Still Chewing on EP/Acapella ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.

G

Puritan Board Senior
The main problem with Calvin's position is that it simply doesn't work. There are essentially two arguments against instruments here:

1) instruments were part of the "childish" phase of the church's existence during the Old Testament, and are not appropriate for the "grown up" phase of the NT.
2) instruments are a "shadow" or a "type" from the OT period of types and shadows and are not appropriate in the NT era of fulfillment.

Both of these are assertions rather than arguments, and flow from a deeper hermeneutical position that we might term "liturgical dispensationalism": OT worship (God's plan A for Israel) is deficient and leads not to NT worship to Romanism (though it is symbolically revived in Revelation, which has no more to do with us than millennial worship in the Jerusalem temple on the dispensationalist view); NT worship, however, is fundamentally different from OT worship (God's plan B for the church). OK, it's not really dispensationalism, but it is a different hermeneutic from the one we adopt elsewhere, for example with circumcision and baptism.

In response to 1) we might ask why, if instruments belong to the infant stage of the people of God, they are introduced so late into OT worship? The youngest stages of the churches existence, the patriarchs and the Mosaic period are largely non-instrumental in their worship (and largely non-singing); why later introduce something unnecessary into worship because of the immaturity of God's people? That makes no sense.

2) There are plenty of types and shadows in OT worship, whose use is discontinued in the NT. For example, I would argue that incense fits that category: it constantly ascended from the incense burner before the lampstand in the tabernacle, representing the prayers of the saints going up to God. But you can't just assert "This is a type". You also need to show that there is an antitype to which it corresponds. Girardeau understands this and argues that instruments are a type of..."spiritual joy". But that won't work either. Was there no joy in the worship of the Tabernacle? Instruments are not always joyful in the Bible; often they convey sadness and grief. So the line "instruments to joy"seems to me as allegorical as the line that joins the sachet of myrrh between the Beloved's breasts in the Song of Songs to Christ coming between the testaments (Cyril of Alexandria). Just saying it, don't make it so.

Of course, there are plenty of other arguments against instruments. They are worldly (everyone from Cyril of Alexandria to 1960's fundamentalists, with some Biblical warrant from Gen 4); but then why did God institute them at all? They are an element and therefore need explicit sanction (but of course they are explicitly sanctioned in the OT). If you allow instruments as an element of worship, they are mandatory in every worship service (but of course the sacraments are elements of worship and we don't always have those). They are associated exclusively with sacrifices and therefore they pass away with the sacrifice. Except they aren't...see Nehemiah 12.

So I don't think Calvin successfully makes his case here.
Iain,

Thanks for sharing. I had not yet thought through some of your points and I am reading through Nehemiah 12 now.

How would you handle the dancing? Do you see it as permissible in a worship service now?
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
From: https://reformedbooksonline.com/john-calvin-on-musical-instruments-in-worship/ as a helpful resource on some of Calvin's comments on music.

1509-1564 (Excerpts are in Biblical order) Note that the dates juxtaposed to the excerpts disprove any conjecture that Calvin changed his views on musical instruments in public worship towards the end of his life.


Commentary on Gen. 4:20 1563

[Below Calvin affirms that music ‘can be adapted to the offices of religion’. Calvin allows for musical instrumentation to accompany the praise of God outside of public worship (see on Ps. 98:4 below), though by ‘office of religion’ Calvin probably has in mind the Old Testament Levitical ordinances, as is consistent with everything else he says on this webpage.]

Now, although the invention of the harp, and of similar instruments of music, may minister to our pleasure, rather than to our necessity, still it is not to be thought altogether superfluous; much less does it deserve, in itself, to be condemned. Pleasure is indeed to be condemned, unless it be combined with the fear of God, and with the common benefit of human society.

But such is the nature of music, that it can be adapted to the offices of religion, and made profitable to men; if only it be free from vicious attractions, and from that foolish delight, by which it seduces men from better employments, and occupies them in vanity. If, however, we allow the invention of the harp no praise, it is well known how far and how widely extends the usefulness of the art of the carpenter.

.

.

Commentary on Ex. 15:20 1559, translated by Calvin into French in 1563

Yet must it be observed, at the same time, that musical instruments were among the legal ceremonies which Christ at His coming abolished; and therefore we, under the Gospel, must maintain a greater simplicity.

