Currently reading?

My understanding is that the author is most known for his theonomy beliefs/writings.  And yes, he was very much Reformed.     (<-- somehow a bearded guy seemed most fitting haha.)

Honestly I don't know much about this new book we're reading but I don't suspect it'll get too much into theonomy and whatnot, but we'll see! 

Frankenstein 



Victor was so wrong.

A 19 century preterist book. I don‘t buy the theory but it‘s interesting.

Raegoul wrote:A 19 century preterist book. I don‘t buy the theory but it‘s interesting.

J. Stewart Russell? If so, he’s a full Preterist, which I would argue is heretical. For partial Preterism, RC Sproul’s The Last Days according to Jesus is a good read.

Pethead wrote:

Raegoul wrote:A 19 century preterist book. I don‘t buy the theory but it‘s interesting.

J. Stewart Russell? If so, he’s a full Preterist, which I would argue is heretical. For partial Preterism, RC Sproul’s The Last Days according to Jesus is a good read.

Meditations Upon the Past, Present, and Future: Remarks about the Revelations of Jesus Christ Unto His Servant John
By Bro. George Michael Mangold

He was a contemporary of the founder of the church I attend (Evangelische Täufergemeine = Apostolic Christian Church Nazarean, Western Conference in the US). It‘s partial preterist but basically a non stop rant against infant baptism.

Raegoul wrote:

Pethead wrote:

Raegoul wrote:A 19 century preterist book. I don‘t buy the theory but it‘s interesting.

J. Stewart Russell? If so, he’s a full Preterist, which I would argue is heretical. For partial Preterism, RC Sproul’s The Last Days according to Jesus is a good read.

Meditations Upon the Past, Present, and Future: Remarks about the Revelations of Jesus Christ Unto His Servant John
By Bro. George Michael Mangold

He was a contemporary of the founder of the church I attend (Evangelische Täufergemeine = Apostolic Christian Church Nazarean, Western Conference in the US). It‘s partial preterist but basically a non stop rant against infant baptism.

Gotcha. Interesting.

Authorized: The Use And Misuse of the King James Bible by Mark Ward.

I also just read Plato's Apology and Crito for the first time. Now on to Phaedo.

I just finished Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church by John L. Girardeau (1888). It is a fantastic and thorough assertion from the Bible and from church history that musical instruments are not to be employed in the public worship of the Church.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:I just finished Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church by John L. Girardeau (1888). It is a fantastic and thorough assertion from the Bible and from church history that musical instruments are not to be employed in the public worship of the Church.

Do you subscribe to this opinion?

CrimsonWarrior wrote:I just finished Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church by John L. Girardeau (1888). It is a fantastic and thorough assertion from the Bible and from church history that musical instruments are not to be employed in the public worship of the Church.

I'm intrigued to know how he came to such an opinion biblically.

Raegoul wrote:Do you subscribe to this opinion?

I do, yes, though I wouldn't call it merely an opinion because that implies that it's a matter of personal preference (i.e. "for personal reasons, I'd rather not have instruments in the public worship of the church"). Rather, I believe that it is actually erroneous to include them in worship, and that God is displeased when people do this.

TheDoctor394 wrote:I'm intrigued to know how he came to such an opinion biblically.

The foundation of the argument is the regulative principle of worship: the Bible teaches that God is to be worshiped only according to how he has commanded, with nothing else added to it. There are numerous examples of people breaking this (Cain's rejected offering, Aaron's golden calf, Nadab and Abihu's strange fire, Rehoboam's calves, the Israelites' tendency to constantly worship in the high places, etc.). So Girardeau starts from that, and demonstrates that instruments were only commanded to be used towards the end of the tabernacle period and during the temple worship, but not in the synagogues. He also argues that the instruments in the temple were ceremonial in nature and were a type/shadow that passed away when it was fulfilled (much like the sacrifices/burnt offerings, burning of incense, the physical temple itself, etc.). He shows from the New Testament that we are commanded to sing psalms and there is no instruction to bring musical instruments into the public worship of God. He also examines church history, and notes that it was the uniform practice of the church until the late 13th century to not utilize instruments during public worship. He ends by responding to some anticipated objections, and does so very effectively. I definitely recommend the book but I think it is probably tough to find. I haven't checked since I received it from a friend.

I listened to a great sermon on this same topic a little while back, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll post it here if I do, because the pastor succinctly (in about 1 hour) explains everything and makes the case very well. I think it's a tragedy that many congregations today think that they can bring whatever they want into the worship of God and don't consider what God has actually commanded we do.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:

Raegoul wrote:Do you subscribe to this opinion?

I do, yes, though I wouldn't call it merely an opinion because that implies that it's a matter of personal preference (i.e. "for personal reasons, I'd rather not have instruments in the public worship of the church"). Rather, I believe that it is actually erroneous to include them in worship, and that God is displeased when people do this.

TheDoctor394 wrote:I'm intrigued to know how he came to such an opinion biblically.

The foundation of the argument is the regulative principle of worship: the Bible teaches that God is to be worshiped only according to how he has commanded, with nothing else added to it. There are numerous examples of people breaking this (Cain's rejected offering, Aaron's golden calf, Nadab and Abihu's strange fire, Rehoboam's calves, the Israelites' tendency to constantly worship in the high places, etc.). So Girardeau starts from that, and demonstrates that instruments were only commanded to be used towards the end of the tabernacle period and during the temple worship, but not in the synagogues. He also argues that the instruments in the temple were ceremonial in nature and were a type/shadow that passed away when it was fulfilled (much like the sacrifices/burnt offerings, burning of incense, the physical temple itself, etc.). He shows from the New Testament that we are commanded to sing psalms and there is no instruction to bring musical instruments into the public worship of God. He also examines church history, and notes that it was the uniform practice of the church until the late 13th century to not utilize instruments during public worship. He ends by responding to some anticipated objections, and does so very effectively. I definitely recommend the book but I think it is probably tough to find. I haven't checked since I received it from a friend.

