our churches. The Continental Reformed can look to Calvin himself for argument and testimony against musical instruments in the public worship of the church; Presbyterians can turn to Dabney and Girardeau in more recent times, aside from those in Covenanter, Seceder, and other dissenting churches; and Baptists have Keach, Gill, Fuller, Spurgeon, and more (including the recent book by Reformed Baptist author John Price, Old Light on New Worship).

The Psalms are the very Word of God, and the Psalter is the God-given hymnal for His people to use until the end of the world; but the use of musical instruments was plainly a part of the typical worship of the Old Testament, never even hinted at in the New, and should be entirely excluded from our churches.

Sean,

Thanks for the info. I'm actually aware of the argument and the history behind it. I've also read John Price's book and hope to write a review of it. He graduated from the seminary at which I'm the academic dean and a professor. I esteem him in the Lord though I do not agree with his viewpoint.

The argument against the use of musical instruments in New Covenant worship is not persuasive to me. When you write, "It is an illegitimate argument to argue from the OT commands for particular, specified musical instruments to be used in that typical worship, for a NT permission for our own modern instruments," I wonder if you apply the same standard to, say, infant baptism. (I know this thread is not the place to debate baptism, but I only use it as an example.) What about tithing? I see no specific command in the NT for either infant baptism or tithing. Of course, I don't embrace the dispensational hermeneutic that says a teaching or command has to be repeated in the NT to be valid or binding on the people of God today. Moreover, Paul applied what was clearly an elemental Old Covenant shadow, i.e., circumcision, circumstantially in a New Covenant context (Acts 16:30). Paul himself also took the liberty to employ ritual of the old Jewish dispensation circumstantially in the context of the New Covenant (Acts 21:24, 26). Furthermore, like I said above, Scripture-based instruction, prayer, and praise were all parts of OT worship and are not identified in the NT as "shadows," as are the temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices. Where does the NT identify musical instruments as shadows that have passed away? Can you identify the New Covenant reality that each Old Covenant instrument "foreshadowed"?

Of course, I respect Reformed brothers and churches that differ. I believe individual congregations may chose to sing a capella if they wish. But such churches ought to refrain from censuring other Reformed communions whose corporate conscience has not been persuaded that the use of musical instruments is akin to idolatry. To impose a stricture against the use of instruments in worship on other Christians and churches is analogous to the Church of England's own "Act of Uniformity." It reminds me of the Puritan W. Blackstone's complaint when he arrived in New England: "I came from England because I did not like the lord bishops; and I cannot join you, because I would not be under the lord brethren."

Cordially,

 

[Kaalvenist]

Sean,

Thanks for the info. I'm actually aware of the argument and the history behind it. I've also read John Price's book and hope to write a review of it. He graduated from the seminary at which I'm the academic dean and a professor. I esteem him in the Lord though I do not agree with his viewpoint.

Personally, I think he could have spent more time arguing from Scripture rather than history; and that his argument could have relied less upon the foundation of a peculiarly Reformed Baptist theology of covenants; but that's just me.

The argument against the use of musical instruments in New Covenant worship is not persuasive to me. When you write, "It is an illegitimate argument to argue from the OT commands for particular, specified musical instruments to be used in that typical worship, for a NT permission for our own modern instruments," I wonder if you apply the same standard to, say, infant baptism. (I know this thread is not the place to debate baptism, but I only use it as an example.) What about tithing? I see no specific command in the NT for either infant baptism or tithing.

I'm not asking for a "specific command in the NT;" good and necessary consequence would suit me just as well. I believe that paedobaptism is required by the New Testament, by good and necessary consequence; and I am willing to admit the same proof for musical instruments in corporate worship. So, I am "apply(ing) the same standard." (I haven't investigated tithing as thoroughly as other points, but I imagine that it would rest upon a similar ground.)

Of course, I don't embrace the dispensational hermeneutic that says a teaching or command has to be repeated in the NT to be valid or binding on the people of God today.