.

.

Homily on 1 Samuel 18:1-9 1561-3

As quoted by Porteous, The Organ Question, p. 45

In Popery there was a ridiculous and unsuitable imitation [of the Jews]. While they adorned their temples, and valued themselves as having made the worship of God more splendid and inviting, they employed organs, and many other such ludicrous things, by which the Word and worship of God are exceedingly profaned, the people being much more attached to those rites than to the understanding of the divine Word.

We know, however, that where such understanding is not, there can be no edification, as the Apostle Paul teacheth, while he saith, ‘How can a person give testimony to the faith, and how can he say Amen at the giving of thanks, if he does not understand?’

Wherefore, in that same place, he exhorts the faithful, whether they pray or sing, they should pray and sing with understanding, not in an unknown tongue, but in that which is vulgar and intelligible, that edification may be in the Church. What, therefore, was in use under the Law, is by no means entitled to our practice under the Gospel, and these things being not only superfluous, but useless, are to be abstained from; because pure and simple modulation is sufficient for the praise of God, if it is sung with the heart and with the mouth.

We know that our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, and by his advent has abolished these legal shadows. Instrumental music, we therefore maintain, was only tolerated on account of the times and of the people, because they were as boys, as the sacred Scripture speaketh, whose condition required these puerile rudiments. But in Gospel times, we must not have recourse to these, unless we wish to destroy the evangelical perfection, and to obscure the meridian light which we enjoy in Christ our Lord.

.

.

Sermons on 2 Samuel 1562-3

It would be nothing but mimicry if we followed David today in singing with cymbals, flutes, tambourines and psalteries. In fact, the papists were seriously deceived in their desire to worship God with their pompous inclusion of organs, trumpets, oboes and similar instruments. That has only served to amuse the people in their vanity, and to turn them away from the true institution which God has ordained.

In a word, the musical instruments were in the same class as sacrifices, candelabra, lamps and similar things. Those who take this approach are reverting to a sort of Jewishness, as if they wanted to mingle the Law and the Gospel, and thus bury our Lord Jesus Christ.

When we are told that David sang with a musical instrument, let us carefully remember that we are not to make a rule of it. Rather, we are to recognise today that we must sing the praises of God in simplicity, since the shadows of the Law are past, and since in our Lord Jesus Christ we have the truth and embodiment of all these things which were given to the ancient fathers in the time of their ignorance or smallness of faith.

.

.

Commentary on Ps. 33:2 1557

[Note that in the below passage, Calvin allows for musical instrumentation being joined to praise outside of the public worship of the Church. This is in accord with the examples of Scripture where civil, national, processions use instruments in singing praise to God. See Schwertley, Musical Instruments, pp. 33-35]

It is evident that the Psalmist here expresses the vehement and ardent affection which the faithful ought to have in praising God, when he enjoins musical instruments to be employed for this purpose. He would have nothing omitted by believers which tends to animate the minds and feelings of men in singing God’s praises. The name of God, no doubt, can, properly speaking, be celebrated only by the articulate voice; but it is not without reason that David adds to this those aids by which believers were wont to stimulate themselves the more to this exercise; especially considering that he was speaking to God’s ancient people

There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple.

For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to Him.

Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints only in a known tongue, (1 Cor 14:16). The voice of man, although not understood by the generality, assuredly excels all inanimate instruments of music; and yet we see what St Paul determines concerning speaking in an unknown tongue. What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?

Does any one object, that music is very useful for awakening the minds of men and moving their hearts? I own it; but we should always take care that no corruption creep in, which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. Moreover, since the Holy Spirit expressly warns us of this danger by the mouth of Paul, to proceed beyond what we are there warranted by Him is not only, I must say, unadvised zeal, but wicked and perverse obstinacy.

.

.

Commentary on Ps. 71:22 1557

I will also, O my God! praise Thee… In speaking of employing the psaltery and the harp in this exercise, he alludes to the generally prevailing custom of that time. To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law, and of the service of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures; but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving.

We are not, indeed, forbidden to use, in private, musical instruments, but they are banished out of the churches by the plain command of the Holy Spirit, when Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:13, lays it down as an invariable rule, that we must praise God, and pray to him only in a known tongue.

