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

Status
Not open for further replies.

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!
 

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.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Sinai is terrifying with its "œblackness, 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).
 

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.
 

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.
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
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.
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.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
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.
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.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by armourbearer
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
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.
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.
:ditto::up:
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by armourbearer
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.
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.

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.
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?

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

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

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
 

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.
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Dan....
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.
No, if they are circumstantial to singing, a recognized element of worship, then they are adiaphora and, therefore allowed.
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.
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
: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.
For charity's sake, I'm going to assume this post wasn't as snotty as it came across.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I'm Roman Catholic if you let me redefine all the terms.
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.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
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.
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.

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.
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?
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!

No, if they are circumstantial to singing, a recognized element of worship, then they are adiaphora and, therefore allowed.
As you recognise later on that you may have shot yourself in the foot here, I will let you hop away gracefully. ;)
 

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: )
Originally posted by Dan....
Also, assuming the Regulative Principle of Worship, and approaching the question from the perspective of those who believe that musical accompaniment is acceptable in worship (if you are opposed to all uses of musical instruments in worship, please do not make this a debate over any use of musical instruments, or of the Regulative Principle itself) :

Does the use of musical instruments during worship, without the congregation singing, constitute an element of worship?
"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]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top