Yet another EP thread

[BlackCalvinist]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia Unless we are talking about a song that is essentially a passage of scripture or Psalm put to a tune for singing, without changing its context or wording, it is uninspired. It is not the Word of God put to singing, but a man's interpretation or bias of what he views as worthy of being sung to God.

What does essentially a passage of scripture or Psalm mean? Does that mean it can be close to a direct quote from scripture as long as it conveys the same idea as scripture ? I've heard people say that the WCF is 'essentially scripture, but systematized'.

..........but a man's interpretation or bias of what he views as worthy of being sung to God.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

You guys are making this harder than it has to be, I fear.

If you are singing quotes from the Bible, that is an "inspired" song.

If you are singing anything else, it is "uninspired".

When we have Scripture reading on the Lord's Day in church, we wouldn't say "Okay, time to do our Scripture reading for today. Turn in your copies of the Purpose Driven Life to page 45 where Rick mentions a verse and comments on it ..." That is the same thing as singing uninspired songs. That's all I'm talking about.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
So, could we sing Handel's Messiah in worship then, as all the words are inspired?

Serious question, not trying to be silly.

JH

If it is a direct quotation from the Bible, I would not have a problem with it (of course, if sung unaccompanied).

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Where do the Scriptures limit the use of instruments exclusively to temple worship?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Where do the Scriptures limit the use of instruments exclusively to temple worship?

That's been my question. Why is it considered only part of the law era of the temple?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
So, could we sing Handel's Messiah in worship then, as all the words are inspired?

Serious question, not trying to be silly.

JH

If it is a direct quotation from the Bible, I would not have a problem with it (of course, if sung unaccompanied).

And you do of course realize that virtually every Exclusive Psalmist that you quoted earlier in the thread would vehemently disagree with you, don't you. It is only the Psalter that is to be sung, not other portions of the Bible.

This has been treated at length in at least 2 (maybe 3) EP threads on the board.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

Originally posted by puritansailor
Where do the Scriptures limit the use of instruments exclusively to temple worship?

That's been my question. Why is it considered only part of the law era of the temple?

Please also explain how a instrument, which can produce nothing of its own accord, and has no substance, is more like a prayer, or sermon, or reading of Scripture, than a lightbulb (to aid seeing) or a microphone (to aid hearing).

 

[LadyFlynt]

If nothing else, at least we are consistantly repetative...

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Matthew 26:30
26:30 After singing psalms, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

After the Lord´s Supper was instituted, they sang a hymn (Psalm 113-118, the "œHallel") together a cappella. Christ preached the Word in this setting and they prayed together, as well. This was no less than an institution of how New Covenant worship was to be conducted, in its most basic form. Christ has shown us that the ways of worshipping in the synagogues has not changed with any significance. However, His sacrifice has made the Lord's Supper a new facet of our worship together as believers in Him, replacing the Passover celebration. They did not bring flutes or harps to this worship setting because they were not sacrificing animals.

Actually, if this was a Passover meal, then Jesus did partake of a sacrifice, being fully obedient to the law. Second, they wouldn't use instruments at this ceremony because intruments were not required practice for the Passover.
You are making alot of assumptions here.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Where do the Scriptures limit the use of instruments exclusively to temple worship?

This question is answered in the articles which I cited earlier. To clarify, the Scriptures don't limit the use of instruments exclusively to temple worship. They were used on other occasions lawfully. After all, no one here is arguing that the use of musical instruments per se is sinful (the fact that Jubal of the line of Cain invented musical instruments does not make them bad in themselves). But with respect to public worship, musical instruments were introduced during the transition from tabernacle to temple worship and were clearly part of the ceremonial worship of the old covenant. I will quote Brian Schwertley's treatment of this issue here:

6. The Introduction of Music in Public Worship

Besides the trumpets of silver introduced by God into the tabernacle service under Moses, God appointed additional instruments toward the end of King David´s reign.58 These instruments were likely introduced in anticipation of the completion of the temple under Solomon. A careful study of the use of musical instruments in worship in the old covenant reveals that musical instruments were only played by certain authorized classes of Levites. Non-Levites never used musical instruments in public worship. The musical instruments that were used were not chosen arbitrarily by man but were designed by King David under divine inspiration. Also, musical instruments were only used in conjunction with animal sacrifices. During the temple service, musical instruments were only played during the sacrifice. An objective study of instrumental music in public worship in the old covenant proves that the use of musical instruments in public worship was ceremonial. This argument is considerably strengthened by the historical fact that musical instruments were not used in synagogue worship or the apostolic church.
The first recorded instance of musical instruments being used in public worship occurred during the festivities and ceremonies when the ark of God was moved to Jerusalem. "œThen David and all Israel played music before God with all their might, with singing, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on cymbals, and with trumpets" (1 Chron. 13:8). This attempt to bring the ark of God to Jerusalem failed because the people involved did not follow the "œproper order" (15:13). The people did not do what God had commanded.59 In other words, they violated the regulative principle. "œGod smote Uzzah, not merely as a judgment upon him for his rash and unlawful act in taking hold of the ark, but as a rebuke to David, the priests, the Levites and all the people; and as an admonition to all future generations to take heed to the divine command in all the affairs of divine worship. In this act he gave single proof that the whole proceeding was wrong. Had the offence consisted simply in placing the ark upon the cart, and Uzzah´s taking hold of it, the remedy was at hand. The priest and Levites were present with the multitude, and could have been immediately directed to take charge of the ark, but the whole service was rejected by God as dishonoring to Him. David afterwards frankly acknowledges the disorder of the whole proceeding."60 "œFor because you [the Levites] did not do it the first time, the Lord our God broke out against us, because we did not consult Him about the proper order" (1 Chron. 15:13).
The second and successful moving of the ark to Jerusalem gives more details regarding the use of instruments at that time. "œSo the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel. And the children of the Levites bore the ark of God on their shoulders, by its poles, as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord. Then David spoke to the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers accompanied by instruments of music, stringed instruments, harps, and cymbals, by raising the voice with resounding joy. So the Levites appointed...the singers Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, [who] were to sound the cymbals of bronze.... Obed-Edom, Jeiel, and Azaziah, to direct with harps on the Sheminith; a Chenaniah leader of the Levites, was an instructor in charge of the music, because he was skillful.... Zechariah, Benaiah, and Eleazar the priests were to blow the trumpets before the ark of God" (1 Chron. 15:14-17, 19, 21-22, 24).
Note that only the Levites were appointed to play the musical instruments. In fact, the use of specific musical instruments was restricted to certain groups of Levites. Later revelation reveals that these appointments were not arbitrary but based upon the commandment of God (2 Chron. 29:25). The use of musical instruments was done by divine appointment, by Levitical priests in connection with the ark of the covenant. The events were also accompanied by sacrifices and offerings. Since at this time in Israel´s history there was no functioning tabernacle or temple, the ark alone was the place of God´s special presence and thus the central place of sacrifice and burnt offering.61 Thus, the Levitical use of musical instruments was an aspect of ceremonial worship.
The Bible teaches that the introduction of musical instruments into the public worship of God was by divine appointment. "œThen he stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad, the king´s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the Lord by His prophets" (2 Chron. 29:25). Note, that the regulative principle of worship was strictly followed. Musical instruments were not used until God commanded their use. No one, not even kings, had the authority to introduce an innovation in worship without instructions from God to do so.
King David himself was a prophet and received detailed plans from God concerning the pattern of the temple and its worship. "œThen David gave his son Solomon the plans for the vestibule, its houses, its treasuries, its upper chambers, its inner chambers, and the place of the mercy seat; and the plans for all that he had, he had by the Spirit, of the courts of the house of the Lord, of all the chambers all around, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries for the dedicated things, also for the division of the priests and Levites, for all the work of the service of the house of the Lord.... "˜All this,´ said David, "˜the Lord made me understand in writing, by His hand upon me, all the works of these plans´" (1 Chron. 28:11-13, 19). The Holy Scripture emphasizes that David received the plans, divisions, and assignments relating to the temple by divine inspiration.62 Nothing relating to the temple and its worship originated in man´s imagination.
Whenever new worship practices were introduced, God made it very clear that He and not man was the source of the new additions. Thus, when additions were made under the administration of Moses, we are explicitly told that these additions came by way of divine inspiration (Ex. 25:9, 40; 27:8). The additions that came under the reign of King David also came by way of divine revelation.63 The system of temple worship set up by God during David´s reign receives no additions or alternatives until the death of Jesus Christ. The fact that new revelation was needed for the introduction of musical instruments into public worship is further proof that for thousands of years, from Adam to the latter part of David´s reign, true and acceptable worship was offered to God without the accompaniment of musical instruments.