[The force of Calvin’s argument is that if we worship God by playing an instrument, then it is not by a known tongue or the fruit of the lips, which is how God has directed us to worship Him. Nor is the worship hearing an emotive song, but singing from one’s heart and lips.]

.

.

Commentary on Ps. 81:3 1557

With respect to the tabret, harp, and psaltery, we have formerly observed, and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark, that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were as yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ.

But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time. From this, it is apparent that the Papists have shown themselves to be very apes in transferring this to themselves.”

.

.

Commentary on 92:1,4 1557

In the fourth verse, he more immediately addresses the Levites, who were appointed to the office of singers, and calls upon them to employ their instruments of music — not as if this were in itself necessary, only it was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God in these ancient times.

We are not to conceive that God enjoined the harp as feeling a delight like ourselves in mere melody of sounds; but the Jews, who were yet under age, were astricted to the use of such childish elements. The intention of them was to stimulate the worshippers, and stir them up more actively to the celebration of the praise of God with the heart. We are to remember that the worship of God was never understood to consist in such outward services, which were only necessary to help forward a people, as yet weak and rude in knowledge, in the spiritual worship of God.

A difference is to be observed in this respect between his people under the Old and under the New Testament; for now that Christ has appeared, and the Church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the Gospel, should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation. From this, it appears that the Papists, as I shall have occasion to show elsewhere, in employing instrumental music, cannot be said so much to imitate the practice of God’s ancient people, as to ape it in a senseless and absurd manner, exhibiting a silly delight in that worship of the Old Testament which was figurative, and terminated with the Gospel.

.

.

Commentary on Ps. 98:4 1557

‘Exult before Jehovah all the earth’

Here he repeats the exhortation with which he had begun, and by addressing it to the nations at large, he indicates that when God should break down the middle wall of partition all would be gathered to the common faith, and one Church formed throughout the whole world.

When he speaks of musical instruments the allusion is evidently to the practice of the Church at that time, without any intention of binding down the Gentiles to the observance of the ceremonies of the law…

.

.

Commentary on Ps. 149:2 1557

The musical instruments he mentions were peculiar to this infancy of the Church, nor should we foolishly imitate a practice which was intended only for God’s ancient people.

.

.

Commentary on Psalm 150:3 1557

‘Praise him with sound of trumpet.’

I do not insist upon the words in the Hebrew signifying the musical instruments; only let the reader remember that sundry different kinds are here mentioned, which were in use under the legal economy, the more forcibly to teach the children of God that they cannot apply themselves too diligently to the praises of God — as if he would enjoin them strenuously to bring to this service all their powers, and devote themselves wholly to it.

Nor was it without reason that God under the law enjoined this multiplicity of songs, that he might lead men away from those vain and corrupt pleasures to which they are excessively addicted, to a holy and profitable joy. Our corrupt nature indulges in extraordinary liberties, many devising methods of gratification which are preposterous, while their highest satisfaction lies in suppressing all thoughts of God. This perverse disposition could only be corrected in the way of God’s retaining a weak and ignorant people under many restraints, and constant exercises.

The Psalmist, therefore, in exhorting believers to pour forth all their joy in the praises of God, enumerates, one upon another, all the musical instruments which were then in use, and reminds them that they ought all to be consecrated to the worship of God.

.

.

Daniel 3:7 1561

[It seems clear in the passage below that Calvin, by ‘Church’ is referring to the Church of the Old Testament, as he uses the same language in his commentary on Ps. 98:4 with respect to musical instruments. Calvin contrasts the legitimate use of instruments in the worship of the Old Testament Church to the misuse of this by the Jews, which used the ceremonial rituals as a grounds for self-righteousness.]

We should learn also from this passage, not to be induced, by the will of any man to embrace any kind of religion, but diligently to inquire what worship God approves, and so to use our judgment as not rashly to involve ourselves in any superstitions. Respecting the use of musical instruments, I confess it to be customary in the Church even by God’s command; but the intention of the Jews and of the Chaldeans was different. For when the Jews used trumpets and harps and other instruments in celebrating God’s praises, they ought not to have obtruded this custom on God as if it was the proof of piety; but it ought to have another object, since God wished to use all means of stirring men up from their sluggishness, for we know how cold we grow in the pursuits of piety, unless we are aroused. God, therefore, used these stimulants to cause the Jews to worship him with greater fervor.