Glad to hear it; I don't either. Incidentally, do you pronounce a benediction at the end of your worship services? Most Reformed Baptist churches I've attended don't do so, on the ground that that command is not repeated in the New Testament. Just wondering.

Moreover, Paul applied what was clearly an elemental Old Covenant shadow, i.e., circumcision, circumstantially in a New Covenant context (Acts 16:30). Paul himself also took the liberty to employ ritual of the old Jewish dispensation circumstantially in the context of the New Covenant (Acts 21:24, 26).

Do you not see an inconsistency in taking something very particularly commanded (circumcision), which was administered in precisely the same way as it had been commanded 2,000 years before; and using it to argue for particular musical instruments of our modern times which were never commanded? Especially in light of the precise particularity of the command and institution of specific musical instruments in the Temple worship? Most of those that I've read on that point regard the continuing practice of circumcision, Temple worship, Jewish festival days, etc. as a liberty granted to the Jews to continue in such things (not to be imposed upon the Gentiles), until the complete overturning of that former economy in the destruction of the Temple, A.D. 70.

Furthermore, like I said above, Scripture-based instruction, prayer, and praise were all parts of OT worship and are not identified in the NT as "shadows," as are the temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices. Where does the NT identify musical instruments as shadows that have passed away? Can you identify the New Covenant reality that each Old Covenant instrument "foreshadowed"?

I don't know of any Reformed Baptist churches (any sound ones, anyway) that would employ the musical instruments used under the Old Testament economy. The use of a piano is not a part of OT worship. Not every item of the OT worship is particularized and given a verdict in the NT of "perpetual" or "typical;" the fact that instruments are never mentioned in the NT, means that the "standing rule" for their use (unlike the simple singing of praise) is still bound to the directives given under the OT (performed by Levites, in the Temple, during the offering of the sacrifice). Unless it can be demonstrated that someone other than Levites may play upon instruments, in a place other than the Temple, at a time other than during the sacrifice; the instruments must have been abrogated with the rest of those types. Because of this, I don't believe it to be necessary to demonstrate what the instruments typified (different authors have put forth different hypotheses).

 

[YXU]

The argument against the use of musical instruments in New Covenant worship is not persuasive to me. When you write, "It is an illegitimate argument to argue from the OT commands for particular, specified musical instruments to be used in that typical worship, for a NT permission for our own modern instruments," I wonder if you apply the same standard to, say, infant baptism. (I know this thread is not the place to debate baptism, but I only use it as an example.) What about tithing? I see no specific command in the NT for either infant baptism or tithing. Of course, I don't embrace the dispensational hermeneutic that says a teaching or command has to be repeated in the NT to be valid or binding on the people of God today. Moreover, Paul applied what was clearly an elemental Old Covenant shadow, i.e., circumcision, circumstantially in a New Covenant context (Acts 16:30). Paul himself also took the liberty to employ ritual of the old Jewish dispensation circumstantially in the context of the New Covenant (Acts 21:24, 26). Furthermore, like I said above, Scripture-based instruction, prayer, and praise were all parts of OT worship and are not identified in the NT as "shadows," as are the temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifices. Where does the NT identify musical instruments as shadows that have passed away? Can you identify the New Covenant reality that each Old Covenant instrument "foreshadowed"? - Quote


The OT worship elements: praise and prayer are not ceremonial, only those that are ceremonial passed away (the sacrifice, as well as the certain family of the Levi who play instruments in the ceremonial system), anything that is not passed away or changed (i.e. the Sabbath Day) will still be our rule in this dispensation.

It must be proved that the use of instrument in public worship as an element in OT worship is not ceremonial, otherwise, the use of musical instrument in this dispensation is not legitimate.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Unless it can be demonstrated that someone other than Levites may play upon instruments, in a place other than the Temple, at a time other than during the sacrifice; the instruments must have been abrogated with the rest of those types. Because of this, I don't believe it to be necessary to demonstrate what the instruments typified (different authors have put forth different hypotheses).

