An Examination of Sovereign Grace Ministries and Getty-Townend For Use in Fundamental Christian Churches (Part 2)

[dcbii]
However, passionate worship, as David expressed in Chronicles, also appears to be a legitimate worship expression, even if we would have to be very careful to get it right. I’m not saying that dancing as David did should be a regular part of our worship, since we can’t tell that from the text, and there may be culture/association issues to work through, but we do know that we do not always need to be reserved in our expressions of joy toward God.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[dcbii] However, passionate worship, as David expressed in Chronicles, also appears to be a legitimate worship expression, even if we would have to be very careful to get it right. I’m not saying that dancing as David did should be a regular part of our worship, since we can’t tell that from the text, and there may be culture/association issues to work through, but we do know that we do not always need to be reserved in our expressions of joy toward God.

So should we also go about conquering nations for God like David did? There is a danger inherent in appealing to this context without considering its distinctions and their implications which need to be part of this appeal. The contexts are significantly different.

Alex, maybe you would like to attempt to explain away the reference to dance in Ps 150. Or you like Don who apparently does not count Psalm 150 as Biblical support? It is bewildering that you guys refuse to acknowledge what is written clear as day in the Psalms.

Look, no one is suggesting that you are required to dance, clap, shout, and bang drums/cymbals in church today. We are just suggesting that you can’t condemn those actions outright when the Bible clearly encourages them.

GregH,

No one is disputing that the Bible says this, however some people prefer their Bible in context.

There are two locations where this is directed to be done according to the Psalmist:

1 Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens!

So where is the Sanctuary of God? For Israel the tabernacle was the dwelling of God. But where is the temple now and its court where one would dance? Right, it is inward, in us. God now dwells in us, individually. All that was outward is now inward. The sanctuary of God is inside of you now. The sanctuary was a type, a shadow of a better thing to come.

But even collectively it is still inside of us where God dwells which is now the sanctuary of God. So even outside of yourself and considering others, if you can figure out a way to get inside of someone’s heart where their sanctuary is and dance before the Lord in the court of the sanctuary, well have at it but you would have done what only God has done thus far which is to enter into the heart of a man. Good luck.

As to the other location, “in his might heavens” well, maybe if you stretch this one you can do it while you traveling on a plane but then you would miss the entire nature of its poetic use.

This is to say nothing of the entire exploration of the implications of the outward and physical kingdom of God manifested in Israel and its unique protocols and that of the inward and spiritual kingdom of God in the NT and their unique and distinct protocols and why one cannot be assumed in the least to be applied to the other even in seemingly minor matters.

Wow Alex, now I believe in cessation, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen it applied to musical instruments. I believe that it is quite a stretch to imply (or assert) that the type of worship the Psalms encouraged ceased when the body of the believer became the temple of the Holy Spirit. But by using that argument, where do you find support for excluding the instruments from the voices? If every type of worship describe in the Psalms ceased, then would not that also include singing?

Even making the argument from the absence of the mention of instruments in the NT, it would fail when you get to Revelation because not only is there an external temple in Revelation (Rev 11:1-2, Rev 15) but there are stringed instruments played in heaven (Rev 5:8, Rev 14:2-3).

Also you made the argument about dancing in their heart, yet Ephesians 5 says “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” so does that also imply that we are supposed to crawl into their heart and temple and sing songs to their liver?

Just because there was a change of location where the temple signified the body of Christ and His church, doesn’t have to force an interpretation that the music ceased.

Furthermore, if the arguments used today that these types of music could prove a causation between immorality and the music, then for that argument to be believable it must be true at all times and places, which means it would have been equally immoral in the OT. If not, then where is the Scriptural support for when the music and instruments were permitted (as in Psalms and I Chronicles 15) and when it became “sensual”?

P.S.

Dr J Your response did not, however, deal with the principle of my argument, namely the sanctuary distinctions and implications, though I will deal with your whole post tomorrow.

[Alex Guggenheim]

GregH,

No one is disputing that the Bible says this, however some people prefer their Bible in context.