In the old covenant musical instruments in public worship were always a function of the Levitical priesthood. Why? Because their use was intimately connected with the animal sacrifices. In fact, during the temple service the instruments of music were only played during the sacrifice. When the sacrifice was not in progress, they sang praise without the accompaniment of the musical instruments. "œThen he [King Hezekiah] stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad, the king´s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. Then Hezekiah commanded them to offer the burnt offering on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord also began, with the trumpets and with the instruments of David king of Israel. So all the congregation worshiped, the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded; all this continued until the burnt offering was finished" (2 Chron. 29:25-28). When the sacrifice began, the use of musical instruments by the Levites began. When the offering was completed, the use of musical instruments also ceased.
Is it not obvious to the unbiased interpreter that the music served a ceremonial function?64 That it typified something regarding the perfect sacrifice to come?65 The ceremonial worship of the temple through audible and visible representations taught the people of God various things regarding the perfect redemption of their future Messiah. Thus the Holy Scripture says that the Levities were set apart to "œprophesy with harps, stringed instruments, and cymbals" (1 Chron. 25:1). G. I. Williamson writes: "œThe whole system of ceremonial worship served as a "˜shadow of heavenly things´ (Heb. 8:5). It was "˜a figure for the time then present´ (9:9), but a figure of something better in the future. In plain words, here the drama of the redemption was enacted symbolically. We use the word "˜drama´ because this Old Testament ceremonial worship was only a representation of the real redemption which was to be accomplished, not with the blood of bulls and goats, but with the precious blood of Christ. That is why this impressive assembly of musicians was needed. In a similar way, a motion picture is a pale thing in comparison with the reality depicted. That is why sound effects, and a musical background are so important! It helps His Old Testament people (as children under age, Galatians 4) sense something more in these animal sacrifices than was actually there. So, as the sacrifice was offered, the emotions of God´s people were stirred by this great cacophony of music."66
Since the New Testament teaches that all the ceremonial aspects of temple worship have been abolished, the passages that speak of the use of musical instruments in public worship, under the old covenant, do not provide biblical warrant for the use of musical instruments in public worship today. Jesus Christ rendered the whole ceremonial Levitical system obsolete with the perfect sacrifice of Himself on the cross (cf. Heb. 7:27, 9:28). The inferior (Heb. 9:11-15), the shadow (Heb. 10:1; 8:4-5), the obsolete (Heb. 8:13), the symbolic (Heb. 9:9), and the ineffectual (Heb. 10:4) have been replaced by Jesus Christ and His work. Christians have no more business using musical instruments in public worship than using priestly vestments, candles, incense, altars, and a sacerdotal priesthood.67 Roman Catholics are simply being consistent when they incorporate all the abrogated "˜shadows´ into their system of worship. Girardeau writes: "œThose who have most urgently insisted upon it [musical instruments in public worship] have acted with logical consistency in importing priests into the New Testament church; and as priests suppose sacrifices, lo, the sacrifice of the Mass! Instrumental music may not seem to stand upon the same foot with that monstrous corruption, but the principle which underlies both is the same; and that whether we are content with a single instrument, the cornet, the bass-viol, the organ, or go on by a natural development to the orchestral art, the cathedral pomps, and all the spectacular magnificence of Rome. We are Christians, and we are untrue to Christ and to the Spirit of grace when we resort to the abrogated and forbidden ritual of the Jewish temple."68
Reformed Christians should note that even if these Old Testament passages did authorize the use of musical instruments in the new covenant era they would only authorize certain instruments and no others. Silver trumpets were specifically authorized by God in the days of Moses (Num. 10:1, 2, 10); and stringed instruments, harps, and cymbals (the instruments of David, 2 Chron. 29:26) were authorized for use under King David (1 Chron. 15:16; 23:5; 28:13, 19; 2 Chron. 29:25-27, etc.). Some scholars (based on passages such as 2 Samuel 6:5 and Psalm 150) also include the pipe or flute. The Bible indicates that the choice of these instruments and even their design was not arbitrary. The Levites had to use only those instruments chosen by God. Nowhere in the Bible can one find authorization for pianos, organs, violins, bass guitars, six-string guitars, drum sets, and so on. If one wants to infer from the Levitical use of stringed instruments that guitars, banjos, violins, and bass guitars are permitted in public worship, then he has a major problem. Why? Because the two stringed instruments that God authorized for public worship (the kinnôr and the nêbel) had ten (cf. Ps. 33:2; 92:3; 144:9) eight (according to the titles to Psalm 6 and 12), and possibly 12 (according to Josephus) strings, not four or six. Furthermore, modern basses and guitars bear no resemblance to these ancient instruments. If (as noted above) the instruments of David were introduced and designed under divine inspiration, then churches that claim to adhere to the regulative principle (that point to the Levitical use as justification for the use of instruments today) should make a serious attempt to reproduce these ancient instruments.69