Sean, I don't have time to respond to all your arguments. This is just one area where we'll have to disagree. I'll simply affirm my position using your language above in the reverse. The OT provides us with the kind of praise used in corporate worship. This praise includes the use of the voice and of instruments. Unless it can be demonstrated that only the Levites may praise God with instruments in a place limited to the Temple and a time limited to animal sacrifice, then I don't believe musical instruments have been abrogated any more than Scripture-based instruction, prayer, and praise. Because of my conviction that the entire Bible is the rule to direct me how to glorify God both in corporate worship as well as worship as a way of life, I don't believe it to be necessary to exclude the use of instruments in New Covenant worship since the NT nowhere identifies them as shadows that have passed away.

Cordially,

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

The OT worship elements: praise and prayer are not ceremonial, only those that are ceremonial passed away (the sacrifice, as well as the certain family of the Levi who play instruments in the ceremonial system), anything that is not passed away or changed (i.e. the Sabbath Day) will still be our rule in this dispensation.

It must be proved that the use of instrument in public worship as an element in OT worship is not ceremonial, otherwise, the use of musical instrument in this dispensation is not legitimate.

The instruments used in worship today are not being played by a special Levitical priesthood in a Temple. Therefore, they are no longer part of the OT ceremonial system that passed away. But since the Bible does not tell me that they passed away with the other ceremonies that are identified as "shadows" of better things to come, then I'm encouraged by the use of instruments in the Psalms as well as in the glorified state in heaven to employ them in New Covenant worship, which is intended to be a foretaste of heaven.

BTW, do you guys to argue against the use of instruments in CDs of Christian hymns? In other words, do you ever listen to Handel's Messiah and feel your heart edified? If so, then why not in a worship service?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

The OT worship elements: praise and prayer are not ceremonial, only those that are ceremonial passed away (the sacrifice, as well as the certain family of the Levi who play instruments in the ceremonial system), anything that is not passed away or changed (i.e. the Sabbath Day) will still be our rule in this dispensation.

It must be proved that the use of instrument in public worship as an element in OT worship is not ceremonial, otherwise, the use of musical instrument in this dispensation is not legitimate.

The instruments used in worship today are not being played by a special Levitical priesthood in a Temple. Therefore, they are no longer part of the OT ceremonial system that passed away. But since the Bible does not tell me that they passed away with the other ceremonies that are identified as "shadows" of better things to come, then I'm encourage by the use of instruments in the Psalms as well as in the glorified state in heaven to employ them in New Covenant worship, which is intended to be a foretaste of heaven.

BTW, do you guys to argue against the use of instruments in CDs of Christian hymns? In other words, do you ever listen to Handel's Messiah and feel your heart edified? If so, then why not in a worship service?

To deal with the last part it is because a Stated Worship Service is different fundamentally from listening to a CD in the car. No Non-Instrumental person will say that Instruments outside of Stated Worship is wrong.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

To deal with the last part it is because a Stated Worship Service is different fundamentally from listening to a CD in the car. No Non-Instrumental person will say that Instruments outside of Stated Worship is wrong.

I guess this is the area I'm struggling in. I have realized from the many posts and recommended articles that it appears the Reformed tradition has made a significant dichotomy between corporate worship and worship as a way of life. Though I acknowledge a distinction, I don't understand why it calls for two different norms or principles. Why can't we just say, we must worship God whether at work, at school, at play, at home, and at church only in those ways warranted by his word. One common text to support the uniqueness of the RPW, which I've seen in the recommended articles, is the formula: "you shall not add nor subtract from the word I'm commanding you (Deut. 4:2; 12:32). That formula, however, was commonly used in Ancient Near Eastern treaties much like a copyright today--don't alter the contents of this treaty. Since the formula applied to the entire treaty and since the treaty applied to the entirety of Israelite life under Yahweh's rule, then this key text for the RPW actually supports the idea of one principle for all of life, worship considered broadly and worship considered negatively. At least that's my present take on the issue.