There are two locations where this is directed to be done according to the Psalmist:

1 Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens!

So where is the Sanctuary of God? For Israel the tabernacle was the dwelling of God. But where is the temple now and its court where one would dance? Right, it is inward, in us. God now dwells in us, individually. All that was outward is now inward. The sanctuary of God is inside of you now. The sanctuary was a type, a shadow of a better thing to come.

But even collectively it is still inside of us where God dwells which is now the sanctuary of God. So even outside of yourself and considering others, if you can figure out a way to get inside of someone’s heart where their sanctuary is and dance before the Lord in the court of the sanctuary, well have at it but you would have done what only God has done thus far which is to enter into the heart of a man. Good luck.

As to the other location, “in his might heavens” well, maybe if you stretch this one you can do it while you traveling on a plane but then you would miss the entire nature of its poetic use.

This is to say nothing of the entire exploration of the implications of the outward and physical kingdom of God manifested in Israel and its unique protocols and that of the inward and spiritual kingdom of God in the NT and their unique and distinct protocols and why one cannot be assumed in the least to be applied to the other even in seemingly minor matters.

All right Alex. Thanks for making it so clear.

[DrJamesAch]

Wow Alex, now I believe in cessation, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen it applied to musical instruments. I believe that it is quite a stretch to imply (or assert) that the type of worship the Psalms encouraged ceased when the body of the believer became the temple of the Holy Spirit.

However, your mention of cessationism clouds the issue seeing that this is not a cessationist context. It is an economy or dispensational issue, however. I made no mention of musical instruments, btw. I was referring only to dancing and the context of the appeal to Psalm 150 which, if we applied it today, would place the tabernacle inside of us thus would be the location of the dancing before God. In other words it is not a valid text for arguing that dancing has been qualified as an acceptable form of NT corporate ecclesiastical expression.

[quote-DrJameArch] But by using that argument, where do you find support for excluding the instruments from the voices? If every type of worship describe in the Psalms ceased, then would not that also include singing?

Even making the argument from the absence of the mention of instruments in the NT, it would fail when you get to Revelation because not only is there an external temple in Revelation (Rev 11:1-2, Rev 15) but there are stringed instruments played in heaven (Rev 5:8, Rev 14:2-3). This is a bit “all over the map” here but I will attempt some responses.

Again, I am not arguing that any or all of what is mentioned in Psalms has ceased, I never said that, what I am saying is that Psalm 150 does not validate any of these as commands or encouragements for ecclesiastical protocols in the NT.

What we can find asserted in the positive is in Ephesians 5:18-19 (which you mention below and I will address below) and its counterpart, Colossians 3:16. And here we can only assert as certain what has been revealed and there are some things missing which either are not acceptable or are matters of adiaphora or liberty and cannot necessarily be approached dogmatically. One can say, however, that in the silence of anything else in Ephesians and Colossians, if a church chose only to allow singing without instruments because none are validated in the NT, while I believe they fall short of considering matters of liberty, I would not find them at fault if their boundary was only that which has been affirmed.

As to the Revelation passages, since you use them with reference to stringed instruments and I have made clear I am not arguing that none of these are permitted, rather than Psalm 150 simply is not contextually capable of being used to validate NT ecclesiastical protocols, the issue is not germane at the moment but I will address instruments themselves, shortly.

[DrJamesArch] Also you made the argument about dancing in their heart, yet Ephesians 5 says “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” so does that also imply that we are supposed to crawl into their heart and temple and sing songs to their liver?

Just because there was a change of location where the temple signified the body of Christ and His church, doesn’t have to force an interpretation that the music ceased.

• Psalm 150 is referring to praising God.
• Ephesians and Colossians is referring to building or edifying one another with doctrine in song.

Now, if you were to try to execute Psalm 150 and go to the sanctuary you have two choices, go into your heart or someone else’s. But in Ephesians and Colossians you do not have a sanctuary context in view, you have the building up of believers through doctrine in song.

