N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
Interesting....
What instruments to use in worship...
- Thread starter irresistible_grace
- Start date
- Status
Stargazer65
Puritan Board Freshman
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
I think many of us agree that there is a movement from more complex and external worship in the OT to simpler and more spiritual worship in the NT.
But many are not willing to say that that involves no musical instruments whatsoever.
Yet the eloquent silence of the NT on the use of instruments in worship, points to that, or at least that they are unnecessary for proper NT worship, and there is significance in that in itself.
But many are not willing to say that that involves no musical instruments whatsoever.
Yet the eloquent silence of the NT on the use of instruments in worship, points to that, or at least that they are unnecessary for proper NT worship, and there is significance in that in itself.
True, they are unnecessary, as are pews/chairs (historically, congregations have often stood), pulpits, and even designated church buildings. The question is whether instrumentation can fall into the category of circumstances of worship rather than elements.
I've just written a response on a similar thread that may be relevant, I'll edit and post what's relevant.
From an RPW perspective, I'm afraid I'd agree that one who believes the Bible commands the use of instrumental music in worship cannot argue against contemporary worship.
If an acoustic guitar is lawful, so is an electric and base guitar. Those who claim the Bible commands the use of 'traditional' instruments - such as the organ - exlusively, are in my opinion mistaken. Either the Bible commands the use of instruments in worship or it does not. Full stop. There is no Biblical way to decide which instruments in particular. Unless your warrant is an Old Testament passage which I believe restricts you to the instruments of David.
As far as the RPW is concerned, in my opinion you cannot argue that it is commanded to use certain instruments but that others are forbidden.
From an RPW perspective, I'm afraid I'd agree that one who believes the Bible commands the use of instrumental music in worship cannot argue against contemporary worship.
If an acoustic guitar is lawful, so is an electric and base guitar. Those who claim the Bible commands the use of 'traditional' instruments - such as the organ - exlusively, are in my opinion mistaken. Either the Bible commands the use of instruments in worship or it does not. Full stop. There is no Biblical way to decide which instruments in particular. Unless your warrant is an Old Testament passage which I believe restricts you to the instruments of David.
As far as the RPW is concerned, in my opinion you cannot argue that it is commanded to use certain instruments but that others are forbidden.
Last edited:
he beholds
Puritan Board Doctor
That's all about style, though. It's not because we think God hears us better without instruments. It's not because we want to "worship God correctly" for one stanza. It's to emphasize the part. Were the whole song a capella there'd be no way to emphasize one part. I'm not saying that it's necessary to set apart one stanza or anything--I'm just explaining why it would be done. It is to emphasize.
I agree with those who say the correct answer is none. For those who have not seen these before, see the below for the position taken against instruments in worship as falling under circumstance.
(Article) John L. Girardeau, The Discretionary Power of the Church | Naphtali Press
(Review article) Robert L. Dabney, Review of Dr. Girardeau’s Instrumental Music in Public Worship
Girardeau's (PDF ebook) Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God
(Article) John L. Girardeau, The Discretionary Power of the Church | Naphtali Press
(Review article) Robert L. Dabney, Review of Dr. Girardeau’s Instrumental Music in Public Worship
Girardeau's (PDF ebook) Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God
Tripel
Puritan Board Senior
But I don't think that's an argument for the removal of instruments all-together, as if to say that a cappella is better. Singing with and without instruments are both good and beautiful. There's something very special about singing a hymn or a stanza a cappella with mixed parts. But there's also something very special about singing a hymn or stanza with a fine pipe organ cranked up.
The argument being made by some there, though, is practical and aesthetic, not Biblical. If use of instruments is allowable, then the question is one of prudence.
Another question I would have is whether there would be practices that could be Biblically warranted but not commanded for worship. That is, would it be possible to make an argument from Scripture that instruments are allowable in worship without saying that they are mandatory? Does the RPW allow for that?