 

[YXU]

The OT worship elements: praise and prayer are not ceremonial, only those that are ceremonial passed away (the sacrifice, as well as the certain family of the Levi who play instruments in the ceremonial system), anything that is not passed away or changed (i.e. the Sabbath Day) will still be our rule in this dispensation.

It must be proved that the use of instrument in public worship as an element in OT worship is not ceremonial, otherwise, the use of musical instrument in this dispensation is not legitimate.

The instruments used in worship today are not being played by a special Levitical priesthood in a Temple. Therefore, they are no longer part of the OT ceremonial system that passed away. But since the Bible does not tell me that they passed away with the other ceremonies that are identified as "shadows" of better things to come, then I'm encourage by the use of instruments in the Psalms as well as in the glorified state in heaven to employ them in New Covenant worship, which is intended to be a foretaste of heaven.

BTW, do you guys to argue against the use of instruments in CDs of Christian hymns? In other words, do you ever listen to Handel's Messiah and feel your heart edified? If so, then why not in a worship service?

I believe that it is clearly taught that the whole ceremonial system has passed away (in Hebrews, Ephesians and Colossians). It is not part of it, but all of it. If the use of instrument in public worship is not of the ceremonial system, then it would only be legitimate for the children of Levi to play them, because in all the recorded OT public worship, instrument is only used by a certain family of the children of Levi. But that doesn't make sense, even there is a such man in this age, and there is a trumpet made of a whole piece of silver, he cannot play it in the public worship. In the account in the book of Hebrews, we see the ceremonial system was closly tied to the temple, and so was the use of the instruments in the OT (to the temple or to the ark of the LORD). To use instruments is no difference than to burn incense.

The Book of Revelation is actually full of those OT terminologies which cannot be applied literally in many cases. Like incense is mentioned there, but very few church will actually burn them.

I am a great lover of classical music (especially for Bach and Handel, actually I only listen to classical music). But now I stop listen to some of their compositions, because the LORD alone is the Lord of my conscience. The same thing applies to many of the fine art masterpieces, some may even have tears for observing those paintings, but nevertheless these things are actually abominations.

It is just my thought, but anyway, I don't regard this as something that we will fight with others. For we are just sinners saved by grace, God alone can help us to correct our errors.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Sean, I don't have time to respond to all your arguments. This is just one area where we'll have to disagree. I'll simply affirm my position using your language above in the reverse. The OT provides us with the kind of praise used in corporate worship. This praise includes the use of the voice and of instruments. Unless it can be demonstrated that only the Levites may praise God with instruments in a place limited to the Temple and a time limited to animal sacrifice, then I don't believe musical instruments have been abrogated any more than Scripture-based instruction, prayer, and praise. Because of my conviction that the entire Bible is the rule to direct me how to glorify God both in corporate worship as well as worship as a way of life, I don't believe it to be necessary to exclude the use of instruments in New Covenant worship since the NT nowhere identifies them as shadows that have passed away.

Dr. Gonzales, the New Testament nowhere affirms the incense used in conjunction with prayer as a shadow, either. The Old Testament clearly prescribed the Levitical, Temple, sacrifical employment of musical instruments (1 Chron. 16; 2 Chron. 29). The fact that this was prescribed demonstrates that God's regulation extended to these particulars; so that we would need further revelation to either eliminate this regulation, or extend it to more particulars. The fact that there is no further revelation on this matter demonstrates that God continues to regulate His worship as regarding the use of musical instruments, not regarding it as a mere circumstance of worship; and the proscription of all else than the Levitical, Temple, sacrificial employment of specifically prescribed instruments. The mention of musical instruments in the Psalms in no way contradicts this, any more than the mention in the Psalms of other actions performed by the Levitical priesthood (preaching, public prayer, the offering of sacrifices, etc.) demonstrates the non-Levitical character of those acts. The "Scripture-based instruction, prayer, and praise," likewise bound to the Levitical priesthood, are "freed up" from their connection to that ceremonial priesthood in the New Testament (preaching and public prayer being extended to the ordained ministry, and the singing of Psalms extended to the entire congregation); but this is not the case with musical instruments.