[DrJamesArch] Furthermore, if the arguments used today that these types of music could prove a causation between immorality and the music, then for that argument to be believable it must be true at all times and places, which means it would have been equally immoral in the OT. If not, then where is the Scriptural support for when the music and instruments were permitted (as in Psalms and I Chronicles 15) and when it became “sensual”?

I have not made any such argument, possibly you have carried the arguments of others into this discussion with my post.

Now, let me finish with making clear that where there is liberty there are also matters of wisdom and principle, namely good, better and best. That is, while the Bible does not affirm the use of instruments it does not condemn them either so we are at the point of liberty or adiaphora. However, and again, the Psalm passages requires an OT context of the sanctuary for this to take place. We do not have this today so that is out the window with regard to using it as a validation for any or all of its properties.

Still, adiaphora is the matter at hand. And I believe that it is where many disagree and that is expected. But I do believe the author of the article notes some musical and emotional phenomena that must be considered (this does not mean I necessarily embrace the entire article but it contains some sustainable principles). I believe that while some do not like the grammatical and symphonic examination of music and its effects or affects, this is also true of spoken communication. There are tools of emotional or sentimental manipulation, even with verbal communication so this is not an isolated or novel proposition.

I, personally, do not object, in general, to any instrument in and of itself. However, I do believe their use must be examined. And personally I categorize music differently here. I use two categories,

• Sacred or Spiritual Music
• Secular or Entertainment Music

That is, the postulate that music produces certain autonomic responses and some of those are not that which trend toward peaceableness, tranquility or thoughtfulness rather they are that which stirs one’s jolting sense of excitement apart from thought, is not necessarily a bad thing but it is not a spiritual thing, it is an “entertainment” thing. Thus, I do not consider all such manipulations bad because it may be for entertainment’s sake. However, entertainment is not spirituality and entertainment based music which has a deliberate format both musically and lyrically, is for just that, entertainment and not spiritual exercises. Music for entertainment is fine, in some cases, but it is distinct from spiritual music and is not an appropriate mechanism for dressing doctrine in song.

I have three articles on the topic which explain in more detail my own view on the matter:

Decorating God’s Word/Spiritual Communication with Song

The Gift of Sacred Music

The Gift of Secular Music

Alex

[Don Johnson] Well, we can never make any progress as long as we both hold the positions we do. I have shown you a passage that clearly states the passions themselves are degraded, but you dismiss it. I can give you technical reasons why my interpretation is correct. (Please note that the translators are with me - NAU, KJV, ESV, NIV.)

I’ll try to be more clear this time. There are two ways of talking about emotions: the vernacular tends to speak of “emotions” as the complete “emotion/object” pair. This is entirely natural since the expression of emotion can never exist without an object. But from technical perspective, you can split the two up. And these passages appear to be using “emotion” in the “emotion/object” pair sense, so I’m saying that the was that they are evil is because the object is wrong. You’ve given no reason textually or otherwise to support this not being the case.

[Don Johnson] You did cite 1 Tim 4.4, everything created by God is good… Brother, you need to check the context. He is talking about foods there. That’s why you can eat shrimp and bacon.

As someone else has already responded, you’re do the text a severe injustice. The passage doesn’t say that only foods are now good. He takes the general principle (“everything created by God is good”) and applies it to specific items in his context. To apply a general principle to specific situations doesn’t in any way limit the principle to only those specifics: in fact, the very fact that it is general implies that it has many other specific applications.

And it’s not like Paul is teaching something revolutionary here too. He’s merely expressing again one of the foundational principles of creation: that God created everything and then pronounced it to be good.

As I’ve stated earlier, we all believe that sin has corrupted the created order with evil. But evil doesn’t even exist as a category without good as its reference point! Evil is precisely the misuse or abuse of good things. All things are good intrinsically—because they are created by God. The fact that we can abuse or misuse them (whether that be food, materials, or emotions) doesn’t not change their intrinsic goodness.

To apply the general principle to emotions, again, the technical emotion is good. It was created that way by God. No emotion exists that wasn’t created by God. Period. And we have corrupted those emotions by misusing them, or misdirecting them.