But the Chaldeans thought to satisfy their god by heaping together many musical instruments. For, like other persons, they supposed God like themselves, for whatever delights us, we think must also please the Deity. Hence the immense heap of ceremonies in the Papacy, since our eyes delight in such splendors; hence we think this to be required of us by God, as if he delighted in what pleases us. This is, indeed, a gross error.

There is no doubt that the harp, trumpet, and other musical instruments with which Nebuchadnezzar worshipped his idol, formed a part of his errors, and so also did the gold. God, indeed, wished his sanctuary to manifest some splendor; not that gold, silver, and precious stones please Him by themselves, but He wished to commend his glory to his people, since under this figure they might understand why everything precious should be offered to God, as it is sacred to Him.

The Jews, indeed, had many ceremonies, and much of what is called magnificent splendor in the worship of God, and still the principle of spiritual worship yet remained among them. The profane, while they invented gross deities which they reverenced according to their pleasure, thought it a proof of perfect sanctity, if they sang beautifully, if they used plenty of gold and silver, and if they employed showy utensils in these sacrifices…

.

.

Commentary on Habakkuk 3:19 1559

He adds, ‘on my beatings.’ This word, נגינות, neginoth, I have already explained in my work on the Psalms. Some think that it signifies a melody, others render it beatings (pulsationes) or notes (modos) and others consider that musical instruments are meant. I affirm nothing in a doubtful matter: and it is enough to bear in mind what we have said,—that the Prophet promises here to God a continual thanksgiving, when the faithful were redeemed, for not only each one would acknowledge that they had been saved by God’s hand, but all would assemble together in the Temple, and there testify their gratitude, and not only with their voices confess God as their Deliverer, but also with instruments of music, as we know it to have been the usual custom under the Law.

.

.

Commentary on Colossians 3:16 1548, rev. 1556

[Note that Calvin on Ps. 33:2 above affirms that musical instrumentation may be joined to Christians’ praises outside of the public worship of God. Hence, this is most likely the context for the below excerpt. This is confirmed in that Calvin affirms that the phrase ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ allow for ‘all kinds of songs’, though in practice he limited the sung praise of Christian public worship to inspired Bible songs (and the Apostles’ Creed). Hence, it is more than likely, fitting the passage’s context, that Calvin considered Col. 3:16 to be speaking of social worship, and not the church’s public worship.]

‘Psalms, hymns.’

Farther, under these three terms he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way — that a psalm is that, in the singing of which some musical instrument besides the tongue is made use of: a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; while an ode contains not merely praises, but exhortations and other matters. He would have the songs of Christians, however, to be spiritual, not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles. For this has a connection with his argument.

.

.

The Necessity of Reforming the Church 1543

Exhortation to Charles V

Unless we intend to confound everything, we must constantly distinguish between the Old and the New Testament. That although the observation of a ceremony under the Law might be useful, now it is not only superfluous, but absurd and pernicious.

.

.

As Quoted by Dr. Porteous

The Organ Question: Statements of Dr. Ritchie and Dr. Porteous, For and Against the Use of the Organ in Public Worship in the Procedings of the Presbytery of Glasgow, 1807-1808, p. 45

That Instrumental Music is not to fitted to be adopted into the Public Worship of the Christian Church, than the incense, the candlesticks and the other shadows of the Mosaic law.

.

.

The First Protestant Administration of the Lord’s Supper in France 1534

J.A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism, vol. 2, p. 179

It was at Poietiers that the evangelisation of France began in a systematic way. The school which Calvin here gathered round him comprehended persons in all conditions of life… They discoursed about Divine mysteries as they walked together on the banks of the neighboring torrent, the Clain, or as they assembled in the garden of the Basses Treilles, where… they often held their re-unions…

By-and-by it was thought prudent to discontinue these meetings in the Basses Treilles, and to seek some more remote and solitary place of re-union. A deep and narrow ravine… then known as the ‘Cave of Benedict,’ but which from that day to this has borne the name of “Calvin’s grotto,” was selected as the scene of the future gatherings of the converts. It was an hour’s walk from the town…

In this grotto, so far as the light of history serves, was the Lord’s Supper celebrated for the first time in France after the Protestant fashion. On an appointed day the disciples met here, and Calvin, having expounded the Word and offered prayer, handed round the bread and cup, of which all partook… The place had none of the grandeurs of cathedral, but ‘the glory of God and the Lamb’ lent it beauty. No chant of priest, no swell of organ accompanied the service, but the devotion of contrite hearts, in fellowship with Christ, was ascending from that rocky chamber, and coming up before the throne in heaven.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Iain,

Thanks for sharing. I had not yet thought through some of your points and I am reading through Nehemiah 12 now.