This is, of course, in addition to my initial question as to whether instrumentation to accompany congregational singing constitutes an element of worship distinct from unaccompanied singing.
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
In my opinion instruments cannot safely be viewed as circumstantial in the New Covenant because they were clearly elemental in the Old Covenant and just as clearly are not elemental in the New Covenant.
If we give ourselves freedom to adopt OC elemental practices as merely circumstantial in the NC then there is no hermeneutical reason why Passover ceremonies, sacrifices etc. cannot likewise be performed according the desires, or not, of any given local church.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Just keep studying. None here are perfect or know everything despite what they/we might think.
The question here is for that Psalm (or any Psalm that mentions instruments or perhaps even David dancing): Is this a Psalm describing (or bringing a command for) public worship or private (everyday living) worship? David dancing in Samuel for instance didn't occur in public worship (despite what some may think). It occured as they were bringing up the ark...
Hebrew Student
Puritan Board Freshman
Backwoods Presbyterian,
I am aware that the Puritans argued this, but the historical argument from the temple is, as far as I know, an error; I have never seen this argument outside of the writings of the Puritans and those who are seeking to defend them. The reason why the Jews didn't have instruments outside of the temple had nothing to do with the sacrifices; it had to do with not working on the Sabbath. Consider this article which comes from a scholarly book on the subject of Jewish music in the second temple period up until after the destruction of the temple:
The reason why the playing of instruments was allowed in the temple was because of the fact that the priests were allowed to break the sabbath by doing temple work. The problem was, no one outside of the temple was allowed to break the sabbath. It stemmed from one of the Jewish traditions that tuning a musical instrument on the sabbath was breaking the sabbath. As far as I can tell, I have not been able to substantiate the argument that the reason why the Jews didn't have instruments outside the temple had to do with sacrifices; all of the sources I can find give the same reasons as given above.
Also, I am aware that the Puritans likewise tried to argue that the musical instruments in the Old Testament were connected to the temple sacrifices from scripture. However, I don't agree with their reasoning on this. At this point, the issue is exegetical.
Also, I don't think it is an issue of, if you allow musical instruments, then you must allow Passover and Sacrifices, etc. Most of us believe that children of at least one believing parent are members of the covenant, and thus should be Baptized. Do we not Baptize our children because of the absence of a command to do so in the NT? Does baptizing our children because the covenant sign was given to them in the OT logically lead to Passover observance and Sacrifices? The point is that we allow *all* of scripture to speak, and we don't cut out the OT passages speaking about musical instruments in worship simply because they contradict our theology. We need to make our theology consistent with the scriptures. Again, I realize that there are some who don't use this rhetoric, and devote themselves to exegetical arguments that try to argue that the NT has overturned those passages, and that is where the discussion needs to be.
This is also the case with why we shouldn't do temple sacrifices, because the book of Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that they pointed to Christ. The same thing with the passover, that Christ is our passover lamb. That is why I believe that rhetoric like this needs to be dispensed of, and we need to open the scriptures and argue from them.
God Bless,
Adam
I am aware that the Puritans argued this, but the historical argument from the temple is, as far as I know, an error; I have never seen this argument outside of the writings of the Puritans and those who are seeking to defend them. The reason why the Jews didn't have instruments outside of the temple had nothing to do with the sacrifices; it had to do with not working on the Sabbath. Consider this article which comes from a scholarly book on the subject of Jewish music in the second temple period up until after the destruction of the temple:
The reason why the playing of instruments was allowed in the temple was because of the fact that the priests were allowed to break the sabbath by doing temple work. The problem was, no one outside of the temple was allowed to break the sabbath. It stemmed from one of the Jewish traditions that tuning a musical instrument on the sabbath was breaking the sabbath. As far as I can tell, I have not been able to substantiate the argument that the reason why the Jews didn't have instruments outside the temple had to do with sacrifices; all of the sources I can find give the same reasons as given above.
