I haven't given up on the musical instruments in worship issue. Jeff Bartel posted in a previous thread about Musical Instruments in Worship the following:
I do appreciate the gentle tone of Andrew and Jeff in the previous thread on the subject and wish to continue in that vein. I think Brian Schwertley expresses precisely what Andrew stated in that thread that "...there is much emotion on the issue...." I learned much from the audio series but I might have learned more if Schwertly were not so obnoxious.
OK, now that I have that off my chest, between the previous thread and this I have learned much about the history of instrumental music in worship. I grant the following:
1. Early Church Fathers thought that the instruments were Jewish and ceremonial.
2. The Reformers thought they were Jewish and ceremonial (and Popish). I don't really hear anything new from most of the quotes following Calvin's but they seem to be variations on the theme. Once the early Reformers linked them to the Papal system, there's not much new introduced except language to the same.
That said, I'm still not convinced that the Scriptures link instruments completely to the Levitical sacrifices (specifically Temple sacrifices) and them only.
I had an epiphany when he started arguing about Synagogue worship: New Testament Worship is not patterned off of Temple Worship, it is patterned off of Synagogue Worship. This is something I knew but is very significant, in my estimation, to the debate at hand. He spends nearly all his time showing how we don't conduct Temple ceremonies any more. Duh. How does he deal with the fact that there were no instruments in Synagogue worship? Well, you see, the Rabbis rule them out of Synagogue worship so we shouldn't think they belong either. Say that again?
OK, Rabbis believed that instruments were ceremonial implements. They didn't introduce them into Synagogue worship because they believed them to be ceremonial. NT worship is patterned after Synagogue worship so we should do the same.
I have a slight problem: it seems that Synagogue worship itself is a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship when one applies the same rigid application of the RPW as presented. Where is it anywhere commanded? Where is it prescribed what is appropriate and what is not in Synagogue worship? Schwertly doesn't spend any time developing why NT worship, patterned off of Synagogue worship and NOT temple worship, ought to be bound by either by Rabbinical tradition or a pattern that Synagogue worship itself is not bound by (namely Temple patterns and forms).
For instance, Schwertly mentions that a horn was used in Synagogue to announce the beggining of worship much like a Church Bell. That was the only instrument used and authorized. OK, so the implication is that we should get our ideas about what is proper in NT worship from the Talmud?! What kind of authority does Rabbinical teaching have for a pattern of NT worship?
Synagogue worship didn't even appear until the Babylonian exile. I think tradition credits Ezra with its creation. I just don't see any Biblical passages governing its elements and patterns. That which governed Temple Worship did not govern Synagogue Worship so what does the disappearance of a shadow that didn't inform Synagogue worship do to inform NT worship? Schwertly wastes so much energy telling us what we all know about the Temple and calling us Popish that he neglects to answer that issue.
It is useful to add that the only people explictly commanded in the OT Scriptures to sing the Psalms in the Temple were the Levites. The congregation did not sing them in Temple Worship. To demonstrate that only the Levites are shown playing instruments in narrative passages (as he does to show that only Levites are allowed to play instruments) reveals that they were commanded to do so but it is also true that they were the only folks trained in their use. There weren't too many music schools that Joe the Benjamite could attend to learn to play the lyre. Thinking out loud: we're commanded to sing Psalms in worship now and we're not Levites. Any distinction as to who is authorized to render "priestly praise" in NT worship is torn with the veil is it not? To use how a Jew would understand instruments in the Psalms only proves that a non-Levite Jew would understand that, in the Temple, they were not only prohibited from playing an instrument BUT ALSO FROM SINGING!!
So I guess I wonder this:
1. How was Synagogue worship acceptable when Scripture never commanded it?
2. Since the Scriptures don't govern it directly but it is governed by Rabbinical tradition, how much authority do we grant Synagogue patterns?
3. Rabbis certainly believed instruments to be ceremonial and only playable by Levites. They would have also believed that only Levites should sing the Psalms in the Temple. How does that inform us?
4. How does a Rabbis view of what is, and isn't, ceremonial inform us who know the reality from the type?
I'm still willing to learn on this but I would like to see some more thought put into this. I appreciate the historical appeals here but I see a common, accepted theme that instruments are ceremonial but don't really see the "support" to the idea except that it's been repeated so many times that it is accepted fact. I have a great deal of respect for the voices of the Saints but if NT worship is patterned from Synagogue worship, uninformed by Temple Worship, then what does that argument have to do with NT worship? Maybe if somebody can present the exegetical argument that forms the basis for the Historical theology it would be useful...