[Don Johnson] As for Gnosticism, the Bible never directly addresses it. Some scholars see signs of a kind of Gnosticism creeping into the churches from what Paul is arguing against in Colossians, but the fact is that Gnosticism didn’t exist until the 2nd century. It’s a pretty thin argument to make and pejorative. It’s like someone suggesting a 5-pointer is a Hyper Calvinist.

Well, I can’t really prevent you from taking offense then. But no one that I’ve seen/heard argues that it was anything but the incipient form of Gnosticism. In fact, whether or not it led to the Gnostic movement is besides the point, since the very description of what Paul is condemning is the very same philosophy as Gnosticism. So it can’t be anything but that.

[Don Johnson] In essence, you aren’t really providing scriptural support for your opinions, so they carry no weight.

Wow. I don’t really know how else to respond. I apply scripture, you claim it isn’t valid. Well, of course we’re going to get nowhere then.

[Don Johnson] You asked for an example of an evil emotion regardless of the object to which it is addressed. I’d say lust is always evil. Check the scriptures, do a search on epithumia, see if it is ever identified positively. I think there may be one or two references where it is used for emphasis in a neutral or positive setting, but I can’t think of where they are off the top of my head. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of times it is considered evil. Upwards of 90% of the time.

So you continue to perfectly prove my point. It doesn’t matter at all if it’s expressed in an evil way the “overwhelming majority” of the time. It doesn’t even matter if it’s “upwards of 90% of the time.” Just one use (and that usage was demonstrated earlier by someone else) proves my point that there are no emotions that cannot be expressed in both good and evil ways depending on the object. So again, you’ve yet to provide any evidence that what I’m saying is false; in fact, you’re essentially tacitly admitting that my observation is correct (as you cannot provide any counter-examples.)

And actually, let’s use “lust” as an example. In our circles we’ve tended to co-opt the term to mean “sexual desire directed at someone other than your spouse.” But the term just means “strong desire.” So even if we limit it to sexual desire, it can have good and evil outworkings. Your sexual desire for your wife is good. Sexual desire for someone other than your wife is evil. It is not the sexual desire that is making you good or evil, it is the way in which you direct it. The sexual desire itself was created by God as good.

So we’ve tended to redefine “lust” as a specific emotion/object pair. But that in fact proves my point! The emotion itself isn’t the problem, the direction of it is.

[jcoleman]

As someone else has already responded, you’re do the text a severe injustice. The passage doesn’t say that only foods are now good. He takes the general principle (“everything created by God is good”) and applies it to specific items in his context. To apply a general principle to specific situations doesn’t in any way limit the principle to only those specifics: in fact, the very fact that it is general implies that it has many other specific applications.

And it’s not like Paul is teaching something revolutionary here too. He’s merely expressing again one of the foundational principles of creation: that God created everything and then pronounced it to be good.

As I’ve stated earlier, we all believe that sin has corrupted the created order with evil. But evil doesn’t even exist as a category without good as its reference point! Evil is precisely the misuse or abuse of good things. All things are good intrinsically—because they are created by God. The fact that we can abuse or misuse them (whether that be food, materials, or emotions) doesn’t not change their intrinsic goodness.

To apply the general principle to emotions, again, the technical emotion is good. It was created that way by God. No emotion exists that wasn’t created by God. Period. And we have corrupted those emotions by misusing them, or misdirecting them.

First, the text bears no such thing, that God through Paul is using this “principle”. Maybe it is your observation that this is what Paul is doing but that observation has to be substantiated which immediately begs the question, what principle? You mean the one that was established before the fall and sin’s destruction where God said everything he created was good, Genesis 1:31? That one? Well, I guess that makes all of humanity good too, right? Of course the answer to that is obviously no. Your general principle theory has been removed from its context and cannot be applied in 1 Timothy as the basis for Paul’s usage.