Also, I am aware that the Puritans likewise tried to argue that the musical instruments in the Old Testament were connected to the temple sacrifices from scripture. However, I don't agree with their reasoning on this. At this point, the issue is exegetical.
Also, I don't think it is an issue of, if you allow musical instruments, then you must allow Passover and Sacrifices, etc. Most of us believe that children of at least one believing parent are members of the covenant, and thus should be Baptized. Do we not Baptize our children because of the absence of a command to do so in the NT? Does baptizing our children because the covenant sign was given to them in the OT logically lead to Passover observance and Sacrifices? The point is that we allow *all* of scripture to speak, and we don't cut out the OT passages speaking about musical instruments in worship simply because they contradict our theology. We need to make our theology consistent with the scriptures. Again, I realize that there are some who don't use this rhetoric, and devote themselves to exegetical arguments that try to argue that the NT has overturned those passages, and that is where the discussion needs to be.
This is also the case with why we shouldn't do temple sacrifices, because the book of Hebrews makes it perfectly clear that they pointed to Christ. The same thing with the passover, that Christ is our passover lamb. That is why I believe that rhetoric like this needs to be dispensed of, and we need to open the scriptures and argue from them.
God Bless,
Adam
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
Adam with respect it sounds a little like you demote any argument you don't agree with to 'rhetoric', the inference being that it is not logical, or well thought out, but merely 'hot air', that appears to me to be an ad hominem argument. Disagree if you will, but just because you do so does not render every or even any opposing argument as mere 'rhetoric' with no logical or exegetical weight or merit.
I'm not sure anyone does. I don't make that argument, if you re-read what I wrote, what I argued was that it is unsafe to take an element in the OC and adopt it circumstantially. Adopting musical instruments or anything else from the OT into the NT is not necessarily wrong, nor is there a express command needed for any practice (good and necessary inference is sufficient), but this argument is not about practices, nor in relation to the 'thin end of the wedge' but whether an expressly commanded element can be adopted circumstantially when it is clearly not elementally warranted.
If a given element (which musical instrumentation clearly is in the OC) may be adopted circumstantially what is to prevent any or all elements being adopted circumstanially?
I understand. I was a church musician for several years (acoustic guitar, bass guitar). However, I think the use of a capella at the climax of a song (even Hillsong rock worship songs) may indicate that worship leaders understand subconsciously the beauty and benefit of the congregation itself being the worship band and being heard.
If a congregation is going to try to use instruments merely as a circumstantial aid to singing (and it is very difficult for worshippers to view them this way), then at least it should be such that the congregation is emphasized and clearly heard. I used to make a Biblical case against instruments (and I still have it lying around in the attic somewhere if need it), but these days I take a more pragmatic approach. Spend 6 months worshipping a capella and you'll wonder why anyone wants to use instruments. It's unnecessary and their introduction has caused more division in the church (look at the worship wars) than almost anything. Even churches that share doctrinal confessions are divided over which "worship style" to use. Evangelicals at large choose churches on the basis of worship style more than anything else. What an incredible source of division the introduction of instruments in the 1800s turned out to be! I want to extend charity to my brethren, but please, let's declare a moratorium on instruments for a while. We may find that the voices of a congregation mixing together is a beautiful sound. It is Apostolic worship, Catholic worship (for over 1000 years), and Reformed worship. I love all my Reformed brethren, but please...just give it a try!
Hebrew Student
Puritan Board Freshman
JPWallace,
Actually, I would say that you are misrepresenting me. Go back and reread what I said. My point was that there are reasons why a person takes commands such as giving the sign of the covenant to children, or honoring your father and mother, or loving the Lord with all your heart, but do not take certain commands such as the passover to be binding. We take *all* of scripture. The point is, if you are going to argue that these commands in the Psalms are no longer binding, then the burden of proof is on you. Going to the Passover and temple sacrifices is a red herring, because that is not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that the Hebrew Bible commands it, and there is nothing in the NT which overturns that command!
