OT vs NT Worship - Music\Singing

Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
From a previous thread:

However the NT tells us that the OT Temple Worship has been abrogated, all of it. Instruments were more than a "circumstance" and therefore were abrogated along with the animal sacrifice.
I'd like to explore this a bit.


It might be helpful to start with the elements of OT worship:

1. Animal Sacrifice
2. Music\Singing
3. Praying
4. Reading of Scriptures
5. Preaching\teaching
6. Offerings

If I missed something, feel free to add.

We know #1 is abrogated\substituted\reformed\completed through Christ - Hebrews (in my opinion) containing the strongest substantiation

#3-6 I don't think there is any specific contention in terms of practice - or none we will discuss at this time :)

now...

#2 - Music\Singing - baseline

We know music with instruments\singing praises had been established as elements of worship prior to the building of the Temple (Exodus 15, 1 Samuel 10, 1 Chronicles 15)...

We know that the word "instruments" was used specifically to refer to specific instruments of the age and generically in the Psalms and elswhere, so strict specifically prescribed instrumentation is never established...

We know Christ sang the Psalms, but we do not know if there were instruments present when He sang them. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence...

We know Paul did not condemn the use of instruments, but he did refer, as illustration, to the use of instruments in terms of incorrect usage\not skillfully played: "noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" vs instruments played with distinct tones (1 Cor 13-14)...

We know that instruments will be played and new songs sung at the end times (Rev 5 for one example)...

We know we are commanded to use the Psalms prescriptively in terms of worship (among other things). Colossians 3:16

In light of these things, I contend that music, singing and playing instruments are prescribed as elements of worship, but the specific characteristics are not, thus the circumstances of vocal\musical style and instrumentation fall within the liberty of conscience and the prescription that all things within worship should be done "decently and in order".
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Since this is a "new thread" I'll post some of my posts from the other one so they may seem "incongruent" at first.
The requirement to play instruments in worship has been abrogated by the abolishment of temple worship (along with the sacrifice of bulls).

I cannot reproduce it here because of its length but I would suggest looking at John Girardeau's Instruments in the Public Worship of the Church, specifically Chapter III "Arguments from the New Testament" pg. 61-94. As well as Chapter II "Arguments from the Old Testament".

It can be found free online here and here.

Of course one could make the argument that the "commands" in Scripture for the use of instruments in the OT were done so in the context of the Temple worship which has been abrogated in the New Testament Church and that if the oft quoted Psalm 150 is a requirement for our worship today then we better get out the cymbals and trumpets. Or we are told of lots of other things done in the context of heavenly worship that we do not do now, like Spurgeon says here.
In an instrument discussion Psalm 150, In my humble opinion, is a non-sequitur. Why you ask since it is nothing but instruments?

1) The Psalm, given its context, has nothing to do with NT worship and everything to do with Temple Worship.

2) People who claim that this Psalm is proscriptive for NT worship do not use the instruments supposedly "commanded" in their own worship.

3) If Psalm 150 is commanded, why do you not dance or chant as these are commanded as well?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Also not forgetting the new worship practices instituted in the NT:

Baptism
Communion\Lord's Supper (although this might fall under #1, but I digress)
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
We know Christ sang the Psalms, but we do not know if there were instruments present when He sang them. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence...
I'll try and take these one at a time, briefly so as to allow more discussion.

One of the arguments against instrumental worship is that our worship, NT worship, is based off of synagogue worship (this is a fact). Synagogues did not use instruments because they were not the temple and all things associated with the sacrifice performed at temple worship were not done at the synagogue.

Therefore Jesus and the rest of the Apostles did not use instruments in worship.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
We know Christ sang the Psalms, but we do not know if there were instruments present when He sang them. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence...
I'll try and take these one at a time, briefly so as to allow more discussion.

One of the arguments against instrumental worship is that our worship, NT worship, is based off of synagogue worship (this is a fact). Synagogues did not use instruments because they were not the temple and all things associated with the sacrifice performed at temple worship were not done at the synagogue.

Therefore Jesus and the rest of the Apostles did not use instruments in worship.
Do you worship in a synagogue? I don't.