All Old Testament Examples of the Use of Musical Instruments in Public Worship are Ceremonial

Those seeking a divine warrant for the use of musical instruments in public worship certainly cannot appeal to their Levitical, priestly, ceremonial use in the temple during the sacrifice as a justification for their use today. But, are there not instances of the use of musical instruments in public worship outside of the temple? Yes. A careful examination of the Old Testament reveals only five recorded instances of the lawful use of musical instruments in public worship outside of the temple:

The moving of the ark of God to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:14-28).
The dedication ceremony held at the completion of Solomon´s temple (2 Chron. 5:11-14).
The dedication ceremony held at the completion of the foundation of the second temple (Ezra 3:10-11).
The dedication ceremony held at the completion of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 12:27-43).
The triumphal procession to Jerusalem and the temple after the Lord´s miraculous defeat of the people of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir (2 Chron. 20:27-28).


These instances are the only scriptural hope for those who seek a scriptural warrant for musical instruments from the Old Testament.70 Can one find a non-ceremonial, non-Levitical use of musical instruments in these instances? No. There are a number of reasons why the use of musical instruments in these instances must be considered ceremonial. First, note that in each instance only the Levites were permitted to play the instruments (1 Chron. 15:16-24; 2 Chron. 5:12-13; Ezra 3:10; Neh. 12:35-36).71 Second, the priests and Levites only played instruments that were authorized by God: the silver trumpets of Moses and the instruments of David (1 Chron. 15:16, 28; 2 Chron. 5:12; 20:28; Ezra 3:10; Neh. 12:27, 36). Third, each instance was either connected with the ark, the temple, or the wall protecting the central sanctuary. The victory procession recorded in 2 Chronicles 20 ended at the temple (v. 28). The dedication ceremonies with the Levitical use of instruments never occurred outside of Jerusalem, the site of the temple"”the central place of sacrifice. Fourth, the dedication services involved sacrifices and burnt offerings (1 Chron. 16:1-2; 2 Chron. 7:1, 5-6; Neh. 12:43). In fact, the burnt offerings and peace offerings were the climaxes of these services. Furthermore all of these instances occurred in unique historical circumstances. They were extraordinary services involving the civil magistrate, the Levitical priesthood, the whole nation, and were all intimately tied to the temple cultus. These instances of the use of musical instruments in public worship are obviously ceremonial,72 and thus are of no use to those seeking warrant for pianos, organs and guitars.
The account of the use of musical instruments in the book of Ezra proves that godly Jews followed the regulative principle of worship. "œWhen the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord, the priests stood in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the Lord, according to the ordinance of David king of Israel" (Ezra 3:10). Note that over 400 years after the death of King David the Spirit-inspired instructions that he gave regarding worship are still in force and strictly followed. Not only were the Levites using the same instruments ordered by God under David, but the Levitical family of Asaph was still in charge of using the cymbals (cf. 1 Chron. 15:19). Fensham writes: "œIn these verses the celebrations are described after the foundation had been laid. The leading role was played by the priests and Levites. The priests were clad in their typical vestments (cf. Ex. 28; 2 Chron. 5:12; 20:21) and they blew the trumpets. The Levites played on the cymbals (cf. Ps. 150:5), which consisted of two metal plates with which they gave the beat (cf. 2 Chron. 15:16, 19; 16:5; 25:1-6; 2 Chron. 7:6). According to the author this was done as David prescribed. He was at this stage regarded as the most important figure who initiated music in the cult."73 The account in Ezra is indisputable proof that the civil and religious leaders of the Jewish nation regarded the introduction of musical instruments into public worship as commanded by God and a permanent aspect of the temple system.


