Doctrine or emotionalism.

[John of Japan]

LOL. It's not a theological statement. It's an historical one, and one that you cannot refute.

Prove it. Prove that Catholics brought musical instruments into churches before anyone else. I refuse to believe it, and still consider it baloney.

As for Ps. 150 being the same type of command that, for example, the Decalogue is, that's baloney too. It shows a huge lack of understanding of what the poetic books are. Give me a quote from a recognized theologian--just one--who agrees with your position on this.

Here you judge C. H. Spurgeon and many other of your theological betters.

Talk is cheap. Give me a quote to show me where Spurgeon said that music instruments in the church are morally wrong. Better yet, show me where the Bible condemns musical instruments in the church. I'll even let you use the OT as well as the NT. Give me a single quote from anywhere in the Bible that condemns any musical instrument anywhere. I dare you. I double dog dare you, as they say in the South.

On the side of musical instruments in the church, we have two passages instructing us to sing psalms (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). I find it patently ridiculous that we are instructed to sing Psalms--one of which is all about musical instruments (Ps. 150), and others which enjoin instruments (33, 43, etc., etc.) and yet not play the instruments they speak of.

 

[InTheLight]

As to the song: it's incredibly emotional, but theological rubbish.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.​

This straightforward, explicit, milk-of-the-Word maxim nullifies every sentimental notion of the song.

What?

If eye has not see, nor ear heard, well then, one can only imagine what it must be like!

 

[agedman]

I can only speak for myself. The song you reference isn't a song we sing congregationally in church, but everyone knows it. It was popular years ago and it has been sung as a solo once.

The reason the song has made a resurgence and the movie is so popular IS because of the truth of what God did in the life of the father of the writer. After a head injury, he became an abusive and drunken monster. He died of pancreatic cancer but a few years before he died, he was saved and supernaturally changed. The young man was so thrilled that his dad came to Jesus and was concretely changed that his thoughts turned alot to his father experiencing the joys of heaven and thus the song.

No, it isn't a doctrinal song. It is a song of absolute awe of being in the presence of Christ. It is for the believer who wishes to express that awe - hence a worship song.

Some songs are heavy on doctrine - others heavy on expressing awe. Some both.

The thread is not about the song nor the movie. Made that clear in the OP

What the thread is about is the priority.

Emotionalism or doctrine.

Which does the Scriptures present is the order.

Do the emotion flow as a result of doctrine, or does emotionalism lead us, prepare us for doctrine.

 

[agedman]

My position is that music tones were used to call people to worship,

One remembers the church bells of old?

As peopled milled about gathering, music was used to call attention that the action of worship begin.

Remember the “call to worship?”

Doctrine, example, types, teaching the principles of Scriptures were presented.

And the people left to return about their business.

In their hearts, they were to sing to the lord what was taught them.

The doctrines learned were presented in the psalms, hymns spiritual ditties. The Scriptures in their heart offered to the Lord in prayer and praise.


But what does the modern church go about doing?

Establishing through worldly means a form of emotionalism so that they may “get in the spirit.”

They place the emotional appeal before doctrine.

Yet, although emotions may come from the truth of doctrine, I cannot find in Scriptures where doctrine comes from emotions.

Therefore, the modern church places the priorities wrongly.

I am not against singing. I am not against the emotional.

I am seeking why the priority of doctrine and teaching has taken a lesser place?

What would be the sentiment seen if a modern church turned off all things electrical and mechanical, and first listened to clear presentations of Scriptures, and from that doctrine the people broke out into song, hymns, spiritual songs, from their very heart bringing melodies to the Lord. Melodies unadulterated by worldly noise?

 

[rlvaughn]

Give me a quote to show me where Spurgeon said that music instruments in the church are morally wrong.

I don't think Spurgeon ever said it was "morally wrong," but it is well-known that Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle did not use them. From the following quotes it seems to me that Spurgeon considered musical instruments in worship "lawful, but not expedient."

"David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it."
The Treasury of David, Psalm 42

"Ver. 2. Praise the Lord with harp. Men need all the help they can get to stir them up to praise. This is the lesson to be gathered from the use of musical instruments under the old dispensation. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days, when Jesus gives us spiritual manhood, we can make melody without strings and pipes. We who do not believe these things to be expedient in worship, lest they should mar its simplicity, do not affirm them to be unlawful, and if any George Herbert or Martin Luther can worship God better by the aid of well tunes instruments, who shall gainsay their right? We do not need them, they would hinder than help our praise, but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in gospel liberty? Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best of music. No instrument like the human voice. As a help to singing the instrument is alone to be tolerated, for keys and strings do not praise the Lord. With the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. The Lord must have a full octave, for all notes are his, and all music belongs to him. Where several pieces of music are mentioned, we are taught to praise God with all the powers which we possess."
Treasury of David, Psalm 33

 

[Yeshua1]

The thread is not about the song nor the movie. Made that clear in the OP

What the thread is about is the priority.

Emotionalism or doctrine.

Which does the Scriptures present is the order.

Do the emotion flow as a result of doctrine, or does emotionalism lead us, prepare us for doctrine.