Anyway - I'd be careful saying that the synagogue was the model for worship praxis:
The reason that musical instruments are not played on Shabbat and Jewish Holidays is in case the instrument will break and cause the person to violate the law of fixing it on Shabbat or Yom Tov. This law applies even if a person says they will not fix a broken instrument the law not to play an instrument holds true and is without exception.
from here

and from this article - you can see that instruments were prohibited by extra biblical mandate that Christians are not held to.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What you're asking, JD, is whether this
However the NT tells us that the OT Temple Worship has been abrogated, all of it. Instruments were more than a "circumstance" and therefore were abrogated along with the animal sacrifice.
a good (enough) argument for EP, right? In other words, you're looking at this strictly from a perspective of whether you are within your confessional confines in leading the music in your church without sticking strictly to the Psalms for singing. Am I cutting to the chase here?
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
Hi JD!

Thanks for introducing a new discussion of musical instruments in worship. If we're going to discuss the subject, however, we need to be sure that we're dealing with Scriptures that clearly apply to the use of instrumental music in worship.

You wrote:

We know Paul did not condemn the use of instruments, but he did refer, as illustration, to the use of instruments in terms of incorrect usagenot skillfully played: "noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" vs instruments played with distinct tones (1 Cor 13-14)...
Certainly you would agree that Paul's reference to a noisy gong or clanging symbol is simply a description of meaningless chaos described by a metaphor. There is absolutely nothing in that reference that applies particularly to the use of gongs or cymbols in worship. Similarly, the reference to a trumpet sounding an uncertain sound is a metaphor for proclaiming a clear message - not a reference to the use of trumpets in corporate worship. As such, these passages shed no light on the question of whether or not the use of musical instruments in corporate worship is acceptable in the NT church.

You also wrote:

We know that instruments will be played and new songs sung at the end times (Rev 5 for one example)...
The reference is Rev 5:8-10

And when he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon earth.
Again, the language here is highly symbolic and not necessarily a literal description of NT or "end times" worship. The references are clearly drawn from the symbolism of OT worship - harps, golden bowls of incense - and are meant to depict the spiritual realities depicted by the ceremonies. If it is contended that this passage tells us that musical instruments will be used in the end times then we must also say that in light of this passage "we know that incense will be offered in the end times." Symbolic passages and metaphorical allusions to musical instruments cannot be the basis for a firm conclusion about the use of instruments in worship.

You wrote:

In light of these things, I contend that music, singing and playing instruments are prescribed as elements of worship, but the specific characteristics are not, thus the circumstances of vocalmusical style and instrumentation fall within the liberty of conscience and the prescription that all things within worship should be done "decently and in order".
Such a conclusion is not warranted by the texts you've referred to. We need to deal with passages that plainly deal with instruments in worship.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
JohnV said:
In other words, you're looking at this strictly from a perspective of whether you are within your confessional confines in leading the music in your church without sticking strictly to the Psalms for singing. Am I cutting to the chase here?
John!!! :wave:

Not yet :) - you know me too well, though! :)

Trying to establish what portions of the Psalms are prescriptive for NT worship, first, then we'll examine the impact to EP. Maybe here, maybe in another thread... :)
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Hi JD!

Thanks for introducing a new discussion of musical instruments in worship. If we're going to discuss the subject, however, we need to be sure that we're dealing with Scriptures that clearly apply to the use of instrumental music in worship.

You wrote:

We know Paul did not condemn the use of instruments, but he did refer, as illustration, to the use of instruments in terms of incorrect usagenot skillfully played: "noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" vs instruments played with distinct tones (1 Cor 13-14)...
Certainly you would agree that Paul's reference to a noisy gong or clanging symbol is simply a description of meaningless chaos described by a metaphor. There is absolutely nothing in that reference that applies particularly to the use of gongs or cymbols in worship. Similarly, the reference to a trumpet sounding an uncertain sound is a metaphor for proclaiming a clear message - not a reference to the use of trumpets in corporate worship. As such, these passages shed no light on the question of whether or not the use of musical instruments in corporate worship is acceptable in the NT church.

You also wrote:

We know that instruments will be played and new songs sung at the end times (Rev 5 for one example)...
The reference is Rev 5:8-10

And when he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon earth.
Again, the language here is highly symbolic and not necessarily a literal description of NT or "end times" worship. The references are clearly drawn from the symbolism of OT worship - harps, golden bowls of incense - and are meant to depict the spiritual realities depicted by the ceremonies. If it is contended that this passage tells us that musical instruments will be used in the end times then we must also say that in light of this passage "we know that incense will be offered in the end times." Symbolic passages and metaphorical allusions to musical instruments cannot be the basis for a firm conclusion about the use of instruments in worship.