Synagogue Worship

If one wants to find a non-Levitical, non-ceremonial use of musical instruments in public worship, the most logical place to look would be the worship conducted in the synagogue. Why? Because unlike the temple worship, which contained much that was ceremonial, typical, and temporary, the worship of the synagogue was non-typical or symbolic. "œThe reading and exposition of the divine Word, hortatory, addresses the singing of psalms and the contribution of alms as elements of worship which cannot be regarded as types foreshadowing substantial realities to come. They belong to the class: essential and permanent."74 "œThe worship of the synagogue was very different from that of the Temple, in that it had no sacerdotal rituals and supported no sacrosanct priesthood."75 Since synagogue worship did not involve any of the ceremonial rituals of the temple, and since a study of the use of musical instruments in public worship in the Old Covenant shows that their use was ceremonial and Levitical, one would expect that synagogue worship would be practiced without the use of musical instruments. Indeed, that is exactly the case!76 The Jews did not use instruments in public worship but sang psalms a cappella because they regarded instrumental music in worship as belonging to the temple. "œIn his great work On the Ancient Synagogue, Vitringa shows that there were only two instruments of sound used in connection with the synagogue, and that these were employed, not in worship or along with it as an accompaniment, but as publishing signals"”first, for proclaiming the new year; secondly, for announcing the beginning of the Sabbath; thirdly, for publishing the sentence of excommunication; and fourthly, for heralding fasts. These were their sole uses. There were no sacrifices over which they were to be blown, as in the tabernacle and temple. And from the nature of the instruments it is plain that they could not have accompanied the voice in singing. They were only of two kinds"”trumpets (tubae), and rams´ horns or cornets (buccinae).... It had but one note, and was so easy to blow that a child could sound it. Further, they were, for the most part, used not even in connection with the synagogue buildings, but were blown from the roofs of houses, so as to be heard at a distance."77
Instrumental music was not introduced in synagogue worship until the nineteenth century.78 The argument used to introduce music into synagogue worship by the Jews supports the position that the use of music in public worship in the Bible is ceremonial. The Jews who introduced music in synagogue worship argued that music was played during the sacrifice in the temple. But since the temple has been destroyed (A.D. 70), God accepts the prayers of His people as a sacrifice, as atonement. Thus, in their minds, music should be in the house of prayer just as it accompanied the animal sacrifices. Although this argument is unscriptural and is based on human merit as a replacement for blood atonement, it at least recognizes the connection between instrumental music and the sacrificial cultus. The more strict Jews (the Orthodox) still do not use musical instruments in their worship because they recognize that it was restricted to the Levitical-temple system of worship.
The fact that the temple used musical instruments while the synagogues did not is significant, for the first Christian churches were closely patterned after the synagogue. "œThe most important legacy of the first century synagogue was the form and organization of the apostolic Church."79 In fact, with the large numbers of Jews who were saved and baptized in Jerusalem in the early days of the church, it is likely that some synagogues became Christian churches.80 "œThus, it comes as no surprise to find no musical instruments in the worship of the early Christian church. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the witness to this "˜rejection of all musical instruments is consistent among the Fathers.´"81 "œThe early Christians followed the example of the synagogue. When they celebrated the praise of God in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, their melody was the fruit of their lips."82

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
So, could we sing Handel's Messiah in worship then, as all the words are inspired?

Serious question, not trying to be silly.

JH

If it is a direct quotation from the Bible, I would not have a problem with it (of course, if sung unaccompanied).

And you do of course realize that virtually every Exclusive Psalmist that you quoted earlier in the thread would vehemently disagree with you, don't you. It is only the Psalter that is to be sung, not other portions of the Bible.

This has been treated at length in at least 2 (maybe 3) EP threads on the board.

The OPC minority report allows for scripture songs, as I recall, but emphasizes the psalms as the primary type of song to be sung in worship. My own view is that Handel's Messiah oratorio is one of the most wonderful accomplishments in the field of music ever. But I would not sing it in public worship. I believe that the psalms alone are authorized by God in public worship.

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

When we have Scripture reading on the Lord's Day in church, we wouldn't say "Okay, time to do our Scripture reading for today. Turn in your copies of the Purpose Driven Life to page 45 where Rick mentions a verse and comments on it ..." That is the same thing as singing uninspired songs. That's all I'm talking about.

Good analogy...

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
So, could we sing Handel's Messiah in worship then, as all the words are inspired?

Serious question, not trying to be silly.

JH

And you do of course realize that virtually every Exclusive Psalmist that you quoted earlier in the thread would vehemently disagree with you, don't you. It is only the Psalter that is to be sung, not other portions of the Bible.

This has been treated at length in at least 2 (maybe 3) EP threads on the board.

Can you reveal the substance behind your assertion here? You just confidently spoke for Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Wesley, and several apostolic church fathers.

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

Please also explain how a instrument, which can produce nothing of its own accord, and has no substance, is more like a prayer, or sermon, or reading of Scripture, than a lightbulb (to aid seeing) or a microphone (to aid hearing).

Ok so I assume you are labeling instruments as circumstantial rather than elemental. If they were circumstantial why did God have to specifically mention their use? Prior to their ordination by God scripture never speaks of instruments being used.