 

[JohnV]

To deal with the last part it is because a Stated Worship Service is different fundamentally from listening to a CD in the car. No Non-Instrumental person will say that Instruments outside of Stated Worship is wrong.

I guess this is the area I'm struggling in. I have realized from the many posts and recommended articles that it appears the Reformed tradition has made a significant dichotomy between corporate worship and worship as a way of life. Though I acknowledge a distinction, I don't understand why it calls for two different norms or principles. Why can't we just say, we must worship God whether at work, at school, at play, at home, and at church only in those ways warranted by his word. One common text to support the uniqueness of the RPW, which I've seen in the recommended articles, is the formula: "you shall not add nor subtract from the word I'm commanding you (Deut. 4:2; 12:32). That formula, however, was commonly used in Ancient Near Eastern treaties much like a copyright today--don't alter the contents of this treaty. Since the formula applied to the entire treaty and since the treaty applied to the entirety of Israelite life under Yahweh's rule, then this key text for the RPW actually supports the idea of one principle for all of life, worship considered broadly and worship considered negatively. At least that's my present take on the issue.

In another thread, Bob, you refer to a distinction you feel exists between Prebyterian confessionalism and Reformed Baptist confessionalism. But you should realize that a distinction also exists here within Presbyterian confessionalism. It is unthinkable in one form of it to do what the other form does freely. Thus you have, as you carefully say, a dichotomy between personal worship and corporate worship, a dichotomy which does not exist in the other form. This, in part, is the cause of some of the tension which appears on this Board during the discussions.

My particular background, for instance, does not repudiate the RPW but does repudiate that use of the RPW which the EP arguments depend upon. And since EP's arguments are presented here as depending on this particular use of the RPW, therefore it follows that this particular EP cannot find an agreeable place in my understanding of the Bible and of the Confessions. One may not "get away with" that type of argumentation in my circles. And you'll find that to be the case for other Presbyterians, especially in the atmosphere of the ecclesiastical assemblies. That particular use of the RPW is one of the first signs of straying from orthodoxy, according to the way I have been reared in Reformed theology. But this also goes for some of the other arguments used to back up this notion of EP presented on this Board.

However, one must be careful to look at the case objectively. Does EP "depend" upon that particular use of the RPW? If not, then it may be the case that those who argue for EP do not really understand it that well. It may also be that EP does stand, but on other grounds: what would those grounds be if they are not the grounds that depend on that use of the RPW? It could also be that the RPW that I grew up with is wrong? And, conversely, it could be that the RPW utilized to defend EP is right? One cannot merely stand on the ground bequeathed to him traditionally; he must be able to read God's Word for what it says; I think we have this in common in our confessional standards. If that means that he must break with his tradition, then he must break with it. And if it means that the Word upholds his tradition, then he must remain it, but no longer because it is his tradition but rather because it is according to the Word of God.

There are different views on things in our 'common' heritage. Its too bad that we are divided on these, but some things touch on what we believe to be points of orthodoxy. One of the reasons for this Board is to hopefully raise thoughtful awareness of the differences, and to learn respect for each other. But an unfortunate side effect is that we sometimes understand better why we are not one.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

There are different views on things in our 'common' heritage. Its too bad that we are divided on these, but some things touch on what we believe to be points of orthodoxy. One of the reasons for this Board is to hopefully raise thoughtful awareness of the differences, and to learn respect for each other. But an unfortunate side effect is that we sometimes understand better why we are not one.

John, thanks so much for your post. I guess I'm beginning to see that there are more differences over the RPW that I had originally anticipated, Your irenic spirit is refreshing. I believe that the men who are arguing their positions on this board are seeking to be faithful to Christ and his word. May the Lord grant us all the grace of love that is patient and not easily provoked (1 Cor. 13:1ff.).