You wrote:

In light of these things, I contend that music, singing and playing instruments are prescribed as elements of worship, but the specific characteristics are not, thus the circumstances of vocalmusical style and instrumentation fall within the liberty of conscience and the prescription that all things within worship should be done "decently and in order".
Such a conclusion is not warranted by the texts you've referred to. We need to deal with passages that plainly deal with instruments in worship.
Yo, D-man!:wave:

Ok - I will give you the point about Paul - just using it to substantiate that he didn't use language that condemned instruments - trying to head off some arguments at the pass :)

As far as the Revelation reference goes, I would grant that the "prayers of the saints" are symbolic, but the harps and new song are not.

C'mon, admit it - you've been itchin' to have another RPW brawl! :D
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
We know that the word "instruments" was used specifically to refer to specific instruments of the age and generically in the Psalms and elswhere, so strict specifically prescribed instrumentation is never established...
2 Chronicles 29:25 And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
As far as the Revelation reference goes, I would grant that the "prayers of the saints" are symbolic, but the harps and new song are not.
An excerpt from my book, Worship From Genesis to Revelation:

Many have seen in the reference to the “new song” of the redeemed not only a justification, but a virtual mandate, for the New Covenant Church to compose original songs of praise for use in the worship of God, rather than singing exclusively the Psalms of David, which was the practice of the Church in its purest days from the days of the apostles until relatively recent times.

David Chilton’s comments are typical: “The New Song is… the new liturgy necessitated and brought about by the new epoch in the history of redemption. And this liturgy, the exultant response of the redeemed, belongs to the Church alone: No one could learn the Song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who have been purchased from the Land.”

One of the problems with this argument is that it fails to take into account the symbolic nature of the book of Revelation.

As Michael Bushell notes, “The songs of Revelation cannot be abstracted from their apocalyptic context. They are an integral part of a very complex prophetic vision, not instances of apostolic worship practice intended to serve as a pattern for our own services of worship.”

An additional question must be asked: Does this text provide a justification for the assertion that a “new liturgy is necessitated and brought about by the new epoch in the history of redemption?”

Consider the following:

1. John refers to “a new song” (singular), rather than “new songs” (plural).

He is therefore not referring to the composition of a collection of songs, but to the concept of Song, as an expression of adoration before the Throne of God.

2. John uses a particle of comparison, the Greek word w`j [pronounced “hoce”], which is translated “as it were.”

From this it is evident that his intention was not to identify the song that he heard as “new” in a definitive way, but rather to describe it in terms of simile, as being “like” a new song.

A similar form of this particle is used in Luke 22:44 where we are told that Jesus prayed earnestly and “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”

The intention was not to say that Jesus actually sweat drops of blood, but that his sweat was “like” great drops of blood.

Likewise, John does not intend us to understand that he heard an actual “new song,” but that what he heard was “like” a new song.

3. John says that “no one could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.”

Again, it is apparent that he is not speaking of the content of a specific song, for anyone can learn the music and lyrics of particular songs, regardless of whether or not they are redeemed.

John refers instead to the meaning of the Song that he heard, which was concealed from the minds of those who did not have the understanding of faith.

With these important considerations from the text in mind, is it not possible – even probable – that John’s words here make perfect and glorious sense when seen in the light of the Church’s use of the Psalms of David in its worship assemblies?

Remember that the Psalms were the exclusive praise songs of the apostolic Church.

Man-written hymns were not introduced until hundreds of years after John wrote.

When a Jew was converted to Christ, the Psalms of David, which he had sung from his infancy, suddenly became – in a very real sense – “new songs!”

Did not Paul say, “For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14).

And what do we find in the case of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus?

Luke 24:44-45 Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in … the Psalms concerning Me. And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

How must the words of Psalm 2, or 22, or 45, or 110, or 118 have sounded like new songs to those who had been accustomed to singing them in the shadows of unrevealed realtities!

The effect of the light of the Gospel upon the remnant of Israel redeemed by His grace was to cause them to sing “as it were, a New Song” unto the Lord – not “new” in substance or content, but “new” in richness of meaning and fullness of glory to the God and Savior of men!