[Edited on 4-23-2006 by SemperFideles]
Let me add to the word "zealous" to describe Schwertly's presentation: arrogant, uncharitable, and frenetic. If I was to get that kind of presentation to my face he'd get more than an earful. How many times must I hear that I'm Popish and idolatrous?!Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I personally have benefited from Brian Schwertley's 3 part audio series on Musical Instruments in Worship. He is very zealous, but his arguments are very good.
I do appreciate the gentle tone of Andrew and Jeff in the previous thread on the subject and wish to continue in that vein. I think Brian Schwertley expresses precisely what Andrew stated in that thread that "...there is much emotion on the issue...." I learned much from the audio series but I might have learned more if Schwertly were not so obnoxious.
OK, now that I have that off my chest, between the previous thread and this I have learned much about the history of instrumental music in worship. I grant the following:
1. Early Church Fathers thought that the instruments were Jewish and ceremonial.
2. The Reformers thought they were Jewish and ceremonial (and Popish). I don't really hear anything new from most of the quotes following Calvin's but they seem to be variations on the theme. Once the early Reformers linked them to the Papal system, there's not much new introduced except language to the same.
That said, I'm still not convinced that the Scriptures link instruments completely to the Levitical sacrifices (specifically Temple sacrifices) and them only.
I had an epiphany when he started arguing about Synagogue worship: New Testament Worship is not patterned off of Temple Worship, it is patterned off of Synagogue Worship. This is something I knew but is very significant, in my estimation, to the debate at hand. He spends nearly all his time showing how we don't conduct Temple ceremonies any more. Duh. How does he deal with the fact that there were no instruments in Synagogue worship? Well, you see, the Rabbis rule them out of Synagogue worship so we shouldn't think they belong either. Say that again?
OK, Rabbis believed that instruments were ceremonial implements. They didn't introduce them into Synagogue worship because they believed them to be ceremonial. NT worship is patterned after Synagogue worship so we should do the same.
I have a slight problem: it seems that Synagogue worship itself is a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship when one applies the same rigid application of the RPW as presented. Where is it anywhere commanded? Where is it prescribed what is appropriate and what is not in Synagogue worship? Schwertly doesn't spend any time developing why NT worship, patterned off of Synagogue worship and NOT temple worship, ought to be bound by either by Rabbinical tradition or a pattern that Synagogue worship itself is not bound by (namely Temple patterns and forms).
For instance, Schwertly mentions that a horn was used in Synagogue to announce the beggining of worship much like a Church Bell. That was the only instrument used and authorized. OK, so the implication is that we should get our ideas about what is proper in NT worship from the Talmud?! What kind of authority does Rabbinical teaching have for a pattern of NT worship?
Synagogue worship didn't even appear until the Babylonian exile. I think tradition credits Ezra with its creation. I just don't see any Biblical passages governing its elements and patterns. That which governed Temple Worship did not govern Synagogue Worship so what does the disappearance of a shadow that didn't inform Synagogue worship do to inform NT worship? Schwertly wastes so much energy telling us what we all know about the Temple and calling us Popish that he neglects to answer that issue.
It is useful to add that the only people explictly commanded in the OT Scriptures to sing the Psalms in the Temple were the Levites. The congregation did not sing them in Temple Worship. To demonstrate that only the Levites are shown playing instruments in narrative passages (as he does to show that only Levites are allowed to play instruments) reveals that they were commanded to do so but it is also true that they were the only folks trained in their use. There weren't too many music schools that Joe the Benjamite could attend to learn to play the lyre. Thinking out loud: we're commanded to sing Psalms in worship now and we're not Levites. Any distinction as to who is authorized to render "priestly praise" in NT worship is torn with the veil is it not? To use how a Jew would understand instruments in the Psalms only proves that a non-Levite Jew would understand that, in the Temple, they were not only prohibited from playing an instrument BUT ALSO FROM SINGING!!
So I guess I wonder this:
1. How was Synagogue worship acceptable when Scripture never commanded it?
2. Since the Scriptures don't govern it directly but it is governed by Rabbinical tradition, how much authority do we grant Synagogue patterns?
3. Rabbis certainly believed instruments to be ceremonial and only playable by Levites. They would have also believed that only Levites should sing the Psalms in the Temple. How does that inform us?
4. How does a Rabbis view of what is, and isn't, ceremonial inform us who know the reality from the type?
I'm still willing to learn on this but I would like to see some more thought put into this. I appreciate the historical appeals here but I see a common, accepted theme that instruments are ceremonial but don't really see the "support" to the idea except that it's been repeated so many times that it is accepted fact. I have a great deal of respect for the voices of the Saints but if NT worship is patterned from Synagogue worship, uninformed by Temple Worship, then what does that argument have to do with NT worship? Maybe if somebody can present the exegetical argument that forms the basis for the Historical theology it would be useful...
[Edited on 4-23-2006 by SemperFideles]