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Dr. Gonzales, the New Testament nowhere affirms the incense used in conjunction with prayer as a shadow, either. The Old Testament clearly prescribed the Levitical, Temple, sacrifical employment of musical instruments (1 Chron. 16; 2 Chron. 29). The fact that this was prescribed demonstrates that God's regulation extended to these particulars; so that we would need further revelation to either eliminate this regulation, or extend it to more particulars.

It turns out that musical instruments were used in public worship before the institution of the tabernacle or temple (Exodus 15) as was tithing (Gen. 14). So I just can't see the logic that demands that musical instruments be limited to Temple worship and therefore requires their exclusion in all post-Temple worship. Moreover, I'm not convinced the "harps" of Revelation 14 and 15 must be interpreted as merely figurative. Temple, priesthood, and sacrifice all have a terminus--they point to Christ and the gospel. Hence, the application for us today is that we must be precise in our articulation of the gospel and insistent that it is the only way by which sinners may approach God (John 14:6; Gal. 1:8-9). The vocal praise with instruments is not tied to Temple worship (Exodus 15) and the Scriptures do not assign it a "shadow" function. (incense, on the other hand, is said to represent the prayers and intercession of the saints, Rev. 8:1-5).

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

The OT worship elements: praise and prayer are not ceremonial, only those that are ceremonial passed away (the sacrifice, as well as the certain family of the Levi who play instruments in the ceremonial system), anything that is not passed away or changed (i.e. the Sabbath Day) will still be our rule in this dispensation.

It must be proved that the use of instrument in public worship as an element in OT worship is not ceremonial, otherwise, the use of musical instrument in this dispensation is not legitimate.

The instruments used in worship today are not being played by a special Levitical priesthood in a Temple. Therefore, they are no longer part of the OT ceremonial system that passed away. But since the Bible does not tell me that they passed away with the other ceremonies that are identified as "shadows" of better things to come, then I'm encourage by the use of instruments in the Psalms as well as in the glorified state in heaven to employ them in New Covenant worship, which is intended to be a foretaste of heaven.

BTW, do you guys to argue against the use of instruments in CDs of Christian hymns? In other words, do you ever listen to Handel's Messiah and feel your heart edified? If so, then why not in a worship service?

I believe that it is clearly taught that the whole ceremonial system has passed away (in Hebrews, Ephesians and Colossians). It is not part of it, but all of it. If the use of instrument in public worship is not of the ceremonial system, then it would only be legitimate for the children of Levi to play them, because in all the recorded OT public worship, instrument is only used by a certain family of the children of Levi. But that doesn't make sense, even there is a such man in this age, and there is a trumpet made of a whole piece of silver, he cannot play it in the public worship. In the account in the book of Hebrews, we see the ceremonial system was closly tied to the temple, and so was the use of the instruments in the OT (to the temple or to the ark of the LORD). To use instruments is no difference than to burn incense.

The Book of Revelation is actually full of those OT terminologies which cannot be applied literally in many cases. Like incense is mentioned there, but very few church will actually burn them.

I am a great lover of classical music (especially for Bach and Handel, actually I only listen to classical music). But now I stop listen to some of their compositions, because the LORD alone is the Lord of my conscience. The same thing applies to many of the fine art masterpieces, some may even have tears for observing those paintings, but nevertheless these things are actually abominations.

It is just my thought, but anyway, I don't regard this as something that we will fight with others. For we are just sinners saved by grace, God alone can help us to correct our errors.

Brother, I respect your convictions though God has not convinced me of the same. Thank you for your gracious and humble spirit.

 

[JohnV]

There are different views on things in our 'common' heritage. Its too bad that we are divided on these, but some things touch on what we believe to be points of orthodoxy. One of the reasons for this Board is to hopefully raise thoughtful awareness of the differences, and to learn respect for each other. But an unfortunate side effect is that we sometimes understand better why we are not one.

John, thanks so much for your post. I guess I'm beginning to see that there are more differences over the RPW that I had originally anticipated, Your irenic spirit is refreshing. I believe that the men who are arguing their positions on this board are seeking to be faithful to Christ and his word. May the Lord grant us all the grace of love that is patient and not easily provoked (1 Cor. 13:1ff.).