How would you handle the dancing? Do you see it as permissible in a worship service now?
That's a whole 'nother can of worms, one that depends on a proper understanding of what dancing means in Biblical culture (and indeed in our own culture). Hint: the opposite of dancing in the Bible is not standing still: it is mourning. That suggests that dancing in their culture is the appropriate cultural expression of joy, something that could take different forms in different cultures. "Joyful worship" is going to look different in a Black African context from in Stornoway. That's a very short answer. I'm currently working on a book on worship that will try to trace through Biblical themes from creation to new creation. But it's not nearly done yet. My material will soon be available as an online course as part of WTS' new MA in Christian Studies degree, however, so in the meantime those who want all the answers to their worship questions will just have to sign up for that class....
 

G

Puritan Board Senior
That's a whole 'nother can of worms, one that depends on a proper understanding of what dancing means in Biblical culture (and indeed in our own culture). Hint: the opposite of dancing in the Bible is not standing still: it is mourning. That suggests that dancing in their culture is the appropriate cultural expression of joy, something that could take different forms in different cultures. "Joyful worship" is going to look different in a Black African context from in Stornoway. That's a very short answer. I'm currently working on a book on worship that will try to trace through Biblical themes from creation to new creation. But it's not nearly done yet. My material will soon be available as an online course as part of WTS' new MA in Christian Studies degree, however, so in the meantime those who want all the answers to their worship questions will just have to sign up for that class....
Very interesting. So in short you would say dancing (cultural expression of joy), may very well be warranted in a service so long as it does not detract from the purpose of the gathering?
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Very interesting. So in short you would say dancing (cultural expression of joy), may very well be warranted in a service so long as it does not detract from the purpose of the gathering?
With some qualifications. Just to be clear, we're not taking about ballet. We're talking about people expressing the joy of the Lord in ways that are suitable to their culture. Is anyone against that? Have you ever been to Africa? In some contexts, there's nothing more distracting than a bunch of white people awkwardly standing still in the middle of a worship service. At the same time, their exuberance wouldn't fit in some of our cultural contexts. In the same way, an African funeral is going to be quite different from a western funeral, because they express mourning differently.
 

G

Puritan Board Senior
#4 I will admit that one of the struggles I have had in leaning towards accepting the EP/AO position is infant baptism. When I try to use the line of biblical reasoning to defend infant baptism (applying the covenant sign to children is nowhere abrogated in the NT), I find "I" am unable to use that same line to support EP/AO.

However, my current thinking in favor of EP/AO is this:

Instruments in public worship were very closely tied to temple sacrifices, so when the veil was torn, the instruments passed away. Infant Baptism does not pass away because applying the covenant sign to the infants of believers deals in many ways with Federal Headship, which is a cord that is consistently maintained from Genesis to Revelation. Not to mention household baptisms.

For my EP/AO brothers...does this sound right? How would you answer? I hope I have stated this clearly.
 
Last edited:

Jeri Tanner

Moderator
Staff member
I'm your sister but I think that's on the right track. Grant, if you don't mind my asking, what is your understanding and definition of the RPW? People often define it in ways that is more of a normative principle (if it's not forbidden, it's permitted).
 

G

Puritan Board Senior
I'm your sister but I think that's on the right track. Grant, if you don't mind my asking, what is your understanding and definition of the RPW? People often define it in ways that is more of a normative principle (if it's not forbidden, it's permitted).
Well first I begin with scripture.... the 2nd Commandment in Exodus and that verse in Deuteronomy about not “adding or taking away”.

Once I grasp this I believe I put the definition in my own words as below:

God should only be worshiped in ways that he has explicitly commanded and/or what can be deduced by good and necessary consequence.

Also this article below would best explain my view on the RPW (shortest), but it does not address instruments or uninspired hymns, or inspired songs outside the Psalter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/purely...t-is-the-regulative-principle-of-worship/amp/

To be clear I see AO as a stronger biblical argument right now than EP. In John 4 Christ is Cleary teaching that the ceremonial worship will pass. It seems from reading the OT that instruments were primarily tied to ceremonial sacrifices, so I do see them as passing (at least today haha). I still see EP as being safer though, which I would always rather be in worshipping God.
 