Seen in this light, the song of the redeemed, which was “as it were, a new song,” and which could only be learned by them, shows us the wonderful way in which the Psalms come alive with meaning in the full light of Christ’s redemption to those whose eyes are opened to see their testimony concerning Jesus.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
JD:

I took "no instruments" to be an extension of EP, and its the end of the matter that I was asking about. So in effect your answer to me was "Yes", even though for now it is a "No".

I don't understand your argument that music and instruments are elements of worship. It seems to me that this is not only the long way 'round the barn, but also its an equally faulty argumentation as the EP and "no instruments" arguments. I mean, it sidesteps the core issue of the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture. What do you mean by "what portions of the Psalms are prescriptive for NT worship"? How can you divide them? I mean, what warrant do you have for such a thing?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
What do you mean by "what portions of the Psalms are prescriptive for NT worship"? How can you divide them? I mean, what warrant do you have for such a thing?
That is my point - all the Psalms are prescriptive for worship in content and praxis except where abrogated by the NT.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
How do you mean? Give me an example of something you think is "prescriptive" (e.g., "sing a new song"? OK, I took that one, give me another.)
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
As an aside Exclusive Psalmody and non-use of instruments are not linked at the hip. While it is true that most who hold non-instruments hold EP as well they are not exegetically per se linked other than both being founded upon the traditional understanding of the RPW.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
JD:

Please be patient with me. I'm trying to be circumspect here. Benjamin, I think, points to the real issue at hand, namely what is perceived by some as "the traditional understanding of the RPW". Or, again, the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture, and the limitations thereof.

Benjamim:
I would disagree, of course, but that's not the point of this thread.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
JD:

Please be patient with me. I'm trying to be circumspect here. Benjamin, I think, points to the real issue at hand, namely what is perceived by some as "the traditional understanding of the RPW". Or, again, the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture, and the limitations thereof.

Benjamim:
I would disagree, of course, but that's not the point of this thread.
No prob, John. (dcomin - I haven't forgotten you...:))

Besides the obvious, the Psalms give guidance on activities appropriate for worship such as clapping, bowing down before God, lifting hands, etc...
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
We know that the word "instruments" was used specifically to refer to specific instruments of the age and generically in the Psalms and elswhere, so strict specifically prescribed instrumentation is never established...
2 Chronicles 29:25 And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.
You have established that there were instruments and specific instruments played at the reestablishment of the Temple - where are these specific instruments and these instruments alone prescribed in the Psalms? Since that is the guide for the NT worshipper?

For example:

It is much clearer to interpret the instruments as circumstance - that is - the instrument types commonly used, than to interpret these instruments as the only mandated instruments allowed for worship.

As earlier texts make clearer:

2 Samuel 6:5
Meanwhile, David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD with all kinds of instruments made of fir wood, and with lyres, harps, tambourines, castanets and cymbals.

1 Chronicles 15:16
Then David spoke to the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their relatives the singers, with instruments of music, harps, lyres, loud-sounding cymbals, to raise sounds of joy.

1 Chronicles 16:5
Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, then Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-edom and Jeiel, with musical instruments, harps, lyres; also Asaph played loud-sounding cymbals,

The generic term shapes the meaning, otherwise there would be language that defined those specific instruments as strictly ceremonial (the strings shall be made from catgut, the wood shall only be fir wood, etc...), which is not the case. The Psalms use more generic terms several times.

Besides, part of the thesis is that somewhere all instruments are prohibited by the NT for use in worship, not which instruments one can use in worship.
 

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
First let me say that Girardeau's exposition on the abrogation of OT ceremonial laws etc. was very good in my opinion and he articulates his points very well, not to mention reading his bio and being impressed with his passion for racial unity being the first to elect and ordain black elders and such and having a multicultural church of 1500 blacks and white, man what happened to us? but anyways thats another thread :oops:


But with that said, I cannot see, or in my opinion, I don't think he or the sources he used such as Calvin, Zwingli etc.. made that good of a case for the ceremonial usage of ALL instruments hence lumping in instruments with ceremonial temple worship consequently then asserting that instruments were nailed to the cross in Christ/abrogated, HUH? To me it seems like a logical fallacy. I didn't see the connection at all but thats just me.

THis is what I got from the whole argument..

