Reverend Leuven, it is indeed in TVOE, in that question on singing of Psalms, in chapter 21 of his exposition. I can't pull the direct page number, as I'm currently at work.
It seems rather straightforward, I don’t see EP in this at all. Not when viewed in the totality of Scripture.
You didn’t tell me your view of the meaning of the passage or answer the questions I put forward. Interested in doing so?
Please read the first two sentences of my reply, I addressed it. Again, it seems straight forward, and in the totality of Scripture (the hermeneutic we all should use) I don’t follow the mental theological gymnastics one must maneuver to reach the point that this, by good and necessary consequence, demands exclusive psalmody. All I see is the author of Hebrews quoting a psalm.
Well brother, you didn’t address the meaning of the passage but simply said that it seems straightforward and you don’t see EP in it at all. I wasn’t laying a trap, was genuinely interested in others’ views on the meaning of the passage (notice I didn’t ask it of you or anyone specifically, just in general of those who don’t hold to EP).
I’m not sure what more it is that you are expecting from me, I honestly do not see where you are going with this. And because you are asking the board to exegete it before making your argument, it does feel like a trap to be candid.
Echo this.
David, I apologize if I offended, I did ask the questions simply as wondering how others would answer it, and you did answer it.
What does 'singing over His people' mean? And where do you see this in the text (i.e. 'over')?
I forgive you, I was a tad annoyed but that happens in discussions such as these. It’s also hard to gauge tone over text so that is in play as well.
The RPW requires a positive command to sing anything. We have that command to sing Psalms. Where is the positive command to sing uninspired songs (and to write them?)
Christ is God. I don’t think he did, or ever will, speak words of mere human origin. All his words have always been of divine origin.
These were Greek-speaking Christians who would have read their Greek OT’s and seen there that the Psalms were referred to over and over in the headings as hymns and songs, as well as Psalms.
Again, there is the command to sing Psalms. The RPW is not that if man-made hymns are not forbidden, we may sing them. Where is the positive command to write or sing songs of uninspired, human composition in worship?
As in Christ is mediating for His people by making known to them God the Father, like in John 17:6.
Good point, but the one in Revelation 14 is new. I probably should have cited that instead.
Is it though? That certainly hadn’t been established.
There seems to be a lot of assumption by appealing to a new audience and additional revelation of the times. I am going to ask a question based upon this; Augustine is noted as saying, "the New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed." Doesn't it seem their content should be the same?
In verse 3 it’s literally called a new song, and that no one else could learn it except the 144k. Kind of hard to argue that I would hope.
What is the content of that song? There are psalms that contain that same wording. It is not established that the new song in revelation 14 is in fact a newly composed song. It may be but we don’t know. Seems like shaky ground to establish a doctrine of singing newly composed songs.
God’s not the author of confusion, God’s word says it’s a new song. You say we don’t know for sure if it is new song.. I’m not sure anything else needs to be said at this point. The people reading this discussion can choose for themselves.
We’ll that’s a lot that could be said on how new song is to be interpreted but there are plenty of threads on PB that can be searched that cover that topic for whoever is interested.
New as in not of the old creature but now of the new creature. "you are a new creation" as opposed to the old.
This is not convincing, even with an explicit example of a new song you have an argument that it is something else. Respectfully, this feels like eisegesis. I hope you don’t receive that as a dig as it’s not meant to be, but that’s just how I’m sincerely perceiving what you’re saying.
And that’s another thing, you argue that your issue with hymns is that they are not inspired, but if pressed will refuse to sing inspired songs that are not psalms (there are over 30). It’s inconsistent.
It may be best to slow down here. Firstly, there is a difference in EP (exclusive psalmody) and SSO (Scripture Songs Only). Those are 2 different views. Presbyterians do not believe their is only 1 covenant. The biggest hurdle to engaging one another is when one demonstrates they do not grasp their opponents position. If one does not understand a differing view, one will not be able to give beneficial arguments against it in order to help their opponent be persuaded.