Yes, we must receive each other in the spirit of faithfulness to the One we've submitted our whole selves to, together.

I've been accused of being irenic before.

There are indeed differences. My understanding of the RPW stands as much opposite John Frame's view as it does the EP view represented on this Board. But that's hardly the point. The same question should apply to all alike: what does God require of us? I think it is good to know that this is ground that needs to be carefully trod upon.

 

[YXU]

The instruments used in worship today are not being played by a special Levitical priesthood in a Temple. Therefore, they are no longer part of the OT ceremonial system that passed away. But since the Bible does not tell me that they passed away with the other ceremonies that are identified as "shadows" of better things to come, then I'm encourage by the use of instruments in the Psalms as well as in the glorified state in heaven to employ them in New Covenant worship, which is intended to be a foretaste of heaven.

BTW, do you guys to argue against the use of instruments in CDs of Christian hymns? In other words, do you ever listen to Handel's Messiah and feel your heart edified? If so, then why not in a worship service?

I believe that it is clearly taught that the whole ceremonial system has passed away (in Hebrews, Ephesians and Colossians). It is not part of it, but all of it. If the use of instrument in public worship is not of the ceremonial system, then it would only be legitimate for the children of Levi to play them, because in all the recorded OT public worship, instrument is only used by a certain family of the children of Levi. But that doesn't make sense, even there is a such man in this age, and there is a trumpet made of a whole piece of silver, he cannot play it in the public worship. In the account in the book of Hebrews, we see the ceremonial system was closly tied to the temple, and so was the use of the instruments in the OT (to the temple or to the ark of the LORD). To use instruments is no difference than to burn incense.

The Book of Revelation is actually full of those OT terminologies which cannot be applied literally in many cases. Like incense is mentioned there, but very few church will actually burn them.

I am a great lover of classical music (especially for Bach and Handel, actually I only listen to classical music). But now I stop listen to some of their compositions, because the LORD alone is the Lord of my conscience. The same thing applies to many of the fine art masterpieces, some may even have tears for observing those paintings, but nevertheless these things are actually abominations.

It is just my thought, but anyway, I don't regard this as something that we will fight with others. For we are just sinners saved by grace, God alone can help us to correct our errors.

Brother, I respect your convictions though God has not convinced me of the same. Thank you for your gracious and humble spirit.

Dr. Gonzales, something to add to the Exodus Chapter 15 argument, it is obvious that some of the ceremonial elements were already instituted before the giving of the law. Thus, instrument appeared before the giving of the law cannot prove it is not part of the ceremonial system justt as the sacrifice was instituted even early. The case in Exodus Chapter 15 was actually an one time event, such practise was not repeated nor is it instructed by the law as an element of worship.

Sorry for my poor wording, I am a Chinese, and English is my third language.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Dr. Gonzales, something to add to the Exodus Chapter 15 argument, it is obvious that some of the ceremonial elements were already instituted before the giving of the law. Thus, instrument appeared before the giving of the law cannot prove it is not part of the ceremonial system justt as the sacrifice was instituted even early. The case in Exodus Chapter 15 was actually an one time event, such practise was not repeated nor is it instructed by the law as an element of worship.

Sorry for my poor wording, I am a Chinese, and English is my third language.

YXU, no need to apologize. You're doing fine. It seems that you have two arguments: (1) it is obvious the some ceremonial elements were already instituted before the giving of the law. Are you saying that the singing with instruments after the crossing of the Red Sea was a ceremonial institution? Isn't that an argument from silence? Whatever it was, it certainly was not tied to Tabernacle or Temple worship. (2) it was a once time event, not repeated nor instructed as an element of worship. Well, if it wasn't instructed but they did it anyway, isn't that a violation of the RPW. Aren't they worshipping God in a way not commanded by Scripture? Moreover, how do we know this is the only time the Israelites celebrated and worshiped God with instruments outside the Temple worship?

