The playing of instruments during the collection of tithes/offerings and the Regulative Principle of

Discussion in 'A capella Exclusive Psalmody' started by Dan...., Jul 4, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kevin.carroll

    kevin.carroll Puritan Board Junior

    Ad populum. Show me the biblical command. :) Or, reason away the OT commands to make music while maintaining a hold on EP. It's a tar baby, Brer Rabbit!
     
  2. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    The following Scriptures indicate that the ceremonial worship of the OT was abolished by the death of Christ, which included the use of mechanical instruments. Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:13-17; Heb. 9:1-14. Given the fact that there is no command in the NT to use mechanical instruments it is safe to say that there is no warrant for the introduction of mechanical instruments in NT worship.
     
  3. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Sinai is terrifying with its "Å“blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the SOUND OF A TRUMPET." Zion is much better, where we have "Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant" (Heb. 12:18-24).
     
  4. kevin.carroll

    kevin.carroll Puritan Board Junior

    OK, but you have failed to prove that musical instruments were tied to the ceremonial worship. One can rather easily demonstrate, however, that the liturgical use of Psalms was tied to ceremonial worship. This is why I suggest that EP'ers and and acapellists can't have it both ways.

    For what it's worth, the acapella position is only held by a very small minority of Presbyterians, although I will freely admit that this is a point that is open to interpretation.

    Anyhoos, it seems to me (and many others) that musical instruments are circumstantial to singing and, thus, permitted.
     
  5. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Good thoughts, Kevin. I'm curious what you also think of the playing of instruments either by themselves or as background music during something like the Supper.
     
  6. kevin.carroll

    kevin.carroll Puritan Board Junior

    I'm not opposed to it, but that is certainly not due to hard thinking on the subject. I would suggest that music (as in the OT) can be a powerful aid to worship, but one that can also be easily manipulated.
     
  7. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    1. Mechanical instruments are intricately tied to the carnal ordinances of the OT. Who disagrees that their ordination in worship is tied to the Davidic preparations for temple worship? I would have thought this did not require proof as it was generally accepted.

    Singing of psalms with grace in the heart is commanded under the NT, Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16. So one cannot argue that they are tied to the ceremonial worship of the OT.

    2. The majority Presbyterian position of today is only the result of the accepted introduction of mechanical accompaniment in the 19th century. Prior to that, the majority Presbyterian position was against their use.

    3. The argument for their use from the OT would mean that mechanical instruments are mandated in worship. By now maintaining they are circumstantial, you are defeating your own appeal to the OT.
     
  8. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    :ditto::up:
     
  9. kevin.carroll

    kevin.carroll Puritan Board Junior

    Many do, hence my point. It is a curious thing that the most restrictive adherents of the RPW draw the lion's share of their rationale for their views from the OT...but are the first to jettison the OT when it doesn't square with their views.

    You are, of course, making an assumption here that Psalms are only what are commanded to be sung, an assumptiont that is not bourne out by exegesis. But this thread is not really about EP, is it?

    As I said, this was a point that was open to a wide degree of interpretation.

    No, if they are circumstantial to singing, a recognized element of worship, then they are adiaphora and, therefore allowed.
     
  10. Dan....

    Dan.... Puritan Board Sophomore

    No, if they are circumstantial to singing, a recognized element of worship, then they are adiaphora and, therefore allowed. [/quote]

    A fews posts ago you admitted that instrumental music was commanded in the OT. To look at the OT as evidence for the present dispensation's allowance for instrumental music, you disqualify your adiaphora position. If it was mandated then, then any appeal to that mandate translates into mandate. Instrumental music was not circumstantial or adiaphora to Old Testament worship, but was elemental.

    Pastor Winzer's point stands. By appealing to the OT for the allowance of instrumental music, you have undermined the circumstantial position.
     
  11. Arch2k

    Arch2k Puritan Board Graduate

    :ditto:
     
  12. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    :ditto: This is commonly done by those who misunderstand or reject the the WCF's regulative principle. Given how much has been posted on PB on the RPW, either is a bit surprising at this point.
     
  13. kevin.carroll

    kevin.carroll Puritan Board Junior

    I don't reject the RPW at all...but I probably am a good deal closer to Frame than you are, I'll admit. hehehe
     
  14. kevin.carroll

    kevin.carroll Puritan Board Junior

    A fews posts ago you admitted that instrumental music was commanded in the OT. To look at the OT as evidence for the present dispensation's allowance for instrumental music, you disqualify your adiaphora position. If it was mandated then, then any appeal to that mandate translates into mandate. Instrumental music was not circumstantial or adiaphora to Old Testament worship, but was elemental.

    Pastor Winzer's point stands. By appealing to the OT for the allowance of instrumental music, you have undermined the circumstantial position. [/quote]

    You're right. I may have shot myself in the foot there. Ill have to think about it.
     
  15. kevin.carroll

    kevin.carroll Puritan Board Junior

    For charity's sake, I'm going to assume this post wasn't as snotty as it came across.
     
  16. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    It wasn't snotty; it was an observation. Or maybe it was a "joke". :um:
     
  17. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    I'm Roman Catholic if you let me redefine all the terms.[​IMG] Frame redefines the Regulative Principle so as not to even hold to it. See the Review of Frame and Gore in volume 1 of The Confessional Presbyterian. We need to distinquish between "anyone's" regulative principle of worship, and the WCF's RPW.
     
  18. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    I would be interested to see an example of these "many" if you have the time.

    Please note, the RPW, like the principle of infant inclusion in the covenant, doesn't rest solely on the OT.

    We do not "jettison the OT" when we baptise instead of circumcise in the NT. Ditto for the ceremonial use of instruments.

    I am not making any assumption. My statement was straight out of the Westminster Confession. But it is worthwhile noting that you regard the language of the Confession as teaching "that Psalms are only what are commanded." Interesting!

    As you recognise later on that you may have shot yourself in the foot here, I will let you hop away gracefully. ;)
     
  19. Casey

    Casey Puritan Board Junior

    Well, that was a long and winding thread to read through. And for what? How many of you expressly ignored Dan's original intention in his first post? (Emphasis in following quote is mine: )
    "If you are opposed to all uses of musical instruments in worship," why have you responded at all? The entire point of this thread has been hijacked by a few who are "opposed to all uses of musical instruments in worship"! This is a sad/perfect demonstration of why discussions on online forums are so difficult. :down:

    [Edited on 9-2-2006 by StaunchPresbyterian]

    [Edited on 9-5-2006 by StaunchPresbyterian]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page