Salvation brings to us the joy, tears, feelings of love and well being, not the other way around!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think Spurgeon ever said it was "morally wrong," but it is well-known that Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle did not use them. From the following quotes it seems to me that Spurgeon considered musical instruments in worship "lawful, but not expedient."

"David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing off of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it."
The Treasury of David, Psalm 42

"Ver. 2. Praise the Lord with harp. Men need all the help they can get to stir them up to praise. This is the lesson to be gathered from the use of musical instruments under the old dispensation. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days, when Jesus gives us spiritual manhood, we can make melody without strings and pipes. We who do not believe these things to be expedient in worship, lest they should mar its simplicity, do not affirm them to be unlawful, and if any George Herbert or Martin Luther can worship God better by the aid of well tunes instruments, who shall gainsay their right? We do not need them, they would hinder than help our praise, but if others are otherwise minded, are they not living in gospel liberty? Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best of music. No instrument like the human voice. As a help to singing the instrument is alone to be tolerated, for keys and strings do not praise the Lord. With the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. The Lord must have a full octave, for all notes are his, and all music belongs to him. Where several pieces of music are mentioned, we are taught to praise God with all the powers which we possess."
Treasury of David, Psalm 33

Sounds to me that he was stating that this would be a matter of personal convictions!

 

[Yeshua1]

Prove it. Prove that Catholics brought musical instruments into churches before anyone else. I refuse to believe it, and still consider it baloney.

As for Ps. 150 being the same type of command that, for example, the Decalogue is, that's baloney too. It shows a huge lack of understanding of what the poetic books are. Give me a quote from a recognized theologian--just one--who agrees with your position on this.

Talk is cheap. Give me a quote to show me where Spurgeon said that music instruments in the church are morally wrong. Better yet, show me where the Bible condemns musical instruments in the church. I'll even let you use the OT as well as the NT. Give me a single quote from anywhere in the Bible that condemns any musical instrument anywhere. I dare you. I double dog dare you, as they say in the South.

On the side of musical instruments in the church, we have two passages instructing us to sing psalms (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16). I find it patently ridiculous that we are instructed to sing Psalms--one of which is all about musical instruments (Ps. 150), and others which enjoin instruments (33, 43, etc., etc.) and yet not play the instruments they speak of.

I have run into some "problems" with fellow reformed Presbyterians, whose doctrine of worship would be that we can only be allowed to do what the scriptures plainly state to us able to do, while as a baptist, see us as being free to do whatever is not outright condemned in scriptures!

 

[rlvaughn]

Sounds to me that he was stating that this would be a matter of personal convictions!

Maybe, kinda, sorta. When it is a church act involved, it must be at least at the level of the church's convictions, not the individual's.

I have run into some "problems" with fellow reformed Presbyterians, whose doctrine of worship would be that we can only be allowed to do what the scriptures plainly state to us able to do, while as a baptist, see us as being free to do whatever is not outright condemned in scriptures!

This is not just a Presby-Baptist issue. At least some of us Baptists look for what God enjoins rather than what God prohibits (i.e., positive command & example, rather than doing anything we can't find a "thou shalt not" for.)

 

[Yeshua1]

Maybe, kinda, sorta. When it is a church act involved, it must be at least at the level of the church's convictions, not the individual's.
This is not just a Presby-Baptist issue. At least some of us Baptists look for what God enjoins rather than what God prohibits (i.e., positive command & example, rather than doing anything we can't find a "thou shalt not" for.)

So there are Baptists who in worship would take a more Reformed view?

 

[rlvaughn]

So there are Baptists who in worship would take a more Reformed view?

A qualified "yes," depending on what you mean by a Reformed view. Explain what you mean by a Reformed view of worship.

 

[Jerome]

Spurgeon might allow a verse or two from one or two hymns but not more, and if he sensed the singing had become emotional, he would cut it off.

Account of the Fisk Jubilee Singers ministering with Spurgeon:

books.google.com/books?id=GEAMAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA60

"Mr. Spurgeon had signified, in his hearty way, his interest in their mission, and had tendered them the use of his large church. The Sunday previous to the concert they attended service there, and at the close tarried to shake hands with the great preacher. While waiting their turn in the room adjoining that where Mr. Spurgeon receives his visitors, some of the people present asked for a song. The Singers, with tender and earnest feeling, sang, 'O brothers, don't stay away.' They had scarcely finished when Mr. Spurgeon summoned them into his room. He had heard the song, and was so affected by it that he wanted them to attend the evening service and repeat it there. 'I do not know whether you will approve or not,' he said to his people in commencing the service, 'but it seems to me it is the right thing, and I will take the risk. After the morning service I heard the Jubilee Singers sing a piece, "O brothers, don't stay away, for my Lord says there's room enough in the heavens for you." I found tears coming in my eyes; and looking at my deacons I found theirs very moist too. That song suggested my text and my sermon to-night. Now as a part of the sermon, I am going to ask them to sing it, for they preach in the singing; and may the Spirit of God send home this word to some to-night—some who may remember their singing if they forget my preaching.' Then followed the singing, so clear and strong as to reach every person in the great audience of five or six thousand people, and Mr. Spurgeon preached with great effect from the text, 'It is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.' "

 

[Jerome]

In his sermon "Beware of Unbelief," Spurgeon cautioned against the dogmatism on this subject some have expressed here.