Last edited:

G

Puritan Board Senior
# 5 - Since the Westminster Confession does not use a capital “p” when listing the “singing of psalms” does this reflect that the divines has some wiggle room here regarding EP? Or am I reading to much into that?
 

Tom Hart

Puritan Board Senior
# 5 - Since the Westminster Confession does not use a capital “p” when listing the “singing of psalms” does this reflect that the divines has some wiggle room here regarding EP? Or am I reading to much into that?
To the Westminster Divines, "psalm" had no meaning other than "psalm".
 

G

Puritan Board Senior
To the Westminster Divines, "psalm" had no meaning other than "psalm".
Could you be more clear? Haha

In Chad Van Dixhorn’s book he seems to say that the divines use of the word “psalm” was a broader (songs within and outside of the Psalter) term in their day as well.
 

Jeri Tanner

Moderator
Staff member
Grant, I have confidence that you’re going to think this issue through (God helping you) because obviously, you’re not willing to let it go (thankfully). A real desire to know God’s will is a prerequisite for seeking and finding out so many things.

It’s going to take some digging into God’s word. I don’t think you’re going to be satisfied or helped to a conclusion by men’s words (though they can and will sure help). Have you ever read through the the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles to find the patterns, with certain questions in your mind as you come and read, etc. To see it fully from Scripture takes time and thoughtfulness. Keep that pipe handy to chew on for many a reflective morning. And ask the Lord to help you to know his will for these things. From the article you linked to, “This divine warrant can only be discovered by an interpretative process which takes into account the obligatory examples, divine approbation, divine acts and divine precepts of holy Scripture (13-35).”

When you get to the NT, you’ll need to find an explicit command for the use of uninspired hymns and musical instruments, because of the abrogation of the Temple and Levitical system. All is spiritual now. The excellent article you linked to makes the case that things indifferent as well as things contrary to Scripture are forbidden to be part of the worship of God. “Such an action must be shown to be... so obligatory unto all Churches in the whole Christian world that they ought uniformly to submit themselves unto it in all the Substantials of it so far as is possible” (Jus Divinum, 7).”

The Ephesians and Colossians passages are certainly key. But again, keep that pipe handy.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
With all due respect to Chad and his work on the assembly, he's repeating a line of argument which some years ago Rowland Ward and others argued, that essentially argues that the assembly was prescient enough to know that in the future some folks would want to sing hymns so they used 'psalm' in its less than primary meaning, which just doesn't hold up to examination. It is a wrong approach to argue a broader meaning of the Westminster standards from outside the context of their work when it is sufficiently clear from within the work of the assembly itself what they meant. Committees like the assembly don't address issues they don't know about; they focus on the work they were assigned to do. Look at the work assigned and the work flow. They wanted uniformity of worship authorized by the solemn league & covenant across the kingdoms. This included a new Psalter for the kingdoms which the assembly spent a lot of time perfecting. To say that when they say psalms in WCF 21.5 they meant something broader flies in the face of the work they were actually doing, what they had already said in the directory for worship that preceded the confession, and the universal practice of psalm singing at this time, as well as the fact they focused on purging the psalter of customs prior to that time of including doxologies as parts of some psalms that don't appear in those psalms. This has been addressed several times on the PB since I joined in early 2005. You might search for the old threads for more detailed that the rushed outline above.
Could you be more clear? Haha

In Chad Van Dixhorn’s book he seems to say that the divines use of the word “psalm” was a broader (songs within and outside of the Psalter) term in their day as well.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I guess I didn't need to craft a new comment; I'd fogotten that was online. I should note that our own MW does argue the intent of the assembly flowed on EP principles. My argument is that at the very least one has to draw a base line that the intent was to authorize only the 150 Psalms to sing in the three kingdoms, and we can argue why they did that. Dr. Ward mentioned above conceded the point to me (I forget when or where) the assembly only authorized the psalms as the worship song for the three kingdoms.
Grant, here’s an article from Scott Bushey’s blog with Chris Coldwell answering this.

https://www.semperreformanda.com/th...t-of-the-westminster-standards-by-c-coldwell/
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Grant, I have confidence that you’re going to think this issue through (God helping you) because obviously, you’re not willing to let it go (thankfully). A real desire to know God’s will is a prerequisite for seeking and finding out so many things.