Instruments were used in ceremonial temple worship+ceremonial temple worship has been abrogated=instruments have been abrogated

Yeah I know there were other arguments but I think this is the jist of the argument. So if you take away the instruments were only used in ceremonial worship premise the rest crumbles in my book(not that I wrote one :book2:)


Girardeau even spoke of Miriam who used an instrument to sing praises to our LORD but that it was not in a temple worship setting which to me would go against the view of Girardeau who would have us to believe that instruments were finally brought into the temple worship as some shadow of a future joy and blessing etc... and proves that in Jewish culture they used instruments to sing praises to God, are we to assume that the Remnant of Israel did not practice family worship in their homes? If Miriam included one in her personal worship what makes us think others didn't? Worship is worship temple or no temple the OT makes it clear that true worship is in SPIRIT and in truth as also point being made by God with circumcision which was also ceremonial but pointed to an inward reality(sorry my Baptist brothas hehe) hence the command to circumcise the heart with the flesh.

Also if intruments were a shadow of joy in the coming inward gift of the Holy Spirit, why would the OT saints REAL joy be a shadow of our REAL joy makes no sense to me, and the point that the OT generation at that time was carnal and a dead audience (as if this one isn't :cool:) so God incorporated instruments to spice up the crowd is a weird point In my humble opinion.


But anyways I had other things to say but I just can't seem to articulate them right now so I'll meditate alittle more.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Doug,

Not to be argumentative, but if you can convince the translators of the NASB or ESV to change the verses to "sing, as it were, a new song", I'll bite. :)
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
Hi again JD,

I'm not trying to be argumentative either, but I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to get at in your argument. I'd like to understand your perspective and presuppositions better so that I'm not responding to strawmen.

You have established that there were instruments and specific instruments played at the reestablishment of the Temple - where are these specific instruments and these instruments alone prescribed in the Psalms? Since that is the guide for the NT worshipper?
First, 2 Chronicles 29:25 tells us that the psalteries, harps and cymbols were used in the temple worship because God commanded it through His prophets. The presumption is that, had God not prescribed the use of these instruments through His prophets, they would not have been used. Nor were the people at liberty to use any instruments they desired unless God commanded it through His prophets. The essence of the RPW is that a divine command is necessary for the implementation of a practice in worship. Absent such a command, the practice is will-worship and human tradition.

Second, when you say that the Psalms are the guide for the NT worshipper I'm not sure I follow you. Is this what you said, or did I misunderstand? My view is that the entire Bible is the guide for the NT worshipper. The Psalms are God's appointed hymnbook, but not everything in the content of the Psalter is prescriptive for worship. Many psalms speak of activities that are part of life in general and not necessarily elements of worship. Can you help me to understand your point and your question here?

Besides, part of the thesis is that somewhere all instruments are prohibited by the NT for use in worship, not which instruments one can use in worship.
I think you've misunderstood the thesis, my friend. It is not that somewhere all instruments are prohibited by the NT for use in worship, as if an explicit proof text is required that says, "thou shalt not use any sort of musical instrument in My worship." Both sides of the debate concede that no such proof text is found in the New Testament. The advocates of acapella worship maintain that the particular use of instrumental music in the OT worship was prescribed by God as part of the ceremonial and typical system and thus passed away along with all of the other ceremonial elements. We don't need an explicit command in the NT that says, "incense are fine to use as an air freshener in your home, but are now forbidden to be used in worship." We don't use incense in worship because we understand that they were part of the ceremonial worship of Israel, which has been fulfilled by Christ.
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
Doug,

Not to be argumentative, but if you can convince the translators of the NASB or ESV to change the verses to "sing, as it were, a new song", I'll bite. :)
Not sure what you mean here, brother JD... The Greek text uses the word "hos", which means "as it were." Here are the standard translations from my BibleWorks program:

ASV Revelation 14:3 and they sing as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders: and no man could learn the song save the hundred and forty and four thousand, even they that had been purchased out of the earth.

GNV Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a newe song before the throne, and before the foure beasts, and the Elders: and no man could learne that song, but the hundreth, fourtie and foure thousand, which were bought from the earth.

KJV Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

NIV Revelation 14:3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.

NKJ Revelation 14:3 They sang as it were a new song before the throne, before the four living creatures, and the elders; and no one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.
The only translation that doesn't include "as it were" is the NIV.
 