Now to the claim of it being an “intrinsic” goodness. The word used in 1 Timothy 4:4 is kalon which means to be suitable or acceptable without reference to intrinsic properties. In other words it is “good to eat” or “good for eating”. Why? Because there is another Greek word, agathos, which is used to refer to the properties of intrinsic goodness. You will find its use in 1 Timothy, the same book:

1 Timothy 1:5

1 Timothy 1:19

1 Timothy 2:10

1 Timothy 5:10

So you have a principle in Genesis 1 before the fall which cannot be applied here and the Greek which not only does not support but is in conflict with the assertion this is a reference to intrinsic goodness. I would say that regardless of the rest of your positions on the topic in the OP, on this one here, I would abandon the claims of your interpretation.

[Alex Guggenheim] First, the text bears no such thing, that God through Paul is using this “principle”. Maybe it is your observation that this is what Paul is doing but that observation has to be substantiated which immediately begs the question, what principle? You mean the one that was established before the fall and sin’s destruction where God said everything he created was good, Genesis 1:31? That one? Well, I guess that makes all of humanity good too, right? Of course the answer to that is obviously no. Your general principle theory has been removed from its context and cannot be applied in 1 Timothy as the basis for Paul’s usage.

I think you’re misunderstanding a bit what I’m saying. You are correct that I’m hearkening back to creation for the general principle, but in order to make what I said seem ridiculous you had to ignore the part where I talked about how those good things are corrupted. I claimed that the corruption did not change the reality that God made those things good, but that evil always exists a corruption/misuse/abuse of good. Therefore, the very fact that we see things as evil is actually a logical affirmation of the fact that at their root those things exist as good (though they are currently being used to express evil.) So essentially you’re argument destroys a straw man.

[Alex Guggenheim] Now to the claim of it being an “intrinsic” goodness. The word used in 1 Timothy 4:4 is kalon which means to be suitable or acceptable without reference to intrinsic properties. In other words it is “good to eat” or “good for eating”. Why? Because there is another Greek word, agathos, which is used to refer to the properties of intrinsic goodness.

Now I’ll admit that I’m not a Greek scholar, but in my research it looks like your cherry-picking definitions and misrepresenting their relationship to other words. Kalon’s first definition indeed does refer to “usefulness” (or serviceability—I’m guessing this is your concept of “good for something”), but it also has the definitions of “beautiful”, “attractive”, “lovely”, and “good.” In fact, the theological dictionary actually states that the use in 1 Tim. 4:4 is to mean “right”, “orderly”, and “excellent.” In fact, when used in the sense of “morally good”, the theological dictionaries refer to kalon as a synonym of agathos. So I don’t think that you’ve laid out a supportable critique to my interpretation.

It’s also helpful to note that I’m not arguing for an intrinsic goodness generated by the thing itself. Far from it! I’m saying the intrinsic goodness is from God himself because he made it as good (and he tells us that!)

[Alex Guggenheim] So you have a principle in Genesis 1 before the fall which cannot be applied here and the Greek which not only does not support but is in conflict with the assertion this is a reference to intrinsic goodness. I would say that regardless of the rest of your positions on the topic in the OP, on this one here, I would abandon the claims of your interpretation.

As argued earlier in this response, I do in fact believe that the principle can, in fact, be applied here (in fact, I think that’s the whole point of Paul’s argument: these things are to be received with thanksgiving not just because they are useful—after all, useful things can be thought of as necessary evils—but because they are actually good!) And the Greek certainly isn’t in conflict with this interpretation as far as my research can tell.

So I stand by my argument.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[DrJamesAch]

Wow Alex, now I believe in cessation, but this is the first time I’ve ever seen it applied to musical instruments. I believe that it is quite a stretch to imply (or assert) that the type of worship the Psalms encouraged ceased when the body of the believer became the temple of the Holy Spirit.

First, thank you for acknowledging that the body of the believer is the temple which now replaces the tabernacle.

However, your mention of cessationism clouds the issue seeing that this is not a cessationist context. It is an economy or dispensational issue, however. I made no mention of musical instruments, btw. I was referring only to dancing and the context of the appeal to Psalm 150 which, if we applied it today, would place the tabernacle inside of us thus would be the location of the dancing before God. In other words it is not a valid text for arguing that dancing has been qualified as an acceptable form of NT corporate ecclesiastical expression.