It’s going to take some digging into God’s word. I don’t think you’re going to be satisfied or helped to a conclusion by men’s words (though they can and will sure help). Have you ever read through the the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles to find the patterns, with certain questions in your mind as you come and read, etc. To see it fully from Scripture takes time and thoughtfulness. Keep that pipe handy to chew on for many a reflective morning. And ask the Lord to help you to know his will for these things. From the article you linked to, “This divine warrant can only be discovered by an interpretative process which takes into account the obligatory examples, divine approbation, divine acts and divine precepts of holy Scripture (13-35).”

When you get to the NT, you’ll need to find an explicit command for the use of uninspired hymns and musical instruments, because of the abrogation of the Temple and Levitical system. All is spiritual now. The excellent article you linked to makes the case that things indifferent as well as things contrary to Scripture are forbidden to be part of the worship of God. “Such an action must be shown to be... so obligatory unto all Churches in the whole Christian world that they ought uniformly to submit themselves unto it in all the Substantials of it so far as is possible” (Jus Divinum, 7).”

The Ephesians and Colossians passages are certainly key. But again, keep that pipe handy.
Grant, like I said go cover those important OT scriptures by listening to Pastor Ruddell's sermons on the topic (start at the top of the page and work your way down #1-25; he covers every reference in Scripture on music): https://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/sermons/distinctives/
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
With all due respect to Chad and his work on the assembly, he's repeating a line of argument which some years ago Rowland Ward and others argued, that essentially argues that the assembly was prescient enough to know that in the future some folks would want to sing hymns so they used 'psalm' in its less than primary meaning...
On that, there's no historical chance even to, "suggest it was so." To suggest such, in my opinion, is to try and cover over the "monumental exception taking" which occurs when someone wants to hold to the Confession as their standard, but rejects the divine's conclusions on such a gargantuan theological stratum as "the worship of God's people."

(Calvin divided his "Necessity of Reforming the Church" into two major parts. The first was "worship to God" and the second was "knowledge of salvation." Those further broke down into the three subsequent marks of a biblical church (thus 5 marks all together). But they began (begin) with the Father seeking those to worship him in spirit and truth. Worship is paramount to the Reformers and Puritans - something not to get wrong.)

It would be better, as I have heard theologians and pastors verbally express, to simply say "the puritans were all wrong on worship", than accuse the divines for not actually setting down reformed worship for all the churches in England, Ireland and Scotland, as the Assembly said, "according to the best Reformed Churches" and "scripture."

"I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us."(Here in Full)

I very much liked Rev. Winzer's article on the Westminster Confession being an exclusive psalmody document (though I personally think the source information in it is a bit light - there is so much more to include).

Not to mention, I personally tend to overdue my own positions, which means, I'm not going to publicly hold it without really doing all the due diligence I think I need to do to both come to a conclusion on something in Scripture exegetically, as well as by historical and confessional verification. I tend to be very unpopular in that regard. That is why I decided to go through and read, not to mention publish, most of the best works on psalmody. Thomas Ford, for example, who was a very well-respected active Westminster Divine, wrote his work "Singing of Psalms the Duty of Christians" very clearly about what he, (and subsequently the Assembly), meant when they said, "psalms", capital or otherwise.

To reject the Assembly's EP Confession in that regard, is to call into question "the Assembly on worship," and that is no little thing. In my opinion, to reject the Assembly's view of "worship" is to reject the Assembly "pretty much" outright. It was Calvin's main point of contention about reformation; and again, in my opinion, the Assembly's as well.
 
Last edited:

G

Puritan Board Senior
For those holding EP/AO:

Would a Christian be “out of line” writing “Christian” lyrics to music (instruments) for private use? (Car rides, background music while working....etc.)

——-Example: from the EP/AO perspective “Be thou my vision” is out in corporate worship. But, should it also be out in family worship? Private listening?

To be clear I am becoming increasingly convinced of both EP and AO, but the above questions has arisen in my brain.:detective:
 
Last edited:

Afterthought

Puritan Board Senior
Would a Christian be “out of line” writing “Christian” lyrics to music (instruments) for private use? (Car rides, background music while working....etc.)