I'm sorry, my brother, but I still ask our people to tithe because tithing predates the law and I don't see it as a shadow that has passed away. In the same way, I allow our people to sing praise with the accompaniment of an instrument(s) because I don't see it as a shadow inexorably tied to Temple worship but predating the law and therefore still acceptable today. But I think you should follow your own conscience and worship with those who share your views. BTW, I am quite excited about what God is doing in China. Are you training to go back there someday?

 

[YXU]

YXU, no need to apologize. You're doing fine. It seems that you have two arguments: (1) it is obvious the some ceremonial elements were already instituted before the giving of the law. Are you saying that the singing with instruments after the crossing of the Red Sea was a ceremonial institution? Isn't that an argument from silence? Whatever it was, it certainly was not tied to Tabernacle or Temple worship. (2) it was a once time event, not repeated nor instructed as an element of worship. Well, if it wasn't instructed but they did it anyway, isn't that a violation of the RPW. Aren't they worshipping God in a way not commanded by Scripture? Moreover, how do we know this is the only time the Israelites celebrated and worshiped God with instruments outside the Temple worship?

I'm sorry, my brother, but I still ask our people to tithe because tithing predates the law and I don't see it as a shadow that has passed away. In the same way, I allow our people to sing praise with the accompaniment of an instrument(s) because I don't see it as a shadow inexorably tied to Temple worship but predating the law and therefore still acceptable today. But I think you should follow your own conscience and worship with those who share your views. BTW, I am quite excited about what God is doing in China. Are you training to go back there someday?[/QUOTE]



Dr. Gonzales,
Here are three of my observation regarding the Exodus 15 argument.
1) Dancing and singing of women with tambourine is an account recorded several times in the Scripture at celebration events (welcome the triumph king);
2) The use of the instrument tambourine or other instruments is recorded several times also in the Scripture as of the ceremonial system (tied to dancing, prophecy and the temple, See 1 Sam 10, 1 Chron 25 and other related verses, there are a lot of them.)
3) Miriam's singing with tambourine can reasonably be viewed as a prophecy.

Here are the two answers to the two arguments you raised:
1) Miriam's event is most reasonably to be categorized as a celebration of the triumph with her prophecy as she is a prophetress. It is not a public or private worship. (It actually has nothing to do with RP because what Miriam as a prophetress did is a divine warrant itself, she received revelation directly from God. RP has to do how we study the explicit commandments and the implicit divine warrants or examples to rule our faith and piety.)
2) Scriptural accounts of dancing and instruments still reveal that it is of the ceremonial system for sure.

Tithing definitely is not of the ceremonial system, as it is not abolished, the it applies to us. But, we don't regard it as an element of public worship like prayer, reading of God's Word and singing of Psalm. We believe according to the RP, the proper way to do it is to do it after the worship service, people can put the money or other things in a box, but colletion of tithing during the worship service is not right.

About China:
I have to say, God sets up evil Kings to judge the people and their sins. It is rebellious and cursed. But, nevertheless, China is God's China, according to God's will, all nation will gradualy bow down before our Lord Jesus, so China is not an exception, the time will come that the stone will become a mountain and fill the earth. I am not receiving training as a called servant of God, I am in my last year of grad school doing accounting. We desire to stay in Greenville after the graduation.

God bless you!

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

YXU,

Thanks for your patient interaction with me. The input from you and others have made me realize that there are a number of issues regarding the RPW that I need more time to study. I appreciate the time you've taken to present these arguments, and I'll try to give them more extended reflection.

I am glad God has opened the door for you to study here in the U.S. I am pray much for China, I actually know and support some missionaries there, They tell me that God is doing a great work there. Perhaps, someday, China will become one of the central "beach heads" for the advance of the gospel throughout the world. May the Lord bless your studies and future.

 

[timmopussycat]

Wayne,

Exclusive Psalmody and the non-use of instruments in Corprate Worship are two separate issues. I would check out the 100's of Non-nstrument Threads to see the reasoning behind it.

In particular check out this one: http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/covenant-theology-rpw-musical-instruments-35673/