[quote-DrJameArch] But by using that argument, where do you find support for excluding the instruments from the voices? If every type of worship describe in the Psalms ceased, then would not that also include singing?

Even making the argument from the absence of the mention of instruments in the NT, it would fail when you get to Revelation because not only is there an external temple in Revelation (Rev 11:1-2, Rev 15) but there are stringed instruments played in heaven (Rev 5:8, Rev 14:2-3).

Again, I am not arguing that any or all of what is mentioned in Psalms has ceased, I never said that, what I am saying is that Psalm 150 does not validate any of these as commands or encouragements for ecclesiastical protocols in the NT.

What we can find asserted in the positive is in Ephesians 5:18-19 (which you mention below and I will address below) and its counterpart, Colossians 3:16. And here we can only assert as certain what has been revealed and there are some things missing which either are not acceptable or are matters of adiaphora or liberty and cannot necessarily be approached dogmatically. One can say, however, that in the silence of anything else in Ephesians and Colossians, if a church chose only to allow singing without instruments because none are validated in the NT, while I believe they fall short of considering matters of liberty, I would not find them at fault if their boundary was only that which has been affirmed.

As to the Revelation passages, since you use them with reference to stringed instruments and I have made clear I am not arguing that none of these are permitted, rather than Psalm 150 simply is not contextually capable of being used to validate NT ecclesiastical protocols, the issue is not germane at the moment but I will address instruments themselves, shortly.

[DrJamesArch] Also you made the argument about dancing in their heart, yet Ephesians 5 says “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” so does that also imply that we are supposed to crawl into their heart and temple and sing songs to their liver?

Just because there was a change of location where the temple signified the body of Christ and His church, doesn’t have to force an interpretation that the music ceased.

• Psalm 150 is referring to praising God.
• Ephesians and Colossians is referring to building or edifying one another with doctrine in song.

Now, if you were to try to execute Psalm 150 and go to the sanctuary you have two choices, go into your heart or someone else’s. But in Ephesians and Colossians you do not have a sanctuary context in view, you have the building up of believers through doctrine in song.

[DrJamesArch] Furthermore, if the arguments used today that these types of music could prove a causation between immorality and the music, then for that argument to be believable it must be true at all times and places, which means it would have been equally immoral in the OT. If not, then where is the Scriptural support for when the music and instruments were permitted (as in Psalms and I Chronicles 15) and when it became “sensual”?

I have not made any such argument, possibly you have carried the arguments of others into this discussion with my post.

Now, let me finish with making clear that where there is liberty there are also matters of wisdom and principle, namely good, better and best. That is, while the Bible does not affirm the use of instruments it does not condemn them either so we are at the point of liberty or adiaphora. However, and again, the Psalm passages requires an OT context of the sanctuary for this to take place. We do not have this today so that is out the window with regard to using it as a validation for any or all of its properties.

Still, adiaphora is the matter at hand. And I believe that it is where many disagree and that is expected. But I do believe the author of the article notes some musical and emotional phenomena that must be considered (this does not mean I necessarily embrace the entire article but it contains some sustainable principles). I believe that while some do not like the grammatical and symphonic examination of music and its effects or affects, this is also true of spoken communication. There are tools of emotional or sentimental manipulation, even with verbal communication so this is not an isolated or novel proposition.

I, personally, do not object, in general, to any instrument in and of itself. However, I do believe their use must be examined. And personally I categorize music differently here. I use two categories,

• Sacred or Spiritual Music
• Secular or Entertainment Music

That is, the postulate that music produces certain autonomic responses and some of those are not that which trend toward peaceableness, tranquility or thoughtfulness rather they are that which stirs one’s jolting sense of excitement apart from thought, is not necessarily a bad thing but it is not a spiritual thing, it is an “entertainment” thing. Thus, I do not consider all such manipulations bad because it may be for entertainment’s sake. However, entertainment is not spirituality and entertainment based music which has a deliberate format both musically and lyrically, is for just that, entertainment and not spiritual exercises. Music for entertainment is fine, in some cases, but it is distinct from spiritual music and is not an appropriate mechanism for dressing doctrine in song.