The fact that the rest of scripture doesn't overturn some elements, and overturns others is the reason why any and all cannot be adopted. That is the reason we adopt instruments but do not adopt sacrifices or passover. The rest of scripture shows that the ones you mentioned are fulfilled in Christ, while nowhere, according to my position, does the scripture ever rescind the command to praise God with instruments.
Again, as I said, when commands such as those found in the Psalms are so clear, it requires an exegetical argument from the other side to show that it has somehow been overturned in the New. As covenant theologians, we presume covenant continuity, and that commandments are binding unless God himself changes them. The question is, if you do not believe those texts are binding, where did God specifically change those?
God Bless,
Adam
Actually, I would say that you are misrepresenting me. Go back and reread what I said. My point was that there are reasons why a person takes commands such as giving the sign of the covenant to children, or honoring your father and mother, or loving the Lord with all your heart, but do not take certain commands such as the passover to be binding. We take *all* of scripture. The point is, if you are going to argue that these commands in the Psalms are no longer binding, then the burden of proof is on you. Going to the Passover and temple sacrifices is a red herring, because that is not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that the Hebrew Bible commands it, and there is nothing in the NT which overturns that command!
The fact that the rest of scripture doesn't overturn some elements, and overturns others is the reason why any and all cannot be adopted. That is the reason we adopt instruments but do not adopt sacrifices or passover. The rest of scripture shows that the ones you mentioned are fulfilled in Christ, while nowhere, according to my position, does the scripture ever rescind the command to praise God with instruments.
Again, as I said, when commands such as those found in the Psalms are so clear, it requires an exegetical argument from the other side to show that it has somehow been overturned in the New. As covenant theologians, we presume covenant continuity, and that commandments are binding unless God himself changes them. The question is, if you do not believe those texts are binding, where did God specifically change those?
God Bless,
Adam
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
The OT Passover and other elements of OT Worship/Holy Days were explicitly ended by a positive command in the New Testament.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Philip
If it's not an element of worship, those musicians that are not singing e.g. trombone players, are not worshipping, and those that are singing while playing intstruments are worshipping while also doing something else.
If only the singing is the worship, why have the instruments? As a circumstance to help the singing? Actually instruments do nothing to help the singing, but can often discourage it.
So the instruments aren't a circumstance, but an element. Pianists, trombonists, guitarists, etc, believe that they are worshipping God according to His pattern by strumming their guitars.
There is a difference between formal and informal worship. For example in I Corinthians, the Apostle separated the formal worship of the Lord's Supper from the informal worship of the agape feast.
Only those elements that have been explicitly commanded - i.e. Psalms a capella - should be allowed in the formal worship services of the Church.
You'll get differences of opinion on that, I think.
If it's not an element of worship, those musicians that are not singing e.g. trombone players, are not worshipping, and those that are singing while playing intstruments are worshipping while also doing something else.
If only the singing is the worship, why have the instruments? As a circumstance to help the singing? Actually instruments do nothing to help the singing, but can often discourage it.
So the instruments aren't a circumstance, but an element. Pianists, trombonists, guitarists, etc, believe that they are worshipping God according to His pattern by strumming their guitars.
There is a difference between formal and informal worship. For example in I Corinthians, the Apostle separated the formal worship of the Lord's Supper from the informal worship of the agape feast.
Only those elements that have been explicitly commanded - i.e. Psalms a capella - should be allowed in the formal worship services of the Church.
You'll get differences of opinion on that, I think.
seajayrice
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think there is truth in this post. Recently I have been worshipping a capella with an RPCNA assembly. New experience for me. I still think advocacy for the practice is inconsistently argued. Example, we sang a psalm to the melody of "A Mighty Fortress." How's that for irony, Luther wins.
I can't stop thinking Tommy Dorsey (who I love) when I think trombone. Kazoos are evil.