I listened to a great sermon on this same topic a little while back, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll post it here if I do, because the pastor succinctly (in about 1 hour) explains everything and makes the case very well. I think it's a tragedy that many congregations today think that they can bring whatever they want into the worship of God and don't consider what God has actually commanded we do.

Just out of curiosity, what is your denominational background? I know several denominations hold this perspective.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:I just finished Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church by John L. Girardeau (1888). It is a fantastic and thorough assertion from the Bible and from church history that musical instruments are not to be employed in the public worship of the Church.

This is an interesting discussion. I was listening to Right Response Ministries last week and he takes the regulative principle past congregational worship so far that he believes every mature Christian should be drinking alcohol semi-regularly to God's glory. At that point I don't know how he can justify wearing modern clothes, driving a car, or evangelizing through a YouTube channel, as the NT commands none of those.

Personally, I think the regulative principle has no New Testament biblical basis at all. However, there have been Christian principles I believed in at one time that I don't anymore, and there are teachings that 20 years ago I believed were unbiblical that I hold to dearly at the present. As well, I have not researched it nearly as well as you have and that reform theologians have. And so I would want to engage in this discussion biblically and respectfully.

One more interesting personal tidbit. There are no reform churches in my area, and so I attended one while on vacation a few years ago. I really enjoyed the service, the teaching and the fellowship with the Christians there. However, there was one inconsistency that directly relates to the regulative principle that I found rather humorous. We sang a few hymns at the beginning and the end of the service. At first I was quite confused, because I had researched this church online and they were very clear about their stance on the regulative principle and NOT singing hymns. And then I realized--we sang the hymns BEFORE the opening prayer of the service and AFTER the closing prayer!! The church had figured out a way to "obey" the regulative principle but still praise God through hymns. But to an outside observer it just appeared silly and revealed that they did believe hymns could be used to praise God in worship services.

Crimson, I'm not sure if I have the time and mental energy right now to debate or learn more about this, but I would honestly like to learn more from you on this and your biblical viewpoint on the matter. I'd also like an opportunity to attempt to biblically change your mind! 

Cheers, it's great to discuss and learn about our different theological cultures.

^^Yeah, Joel Webbon of Right Response has gone off the deep end on that, specifically his ridiculous comments on alcohol.

To clarify, I don’t think CrimsonWarrior has gone off the deep end, although I do disagree with him. My comments were strictly about Joel Webbon.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:

Raegoul wrote:Do you subscribe to this opinion?

I do, yes, though I wouldn't call it merely an opinion because that implies that it's a matter of personal preference (i.e. "for personal reasons, I'd rather not have instruments in the public worship of the church"). Rather, I believe that it is actually erroneous to include them in worship, and that God is displeased when people do this.

TheDoctor394 wrote:I'm intrigued to know how he came to such an opinion biblically.

The foundation of the argument is the regulative principle of worship: the Bible teaches that God is to be worshiped only according to how he has commanded, with nothing else added to it. There are numerous examples of people breaking this (Cain's rejected offering, Aaron's golden calf, Nadab and Abihu's strange fire, Rehoboam's calves, the Israelites' tendency to constantly worship in the high places, etc.). So Girardeau starts from that, and demonstrates that instruments were only commanded to be used towards the end of the tabernacle period and during the temple worship, but not in the synagogues. He also argues that the instruments in the temple were ceremonial in nature and were a type/shadow that passed away when it was fulfilled (much like the sacrifices/burnt offerings, burning of incense, the physical temple itself, etc.). He shows from the New Testament that we are commanded to sing psalms and there is no instruction to bring musical instruments into the public worship of God. He also examines church history, and notes that it was the uniform practice of the church until the late 13th century to not utilize instruments during public worship. He ends by responding to some anticipated objections, and does so very effectively. I definitely recommend the book but I think it is probably tough to find. I haven't checked since I received it from a friend.

I listened to a great sermon on this same topic a little while back, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll post it here if I do, because the pastor succinctly (in about 1 hour) explains everything and makes the case very well. I think it's a tragedy that many congregations today think that they can bring whatever they want into the worship of God and don't consider what God has actually commanded we do.

I admit I find the Old Testament support a bit of a stretch, and the New Testament very much an argument from silence.  I would have thought if God was so much against instruments in church, He would have made it very clear with an irrefutable command - 1 Corinthians, where Paul slams that church for pretty much everything, would have been the perfect place.

The Old Testament temple and synagogue rules are not applicable to the church. The reference for the New Testament is Eph 5,19:

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;


The word translated in KJV as making melody is psallo which can mean striking a chord (e.g. on a harp) but also sing. Here it has to mean striking a chord as otherwise Paul would say „singing and singing“ which would make no sense. Remains the question what he meant with „in your heart“. 


I have not made my mind up finally about this.

Should probably be a theology room thread at this point.

One of my concerns is that, since the NT gives no command against instruments, we could be in danger of binding others’ consciences over a disputable matter.

Grindboy wrote:Should probably be a theology room thread at this point.

I'll start a new thread there when I respond with more of my thoughts later tonight or tomorrow.

Grindboy wrote:Should probably be a theology room thread at this point.

I was thinking the same thing.  I didn't want to really get into this too much just here.

L8T wrote:

That’s a good book. 

I started reading The Fellowship of the Ring at least two months ago I think. I stopped after chapter 4 and have been reluctant to pick it up again because it's just very slow. I know a lot of people really like the Lord of the Rings movies, but are there any big fans of the books here? Do things get better later on?