If We Should Not Use Instruments: Then Why Does 95% of the Church Use Them?

Status
Not open for further replies.

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
Historical questions.
When did organs first appear in Presbyterian Churches in the North America?
When did organs first appear in old school / old light Presbyterian Churches in North America?
When did organs first appear in Dutch Reformed Churches in the North America?
When did organs first appear in German Reformed Churches in North America?
When did organs first appear in Congregationional hurches in New England?
When did organs first appear in Baptist [other then free will and missionary] Churches in the US?
When did organs first appear in Episcopal Churches in the US?
I suspect that the acceptance of organs is a post second great awakening phenomena. I wonder what the historical facts are.
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Because 95% of the church either does not know the case for unaccompanied psalms only or has not been presented with a case that is provably biblical.
When that proof comes, we'll have to see what happens :lol:
 

N. Eshelman

Puritan Board Senior
Historical questions.

When did organs first appear in Congregationional Churches in New England?

I suspect that the acceptance of organs is a post second great awakening phenomena. I wonder what the historical facts are.
I know that Cotton Mather saw the organ coming into New England as a way for the Anglicans (no offense to you sir) to steal away the Puritan youth, much like the rock band in the church has stolen away many of today's youth from 'traditional' worshipping churches!

Here is the quote:

"Attempts to propagate the Church of England among us, by a most conspicuous and marvelous blast of heaven upon them, do very much come to nothing. Even the organs introduced into the chapel in this metropolis of the English America, signify very little to draw over our people unto them." -Cotton Mather, in a letter to John Stirling, 1714.
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
Historical questions.

When did organs first appear in Congregationional Churches in New England?

I suspect that the acceptance of organs is a post second great awakening phenomena. I wonder what the historical facts are.
I know that Cotton Mather saw the organ coming into New England as a way for the Anglicans (no offense to you sir) to steal away the Puritan youth, much like the rock band in the church has stolen away many of today's youth from 'traditional' worshipping churches!

Here is the quote:

"Attempts to propagate the Church of England among us, by a most conspicuous and marvelous blast of heaven upon them, do very much come to nothing. Even the organs introduced into the chapel in this metropolis of the English America, signify very little to draw over our people unto them." -Cotton Mather, in a letter to John Stirling, 1714.
It is fascinating to hear that organs were in Anglican Churches in the Americas that early.
An early historian of the Episcopal Church in Maryland viewed organs and the singing of hymns as a Methodist or Lutheran infection.
 

Augusta

Puritan Board Doctor
How often in Israel's history did they have worship right? How often were we told that a King did what was right in the sight of the Lord, but the high places were not removed? How often were they removed? Not very many.

It seems we are not doing much better than OT Israel. :think:
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
Bottom line is Davidius came through again with his unusual insightfulness. The 95% figure is way too low; I should have thought of that myself. I don't believe I've ever seen or heard of any African church that didn't use instruments, after 9 years there, and there sure aren't many US churches that don't.
 

davidsuggs

Puritan Board Freshman
David Hume's naturalistic fallacy. Because something is the case, absolutely does not mean it ough to be the case. This is like me asking: "If we aren't supposed to murder babies, why do so many people have abortions?" The "is" and the "ought" are completely severed metaphysically. They have no hold on each other except that the "is" sometimes pursues the "ought."
 

N. Eshelman

Puritan Board Senior
David Hume's naturalistic fallacy. Because something is the case, absolutely does not mean it ough to be the case. This is like me asking: "If we aren't supposed to murder babies, why do so many people have abortions?" The "is" and the "ought" are completely severed metaphysically. They have no hold on each other except that the "is" sometimes pursues the "ought."
Sounds like you are arguing for the PCA to get back to roots of acapella worship?

:)
 

Ivan

Pastor
When did organs first appear in Baptist [other then free will and missionary] Churches in the US?
Good question, don't know. I'd suspect that the piano came before the organ, but that's not your question.

BTW, I highly don't that my church will ever have an organ. We do use a piano though.
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The organ probably came first since the piano wasn't invented until the 1700s. There have been portable organs in existence since the middle ages.
 

davidsuggs

Puritan Board Freshman
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsuggs
David Hume's naturalistic fallacy. Because something is the case, absolutely does not mean it ough to be the case. This is like me asking: "If we aren't supposed to murder babies, why do so many people have abortions?" The "is" and the "ought" are completely severed metaphysically. They have no hold on each other except that the "is" sometimes pursues the "ought."

Sounds like you are arguing for the PCA to get back to roots of acapella worship?

:)
I'm not arguing either way, I just get bugged by fallacious reasoning :lol:
 

Ivan

Pastor
I read on one website that "a magnificent organ was added in 1834" in the Baptist church in Providence, RI, being the church that Roger Williams started in the 1600's. That's all I've found so far.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
Thread title: If We Should Not Use Instruments: Then Why Does 95% of the Church Use Them?

If this is the justification for having musical instruments, then can we also conclude that Athanasius was wrong? Or to put another way, since when does consensus determine practice within Christian churches?

So, no, it is a bad question. Fallacious questions always are.
 

CharlieJ

Puritan Board Junior
Actually, there was no fallacious reasoning in the OP.

To be fallacious, there must be an improper movement from premise to conclusion. There was no conclusion in the OP, only a question.

It's interesting to see how several people have jumped to their own conclusion, assuming that the OP is using an appeal to majority to assert that instruments are good.

In fact, if you clicked the link and read it, you would know the author is actually pointing people in the opposite direction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top