Last edited:
seajayrice
Puritan Board Sophomore
How can that be, would you think Stairway to Heaven or Brown Sugar sufficiently reverent? Many meters, keys and arrangements are without question unsuitable for corporate worship. What warrant do we have for particular meters, keys and melody? The a capella advocates should argue for chant to be consistent.
There is, of course, debate over whether only Psalms are commanded, but let's set that aside.
In fact the Scriptures do not say whether the worship is to be a capella. In the NT we have no mention of instrumentation one way or the other. There is a difference, I think, between arguing that "a capella is commanded" and the argument that the regulative principle means that since instruments are not mentioned, they are forbidden. One implies a positive statement on the part of Scripture, the other does not. The question here is whether the silence of the NT on this matter means that instruments are allowable or verboten.
I would say that it is worship---the question is whether accompanied worship would be morally different from unaccompanied worship: does it constitute a separate element. To me, it's like asking whether the bread used at communion should be baguettes or sourdough; or whether the wine should be port. To me this is like making an elemental distinction (pun intended) along those lines.
I would say that both accompanied and unaccompanied Psalms/hymns/spiritual songs are equally Biblical---they are the same element of worship.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Philip
If due weight is to be given to the NT silence, instead of it being ignored as it is by large sections of the Church, it means at best that they should be left at the periphery, in the zone of informal worship.
This creative element of instrumentation being brought in blurs the line between worship and entertainment, or lets entertainment take over. The moral and practical effects of ignoring the RPW on musical instruments are not small, as we have seen in many of the evangelical churches.
---------- Post added at 01:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 AM ----------
CJ
I wouldn't consider these appropriate because of their long association with rock'n'roll.
If due weight is to be given to the NT silence, instead of it being ignored as it is by large sections of the Church, it means at best that they should be left at the periphery, in the zone of informal worship.
This creative element of instrumentation being brought in blurs the line between worship and entertainment, or lets entertainment take over. The moral and practical effects of ignoring the RPW on musical instruments are not small, as we have seen in many of the evangelical churches.
---------- Post added at 01:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 AM ----------
CJ
I wouldn't consider these appropriate because of their long association with rock'n'roll.
This is a practical argument---one of prudence, not of the regulative principle persay. Also, a capella singing can be just as entertainment-focused (there is Jazz A Capella, African Chant, Barbershop, and all kinds of other stuff).
I would say that my position that either accompanied or unaccompanied congregational singing is acceptable gives due weight to Biblical silence. We shouldn't require what Scripture does not, nor forbid what Scripture does not unless we are talking about elements as opposed to circumstances of worship. I am still not convinced that accompanied singing of praise constitutes a separate element from unaccompanied singing of praise. To me, it seems an arbitrary distinction.
Again, this is not to condemn the worship practices of those in a tradition of unaccompanied Psalmnody.
J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
Tend to agree.
Derick Dickens
Puritan Board Freshman
Thus, a question that should be asked at this point... why do we sing? Besides it being a command, what is the purpose of singing unto the Lord?
Simple.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
...but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of God.
Derick Dickens
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, the "admonishing one another" is a reason, but why do it musically? Could we not make melody in our heart and give thanks without music?
Why is the musical form a command, not merely a suggestion?
It's neither in my own opinion.
JBaldwin
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
As a musician, I can tell you why do it musically...because it stays with you. You learn a song that teaches sound doctrine or that is set to Scripture and the next thing you know, you're singing it and meditating on it. It's an excellent way to hide God's Word and good sound doctrine in your heart.
I remember one particular summer when we were camping with the youth group in Canada, and we were required to quote the Scripture we'd memorized that day before eating dinner. Several of us spent a lot of time making up tunes to fit the words so that we could remember them, and a lot of us "sang" for our dinner that week. I can still quote those passages of Scripture today, and they come to mind sometimes more quickly than others.
---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------
I can also add how songs of faith I've learned over the years have been a comfort or encouragement to me when I was no where near another believer, a Bible or a church. You can't memorize a sermon in the same way that you can memorize a song.
- Status