Concerning covenant continuity, do you believe that all the elements besides those fulfilled, and thus omitted or replaced should be continued from the Temple services? It seems to me that uninspired hymns and instruments that were never mentioned before their ordination nor after they were nullified would be adding to what God has commanded in worship, and disturbing covenant continuity.

Is this an issue of legalism? No salvation and our status before God doesn't hinge on it. The issue is our devotion to God. Can we not be nit picky and strict when the intention is to please God?

I keep hearing people claim that refusing to allow instruments and uninspired hymns is forcing beliefs on peoples conscience. Well so is allowing instruments and uninspired hymns, as strict followers of the rpw feel they are not offering a pure sacrifice to God. Where does scripture ordain instruments and uninspired hymns anyway? I'm also curious to those opposing no instruments and EP think about the quotations by the apostolic church fathers who were closest to the inspired apostles and Christ and the reformers that we respect so much? You realize that by opposing EP and no Instruments you oppose the belief of these apostolic fathers prior to the corruption of the church and for example, Luther, Calvin and Spurgeon?

[Edited on 3-9-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

 

[lwadkins]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by JonathanHunt
So, could we sing Handel's Messiah in worship then, as all the words are inspired?

Serious question, not trying to be silly.

JH

If it is a direct quotation from the Bible, I would not have a problem with it (of course, if sung unaccompanied).

And you do of course realize that virtually every Exclusive Psalmist that you quoted earlier in the thread would vehemently disagree with you, don't you. It is only the Psalter that is to be sung, not other portions of the Bible.

This has been treated at length in at least 2 (maybe 3) EP threads on the board.

Well Fred, I would think then that it will only take 2 or 3 more and we will have it all worked out.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by JohnV
So all the Psalms from the Book of Praise of the RPCNA are uninspired hymns? From the book of praise of the CanRC? Of the FCS? They're not in Hebrew.

Is the English translation of the Bible inspired?

What I'm getting at is: What do you mean by "inspired"? Are you not mixing meanings here?

I'm sorry if you've already covered this in your long posts. I need the time to read them through carefully, which I didn't have this evening.

The "Book of Psalms for Singing" that the RPCNA uses was done through a painstaking process in order to stay accurate to the original text of Scripture and still have the song in a flowing, singable form.

When I say "inspired", I mean that the Book of Psalms is Scripture. We can arrange it and put it to a tune and sing it, but it is still inspired Scripture. It is still the Word of God every bit as a copy of the ESV or KJV is. The key here is the source material of what is being sung.

When I say "uninspired", I mean songs where the source material is man's imaginations or ideas/thoughts/words. It may be a song based on Scripture, a song based on ideas from Scripture, or a completely original song altogether. Unless we are talking about a song that is essentially a passage of scripture or Psalm put to a tune for singing, without changing its context or wording, it is uninspired. It is not the Word of God put to singing, but a man's interpretation or bias of what he views as worthy of being sung to God.

Gabriel:

Because of the nature of the discussion I have to back out of this one to a degree. What I had in mind could be summarized if I responded with,

OK, just try to be consistent with this all the way through.

I want to get deeper into this sometime, for there is much to discuss. The Girardeau-esque arguments have not really been responded to, but I see some attempting to do so in this thread. And I'll leave it to them to pursue this. I would only be following their lead. I just ask you to think about it, carefully, and not to suppose things about non-EP-ers beliefs that really aren't true. For example, we do not disparage against Psalm singing. Its not a question of "either/or", but whether hymns are legitimate praise as well. And we don't use the word "hymn" loosely, as if we would invite Cat Stevens to sing "Morning has broken" at a worship service.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I am incredibly frustrated at the responses I have gotten in this thread.

Either none of you are actually reading or attempting to understand what I'm saying, or you are choosing to ignore it. If I was to ignore a vast amount of Scriptural evidence and proof for something one of YOU posted, I would get harrassed and belittled and treated like dirt. But, when I do it, it is okay to completely ignore all of it and ask the same questions (which I've already answered) over and over again. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, just being honest. You are not giving me the same respect and intellectual interaction that you DEMAND from everyone else on this board when discussing an issue.

Where do the Scriptures limit the use of instruments exclusively to temple worship?

That's been my question. Why is it considered only part of the law era of the temple?

This has been answered several times in this thread. Did you read all of my posts? 2 Chron. 29 is the most clear answer. Andrew has done a wonderful job as well answering this question. The burden of proof is on all of you, who disagree with the RPW entirely by saying we can introduce new things into worship that are not commanded by Scripture.