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
First, 2 Chronicles 29:25 tells us that the psalteries, harps and cymbols were used in the temple worship because God commanded it through His prophets. The presumption is that, had God not prescribed the use of these instruments through His prophets, they would not have been used. Nor were the people at liberty to use any instruments they desired unless God commanded it through His prophets. The essence of the RPW is that a divine command is necessary for the implementation of a practice in worship. Absent such a command, the practice is will-worship and human tradition.
If that is how we are going to interpret the RPW then surely those who hold to EP do not recite the Lord's prayer in worship or sing the doxology in worship or whatever Presbyterian or baptist tradition that has been incorporated into the worship service throughout church history. Afterall those things are not commanded even though its in the scripts but surely not commanded.



The advocates of acapella worship maintain that the particular use of instrumental music in the OT worship was prescribed by God as part of the ceremonial and typical system and thus passed away along with all of the other ceremonial elements.
Thats the main issue, there is no biblical testimony for that premise its based on mere assumption. THis is what has to be proven first and in my investigation your premise has not been proven to even consider the rest of the argument. Am I the only one seeing this or what?
 

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
First let me say that Girardeau's exposition on the abrogation of OT ceremonial laws etc. was very good in my opinion and he articulates his points very well, not to mention reading his bio and being impressed with his passion for racial unity being the first to elect and ordain black elders and such and having a multicultural church of 1500 blacks and white, man what happened to us? but anyways thats another thread :oops:


But with that said, I cannot see, or in my opinion, I don't think he or the sources he used such as Calvin, Zwingli etc.. made that good of a case for the ceremonial usage of ALL instruments hence lumping in instruments with ceremonial temple worship consequently then asserting that instruments were nailed to the cross in Christ/abrogated, HUH? To me it seems like a logical fallacy. I didn't see the connection at all but thats just me.

THis is what I got from the whole argument..

Instruments were used in ceremonial temple worship+ceremonial temple worship has been abrogated=instruments have been abrogated

Yeah I know there were other arguments but I think this is the jist of the argument. So if you take away the instruments were only used in ceremonial worship premise the rest crumbles in my book(not that I wrote one :book2:)


Girardeau even spoke of Miriam who used an instrument to sing praises to our LORD but that it was not in a temple worship setting which to me would go against the view of Girardeau who would have us to believe that instruments were finally brought into the temple worship as some shadow of a future joy and blessing etc... and proves that in Jewish culture they used instruments to sing praises to God, are we to assume that the Remnant of Israel did not practice family worship in their homes? If Miriam included one in her personal worship what makes us think others didn't? Worship is worship temple or no temple the OT makes it clear that true worship is in SPIRIT and in truth as also point being made by God with circumcision which was also ceremonial but pointed to an inward reality(sorry my Baptist brothas hehe) hence the command to circumcise the heart with the flesh.

Also if intruments were a shadow of joy in the coming inward gift of the Holy Spirit, why would the OT saints REAL joy be a shadow of our REAL joy makes no sense to me, and the point that the OT generation at that time was carnal and a dead audience (as if this one isn't :cool:) so God incorporated instruments to spice up the crowd is a weird point In my humble opinion.


But anyways I had other things to say but I just can't seem to articulate them right now so I'll meditate alittle more.
re-emphasis
 

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
First, 2 Chronicles 29:25 tells us that the psalteries, harps and cymbols were used in the temple worship because God commanded it through His prophets. The presumption is that, had God not prescribed the use of these instruments through His prophets, they would not have been used. Nor were the people at liberty to use any instruments they desired unless God commanded it through His prophets. The essence of the RPW is that a divine command is necessary for the implementation of a practice in worship. Absent such a command, the practice is will-worship and human tradition.
If that is how we are going to interpret the RPW then surely those who hold to EP do not recite the Lord's prayer in worship or sing the doxology in worship or whatever Presbyterian or baptist tradition that has been incorporated into the worship service throughout church history. Afterall those things are not commanded even though its in the scripts but surely not commanded.



The advocates of acapella worship maintain that the particular use of instrumental music in the OT worship was prescribed by God as part of the ceremonial and typical system and thus passed away along with all of the other ceremonial elements.
Thats the main issue, there is no biblical testimony for that premise its based on mere assumption. THis is what has to be proven first and in my investigation your premise has not been proven to even consider the rest of the argument. Am I the only one seeing this or what?
Jesus commands us to pray the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top