I have three articles on the topic which explain in more detail my own view on the matter:

Decorating God’s Word/Spiritual Communication with Song

The Gift of Sacred Music

The Gift of Secular Music

Alex

I won’t offer a rebuttal to the first half since you clarified that you were not addressing the instruments, and when you do address the instruments, I am in agreement on that (“Far too often fundamentalists (and I am a fundamentalist) misquote “and make no provision for the flesh” and stop there. When you finish the verse it says “to fulfill the lusts thereof”. None of the verses that the opponents rely on can be used to condemn music that is merely different from traditional hymns. Without a clear showing of a provable link to immorality, false doctrine (which is a much stronger argument than a subjective debate over 7 chords) within the lyrics, an intent to glorify self instead of God and music that is chaotic and unintelligible, there is a heavy burden in proving your case beyond supposition.” Post 86).

However, if the issue is adiaphora, I fail to see the need for dogmatism. Although you do attempt to clarify that you do not object to the instrument in an of itself, you do finish with “music for entertainment…is not an appropriate mechanism for dressing up doctrine in song”, and to me that moves from adiaphora to dogmatism because it assumes that all forms of the music debated is disguised as worship when it is really just entertainment, and removes the possibility of there being any doctrinal potential or edification. I agree that the music needs to be examined, but from your argument it appears that the examinations already have their own categories and the necessity then comes on how to move a particular song from adiaphora into the dogma box. That may make the debate over a particular song faster and easier to classify, but it certainly holds that the issues can not be assumed to be adiaphora.

I addressed the instruments in your response to Greg because he was arguing for the dance as well as the instruments (although I am not a fan of dancing). The only issue I would have over Psalm 150 is it seems that the crux of your argument is that if Psalm 150, among others, is limited to the temple in the OT, then it may have substance. But I see no reference to support that. In I Chronicles 15, the dance and instrumentals were performed on the way back from returning the ark, and not performed in the temple (or tabernacle, since the first temple had not been built yet during this passage).

If it was a matter of economy, there should be a clear indication of when that dispensation occurred, and it certainly is not indicated in Psalm 150. Of the 13 admonitions given to praise the LORD, praising Him in the sanctuary is the second admonition and is summed up by a general admonition to praise the LORD. Therefore Psalm 150:2 “Praise God in his sanctuary” does not appear to be an imperative that the remaining 12 praises are contingent upon, but rather the emphasis is on the praising, and the reference to the sanctuary is only one of many types of praises placed between 2 bookends.

[Alex Guggenheim] Dr J I do believe music that is entertainment based may have edifying properties but that when that which us edifying is of service to the greater entertainment property of the piece I would not classify it as sacred or spiritual music or use it liturgically. This is not to say personally I would not use it.

So your test is dependent on whether the entertainment industry uses the piece of music? That seems rather weak as they used classically styled music as well—quite prolifically, I might add, if you’re looking at movie soundtracks.

And even if we do grant that test, it means it’s not a property of the music so much as of who’s using it. That’s right back to the “association” question, and doesn’t address at all what we’re discussing of that which is intrinsic to the music by itself.

[Alex Guggenheim] As for when the dispensation of Psalm 150 occurred, it is right smack dab in the middle of the Theocracy of Israel, hence not only the reference to the Sanctuary but its authorship and dating unless you believe we are not in the church age and still are in the Theocracy of Israel with all of its proprietary divine protocols. Your point about the contingency of the sanctuary has a strength, however it can be no more dogmatic than as I have read it. But still the imperative with its protocol is to Israel.

Thankfully I’m not a dispensationalist. So I have no hangup whatsoever of trying to determine whether it fits into such and such a dispensation and whether or not it’s valid on those terms. (Note: I didn’t say we’re still in the “Theocracy of Israel”, but I am saying that there is much blurrier distinction between those two thing than you’d like.)