Lightbulbs and microphones are circumstances of worship and not regulated by Scripture.


Finally, if "Handel's Messiah" is not contained in the Psalms (which I apparently wrongly assumed it was), then it should not be sung in corporate worship.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

To clarify, again:

Elements of Worship: The regulated parts of corporate worship; that is, preaching, the reading of Scripture, prayer, the Sacraments, and the singing of psalms with grace in the heart.

Circumstances of Worship: The non-regulated parts of corporate worship; that is, the location of worship, how long the worship service is, what is preached/prayed in a service, which psalms are sung, the order of service, if microphones or artificial lighting is used, etc.

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
I keep hearing people claim that refusing to allow instruments and uninspired hymns is forcing beliefs on peoples conscience. Well so is allowing instruments and uninspired hymns, as strict followers of the rpw feel they are not offering a pure sacrifice to God. Where does scripture ordain instruments and uninspired hymns anyway? I'm also curious to those opposing no instruments and EP think about the quotations by the apostolic church fathers who were closest to the inspired apostles and Christ and the reformers that we respect so much? You realize that by opposing EP and no Instruments you oppose the belief of these apostolic fathers prior to the corruption of the church and for example, Luther, Calvin and Spurgeon?

This hits on a key aspect of the debate over music, instruments, and hymnody, that is, the issue of liberty of conscience. The question that every "non-EP'er" must ask himself is this - "is is lawful for me to impose, based on my own preference, that which I consider a circumstance (and therefore not necessary) on the consciences of those of my brethren who view the use of instruments as an violation of the RPW, and thereby have their consciences violated on account of my imposition of that which I do not believe is necessary?"

Or, to put it another way,

"Is instrumental music/uninspired hymnody something that is so important that I am willing to violate the conscience of my EP brother in order to have it in the public worship?"

I believe the scriptures are clear on what to do in this instance, i.e. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. Should not rather the one who takes a freer view of worship say to himself, a la 1 Cor 8:12 - "Therefore, if the use of instruments in worship and uninspired hymnody makes my brother stumble, I will never include instruments and unispired hymns in worship, lest I make my brother stumble."

[Edited on 3-9-2005 by Philip A]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Good point, Philip.

It would not violate the conscience of a person to sing Psalms without instruments, as there are no Scriptural commands contrary to this practice.

However, those who hold to RPW and are offended by such practices, based on Sola Scriptura and necessary inference, should be treated with love and compassion by their brothers and sisters in Christ who may not have the same conviction.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I am incredibly frustrated at the responses I have gotten in this thread.

Either none of you are actually reading or attempting to understand what I'm saying, or you are choosing to ignore it. If I was to ignore a vast amount of Scriptural evidence and proof for something one of YOU posted, I would get harrassed and belittled and treated like dirt. But, when I do it, it is okay to completely ignore all of it and ask the same questions (which I've already answered) over and over again. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, just being honest. You are not giving me the same respect and intellectual interaction that you DEMAND from everyone else on this board when discussing an issue.

I have answered these questions. I have made probably 50 posts on this issue in the last year dealing with instruments, Psalter exclusivity, singing of other passages of Scripture, dealing with Bushnell, dealing with Schwertly (both of whom I respect) and the like. I have presented Scriptural and Confessional arguments in these other threads.

What amazes me is that by simply citation of a text - knowing that there is a significant dipsute as to interpretation of these texts, and has been for centuries by theological heavyweights, you expect the non-EPers to simply say, "you're right Gabriel. I can't believe I ever didn't think about that."

Sheesh.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

What's the point of even having this message board, then? Every time a new thread is posted, people complain that the issue has already been dealt with.

No offense, but it is pretty clear from this particular thread, that you don't understand the regulation of elements and circumstances in worship, per your "microphone and lightbulb" argument earlier.

I guess for that reason I see the need for this to be addressed again, but I'm just a "lightweight."

I see no reason to ever post here again. Humility and longsuffering with love in the heart are traits that we all need in more abundance.

 

[JohnV]

Not at all, Gabriel. We are interacting with your posts. Or at least trying our best to do so. Some of us are not convinced by the arguments, for various reasons. The fact that we're taking time to respond without reproach speaks in your favour.

For myself, I've read Girardeau's book, or at least most of it. And I remain unconvinced by a long shot. All I'm trying to say is that there is more to it. And some the arguments don't hold water. They may be right, but they aren't expressed in a convincing way. I don't want to argue with Girardeau, but I want to discuss with you. You've tried to show Biblical necessity, and I don't see it yet. It's plain to you, but it's plain to me that this isn't the case. I'm not trying to be a snob. I just can't do it now, especially with the direction the thread has taken. I would really like to take a different course in discussing the same things. I'll just have to ask you to accept that, because I can't get into the reasons right now. I'm not chickening out, otherwise I would have kept myself from posting this.

