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!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
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.
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.
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?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.
No, if they are circumstantial to singing, a recognized element of worship, then they are adiaphora and, therefore allowed.
"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.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?