As will become obvious, the professor’s lack of clarity regarding “circumstances” has not improved over the years. Professor Frame concluded his discussion of musical instrumentation thusly (“Christian Life,” 157): The last point [viz., that instruments have an important role as a “circumstance”], plus the earlier scriptural references, suggests that instrumental music is basically a form of song, just as song is a form of speech…. Instruments are an extension of the human voice. By them we praise, rejoice, etc. If this analysis is correct , then the use of instruments does not require any independent scriptural justification. To find out what scripture allows us to play, we ask what scripture allows us to sing, and ultimately to speak. From this perspective, the prohibition of instruments begins to look like prohibition of microphones, hearing aids, etc. The idea that we can blow air across our vocal cords, or into electronic devices, but not through a mouthpiece, seems highly arbitrary. 

Not only does Professor Frame exhibit confusion regarding the nature of a circumstance, but he also demonstrates that he does not really adhere to the regulative principle. To view the playing of an instrument, or singing and speaking, as being on a continuum (to the extent that no meaningful distinction can be drawn among them), implies that there are no particular “parts” or “elements” of worship, which in turn constitutes a denial of the regulative principle.