Meanwhile, there are some really good responses by others that also need interacting with. They too are believing from the heart. And what Phillip said, as a non-EP-er I think that too. Thanks, Phillip.

So keep up your zeal, Gabriel. And don't be discouraged.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
What's the point of even having this message board, then? Every time a new thread is posted, people complain that the issue has already been dealt with.

No offense, but it is pretty clear from this particular thread, that you don't understand the regulation of elements and circumstances in worship, per your "microphone and lightbulb" argument earlier.

I guess for that reason I see the need for this to be addressed again, but I'm just a "lightweight."

I see no reason to ever post here again. Humility and longsuffering with love in the heart are traits that we all need in more abundance.

Gabriel,

This is another example of exactly what I was saying. It has nothing to do with the weight of one's opinion, but the ipse dixit nature of your comments. I beg to differ that I know the difference between an element and a circumstance in worship. I have been teaching that in Churches and conducting ministerial examination regarding such when you were in high school and probably before you had heard of the term.

What you are not grasping is that something does not merely become an element because you say so. It is also not a sufficient argument (at least for 98% of the Reformed world) to simply say, "because something was used in the temple, it must be an element." That is the thrust of your argument. I find it (along with almost all Reformed denominations) lacking. That does NOT mean it is wrong. Girardeau may be right. But the fact that there has been such opposition to an argument by learned, Reformed divines means that it cannot be postulated ipse dixit.

An element is something that is substantive. The list in WCF 21.5 is illustrative: reading the Scriptures, preaching, the sacraments, singing, praying, oaths all have "matter" to them. You either read or you don't. You either preach or you don't. Circumstances are aids to elements that are "to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence." That is, what text one reads, what translation, in how loud a voice, with amplification or not, with lighting or not, at whatever time.

My question, which you still have may no attempt to answer, but rather have chosen to simply repeat your statement with a note of disdain, is how is a musical instrument more like a sacrament, or prayer or an oath, than a lightbulb? Light is an aid to reading. Instruments are an aid to singing. They are for aiding the singers in keeping in tune and harmony.

But I guess if you don't have an answer to that, you can simply continue your martyr's complex.

 

[lwadkins]

Generally everyone who is convinced of a certian viewpoint will argue it with passion, this is a good thing. I would be wary of the depth of belief that someone held in a position if they were not passionate about it. I have to admit I still have not come to a passionate position on this subject, but I alway eagerly look forward to the debate, hopeful that I will learn something new that may solidify my search for truth into a firmly held conviction. There are people for whom I have profound respect on both sides of this issue, and they are passionate on both sides. I think though we can't let our passions overcome our love for one another. Admitedly this is a particularly difficult subject. I understand that from the EP'ers point of view that they feel that non-EP'ers are not concerned enough with respect and reverence for God in worship, and it seems the non-EP'ers feel that EP'ers try to impose upon them unnecessary strictures that are unbiblical and violate Christian liberty. Well I still haven't come to a personal conclusion as to which point of view I should hold myself, but I would say that both sides are sincere in their views and both sides seem to make valid points.

 

[fredtgreco]

Let me reiterate something if it has not been clear. I think that there are significant Biblical and Confessional arguments for exclusive psalmody. I think that they have to be dealt with and are worthy of consideration. I think that there are many men who are more godly and intelligent than me with greater biblical knowledge who hold that position. I would not wish to denigrate it or them.

What I have a problem with is when the non-EP position is treated as if only a blatant fool would be believe it, only someone who is "uninformed" or "ignorant" and who "understand the regulation of elements and circumstances in worship" (which is far more basic than the EP argument). That is what is wrong, not passion or conviction.

You will notice that I have directed no such comments at Andrew, for example.

[Edited on 3/9/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Authorised]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Authorised
Alot of KJO advocates claim the KJV is inspired, yet it is only a translation.

EP advocates claim that the psalter is inspired, yet it is only a translation.


hmmm...

That is an erroneous and fallacious analogy.

The KJV is a translation of the Bible.

The Book of Psalms is Scripture.

You don't believe the Psalms are inspired by the Holy Spirit? Careful, buddy.

Liar.

 

[wsw201]

Easy Aaron. You don't need to go there. I think its about time to shut down this thread so everyone can cool off.