——-Example: from the EP/AO perspective “Be thou my vision” is out in corporate worship. But, should it also be out in family worship? Private listening?
This is an intramural debate within the EP/AO camp. There are those who believe the regulative principle only applies to public worship and so anything goes for family or private worship. Others believe that the regulative principle applies to all worship. The truth is that the regulative principle technically only applies to public worship, but the principle that we ought not to worship God except by the means he has appointed applies at all times. I have tried to explain this idea in more detail here. I also commend Rev. Ericson's piece here, so long as you read it carefully as to what it is not saying (if you join the EP Facebook group, you may find some interesting discussion of the article here).

However, even among those who would agree with me that acts of specific worship ought not be other than what God has appointed will disagree as to the propriety of using hymns or other songs with Christian lyrics outside of specific acts of worship. However, I think (?) most would agree that they can be used so long as not used as specific acts of worship (so car rides, background music, etc., would be fine).
 

TheOldCourse

Puritan Board Sophomore
For those holding EP/AO:

Would a Christian be “out of line” writing “Christian” lyrics to music (instruments) for private use? (Car rides, background music while working....etc.)

——-Example: from the EP/AO perspective “Be thou my vision” is out in corporate worship. But, should it also be out in family worship? Private listening?

To be clear I am becoming increasingly convinced of both EP and AO, but the above questions has arisen in my brain.:detective:
As Ramon mentioned there is difference of opinion on this. Personally, I am uncomfortable singing songs that are clearly meant for worship of God, even if it is outside of that context. Not that I care much for contemporary Christian music regardless, but, for instance, I wouldn't sing "Here I am to worship" even in my car. Amazing Grace, on the other hand, wouldn't trouble me.
 

G

Puritan Board Senior
As Ramon mentioned there is difference of opinion on this. Personally, I am uncomfortable singing songs that are clearly meant for worship of God, even if it is outside of that context. Not that I care much for contemporary Christian music regardless, but, for instance, I wouldn't sing "Here I am to worship" even in my car. Amazing Grace, on the other hand, wouldn't trouble me.
Thanks. I guess an underlying concern, is I do have many friends that are extremely gifted with instruments and who write lyrics that are Christian. So this may be off topic, but is a christian free to express the groaning of his soul to music so long as it is not in corporate worship gatheirngs (again from an EP/AO standpoint)?
 

Tom Hart

Puritan Board Senior
There's nothing wrong with writing a poem or a song for your own enjoyment or that of others. Just don't go asking that they sing it in public worship. When there is no biblical warrant for it, it is forbidden.

I know a few lovely hymns that contain sound doctrine and are set to nice tunes. I'll sometimes hum them to myself or sing them to my son. But they ought never to usurp the place of the songs that God has ordained for public worship.
 

G

Puritan Board Senior
There's nothing wrong with writing a poem or a song for your own enjoyment or that of others. Just don't go asking that they sing it in public worship. When there is no biblical warrant for it, it is forbidden.

I know a few lovely hymns that contain sound doctrine and are set to nice tunes. I'll sometimes hum them to myself or sing them to my son. But they ought never to usurp the place of the songs that God has ordained for public worship.
Thanks Tom that helps. I am thankful for discussions on topics like this on PB. In my circles, if I even bring up AO or EP for discussion, I am immediately labeled legalistic. I am thankful for both the EP and non-EP brothers/sisters on PB who are wiling to think through these things without ousting the other side. I am still chewing! (@SolaScriptura)
 

Tom Hart

Puritan Board Senior
Thanks Tom that helps. I am thankful for discussions on topics like this on PB. In my circles, if I even bring up AO or EP for discussion, I am immediately labeled legalistic. I am thankful for both the EP and non-EP brothers/sisters on PB who are wiling to think through these things without ousting the other side. I am still chewing! (@SolaScriptura)
I know the feeling, brother. I have had good friends call my views legalistic. It shows a popular misunderstanding of what legalism actually is. The term "regulated worship" scares people. Much of modern evangelical Christianity shies away from any thought of "rules".

I have found that, of all topics, worship is one that gets people quite riled up. Not many people are willing to question their sacred cows (if you'll pardon the expression).

I appreciate that on the PB, even when brothers and sisters disagree, there can be found thoughtful conversation on both sides.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top