"we need to escape from these horrid ruts, and wretched conventionalisms, which are rather hindrances than helps. Some very stereotyped brethren judge it to be a crime for an evangelist to sing the gospel; and as to that American organ,—dreadful! One of these days another set of conservative souls will hardly endure a service without such things"

 

[Aaron]

Talk is cheap. Give me a quote to show me where Spurgeon said that music instruments in the church are morally wrong.

LOL. I didn't say it was morally wrong. Neither did I say Spurgeon said that. And you can do your own homework.

Along with some historical facts, I said was there is no imperative to use them, and commandments in the Psalms to play instruments are the same as the commandments to bring sacrifice and burnt offering. They are types and shadows.

That's what I said.

 

[Aaron]

What?

If eye has not see, nor ear heard, well then, one can only imagine what it must be like!

knucklehead . . . if it hasn't entered into the heart, it can't be imagined.

 

[John of Japan]

LOL. I didn't say it was morally wrong. Neither did I say Spurgeon said that. And you can do your own homework.

So, I want to be sure I get this right. It's not wrong, but your're against it. Is that correct? And you have no quotes from Spurgeon to say instruments in church are wrong, correct? (And how would bolstering your position with quotes from Spurgeon be doing my own homework? )

And you have said nothing to prove that Catholics brought instruments into the church. Century if not year? Priest or pope who did this? It's not a fact if you can't prove it.

Along with some historical facts, I said was there is no imperative to use them, and commandments in the Psalms to play instruments are the same as the commandments to bring sacrifice and burnt offering. They are types and shadows.

That's what I said.

No, you said nothing about types and shadows. You are now adding that in to the discussion. My impression of your view was quite different from "types and shadows."

As for there being no imperative to use them, there are grammatical imperatives to praise the Lord with instruments all through the Psalms--which are not part of the law.

 

[HankD]

I'm wondering - and I must admit that I haven't read every post in this thread -

Why would the following entities (some of which are considered to be emotions) be flawed (for lack of a better word)?

Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance.

Music along with accompanying instrumentation have enhanced these qualities in my heart during our local church worship/fellowship.

 

[agedman]

Lest this thread wander from the intent, let me remind the readers that of the desire expressed in the OP.

It is not to explore the use of instruments nor is it to explore the authority of music used in the assembly. Spurgeon was used to demonstrate the music does not need prominent place and that doctrine was the focus.

If I recall, the Jubilee Singers were an African American group that sang A-cappella and toured to raise funds for the college(s). They would not have brought in to the worship instruments, and of course Spurgeon was not opposed to singing, but limited use of singing. Singing as was quoted above:

"Now as a part of the sermon, I am going to ask them to sing it, for they preach in the singing; and may the Spirit of God send home this word to some to-night—some who may remember their singing if they forget my preaching."​

The discussion was to be about the use of the intent to appeal to the emotions prior to the teaching of doctrine.

The position of the OP is that doctrine is to have priority, but that which is expressed first and emphasized first and from that doctrine impacting the believers they will respond both in agreement and even emotionally.

As It applies to the modern church, the thinking would be to reverse the typical order of service so that immediately following the "call to worship" there is direct and purposed teaching (preaching). That from such any emotionalism would be generated. Songs, Hymns, Spiritual songs, would be in the HEARTS, melodies generated by the heart of praise based upon the doctrine taught and accepted by the Believer(s).

If the fruit of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace, long-suffering...) is not first implanted by the Holy Spirit as a seed in the heart, watered by the doctrines of the Word, and cultivated under the pressures of the life lived, such is not true fruit of the Holy Spirit but that adopted and as a heavy coat on a hot day easily discarded.

 

[HankD]

If the fruit of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace, long-suffering...) is not first implanted by the Holy Spirit as a seed in the heart, watered by the doctrines of the Word, and cultivated under the pressures of the life lived, such is not true fruit of the Holy Spirit but that adopted and as a heavy coat on a hot day easily discarded.

Exactly and that could be said of any part of the "worship service".

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

My point: Music with instrumentation enhances my worship.

Don't want to put this "coat" on anyone else, throw it away if that's what suits you ... Just sayin' - in response.

 

[agedman]

Exactly and that could be said of any part of the "worship service".

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

My point: Music with instrumentation enhances my worship.

Don't want to put this "coat" on anyone else, throw it away if that's what suits you ... Just sayin' - in response.

But, again the thread isn't about an either - or, but the when.

The OP view is that doctrine must be present for true worship. So, immediately following the call to worship, the worship by teaching and presenting doctrine must be accomplished.

From that might in some instances come emotion, but the modern church produces emotional settings first and then doctrine. Certainly, they may include doctrine in the emotional settings, but doctrine is secondary to enhancing the emotional, not the primary to be the enhancer of the emotional.