# Praise Worship



## Blue Tick

Is praise worship pleasing to God? What elements are not biblical and what elements can be supported by scripture?
What I mean by praise worship is the style within contemporary evangelicalism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blue Tick said:


> Is praise worship pleasing to God? What elements are not biblical and what elements can be supported by scripture?
> What I mean by praise worship is the style within contemporary evangelicalism.



If it breaks the RPW, it is not pleasing. 

Leviticus 10:1-2 KJV Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. 2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.


----------



## elnwood

Ah, but the Regulative Principle is derived from Old Covenant temple worship, which, like the use of instruments, has passed away. 

But to try answer your question, there is such a broad spectrum of praise and worship music and how they are utilized in various churches that it is impossible to give a straight-up answer (unless you are exclusive psalmody and no instruments, like many here).

I highly recommend Sovereign Grace Ministries, which consistently puts out Christ-centered, biblically sound, theologically rich contemporary music.


----------



## Davidius

elnwood said:


> Ah, but the Regulative Principle is derived from Old Covenant temple worship, which, like the use of instruments, has passed away.



I don't see whom this kind of sarcasm benefits. 



> But to try answer your question, there is such a broad spectrum of praise and worship music and how they are utilized in various churches that it is impossible to give a straight-up answer (unless you are exclusive psalmody and no instruments, like many here).



Don makes a good point here, John, one that goes along with what Scott already said. It is from God himself that we know what is acceptable in worship. He's made it clear in many places that we are not to "take away from or add to" that which he has commanded. This is the heart of the Regulative Principle of Worship. When we start to think that we know to worship God in a more acceptable way than he has prescribed, we end up with worship that is like today's "broad spectrum of praise and worship music." For that reason, Reformed Christians have historically, in the same way that they carefully searched the scriptures for "everything else pertaining to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3) in other areas of doctrine, looked in the Bible for positive commands that are made explicitly or can be deduced from reasonable inference with regard to what is and isn't acceptable in the worship of God.


----------



## BobVigneault

David, Don finished off his benign 'tweak' with a winking smiley. Do the smiley's show up in your browser? I think 'sarcasm' is too harsh of an accusation for you to make. Don was being playful or at least that's the way I understood it. With all the quibbling we do here I'm all for playfulness on occasion.


----------



## Davidius

BobVigneault said:


> David, Don finished off his benign 'tweak' with a winking smiley. Do the smiley's show up in your browser? I think 'sarcasm' is too harsh of an accusation for you to make. Don was being playful or at least that's the way I understood it. With all the quibbling we do here I'm all for playfulness on occasion.



 my apologies! we have been debating that exact issue on another thread so it seemed like a low-blow of sorts. I'll make sure to take such things with a grain of salt in the future.


----------



## elnwood

With respect to the issues of the Regulative Principle and Contemporary Worship, I tend to follow John Frame's thinking. He is a Reformed seminary professor and musician, and has authored "Worship in Spirit and Truth" and "Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense."


----------



## AV1611

Blue Tick said:


> Is praise worship pleasing to God?



I would have to say no it is not.


----------



## providenceboard

Blue Tick said:


> Is praise worship pleasing to God? What elements are not biblical and what elements can be supported by scripture?
> What I mean by praise worship is the style within contemporary evangelicalism.




No.

That this question even has to be asked shows that it is non-inspired hymn singers that are dividing the church concerning worship. I am able to go to ANY psalm singing church and will agree 100% with their singing element of worship.

When I was a non-inspired hymn singer, we (at my non-inspired hymn singing church) were always sayning, "their songs are too rowdy, their songs are too stodgy, their songs are disrespectful" about other churches singing and that "We know exactly the list of non-inspired hymns and tunes that God actually likes". 

Those wern't EXACTLY the words we used but you understand the point that I am trying to make.


----------



## ADKing

elnwood said:


> Ah, but the Regulative Principle is derived from Old Covenant temple worship, which, like the use of instruments, has passed away.



I know you are making a joke here, but I think it is important to clarify your statement to be fair. The RPW is _not_ derived from Old Covenant temple worship (as is demonstrated by the fact that it is illustrated _before_ the temple was construcetd). Rather, proponents of the RPW believe it is derived by implication from the second commandment and therefore is grounded in the moral law and the nature of God himself.


----------



## panta dokimazete

God, through Christ, is the author and perfecter of our faith and all our righteousness (including ANY intent of our worship) is as filthy rags - if your worship music is God centered and Spirit led, it will be pleasing to God, since He will MAKE it pleasing through Christ.

Malachi 3:1-3

Grace and Peace.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I agree with those who have commented on the importance of the RPW in addressing this question.  

On the lighter side, see this thread.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> God is the author and perfecter of our faith and all our righteousness (including ANY intent of our worship) is as filthy rags - if your worship music is God centered and Spirit led, it will be pleasing to God, since He will MAKE it pleasing.
> Grace and Peace.



What exactly do you mean by God-centered and Spirit led if you don't mean that we derive our elements/content of worship from the scriptures themselves? Is our worship so when we sincerely desire to honor God with it? I'm sure that Uzzah was very sincere in his desire to honor God by not letting His Ark of the Covenant fall into the dirt when he touched it to keep it from doing so. Yet what was God's response? 



> And David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the LORD, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God.



There are two pitfalls we can fall into. We can worship God in ways He has explicitly commanded and do it without having it be sincere and from our hearts. We can also think that _anything_ is acceptable as long as it is "sincere" with a "real desire to honor God," and that he'll just make-up for our mistakes by cherishing our sincerity. The Scriptures say we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. We must do what God has commanded and we must do _that_ with sincerity.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What exactly do you mean by God-centered and Spirit led if you don't mean that we derive our elements/content of worship from the scriptures themselves? Is our worship so when we sincerely desire to honor God with it? I'm sure that Uzzah was very sincere in his desire to honor God by not letting His Ark of the Covenant fall into the dirt when he touched it to keep it from doing so. Yet what was God's response?



Do you think Uzzah was filled with the Holy Spirit?



> There are two pitfalls we can fall into. We can worship God in ways He has explicitly commanded and do it without having it be sincere and from our hearts. We can also think that _anything_ is acceptable as long as it is "sincere" with a "real desire to honor God," and that he'll just make-up for our mistakes by cherishing our sincerity. The Scriptures say we are to worship God in spirit and in truth. We must do what God has commanded and we must do _that_ with sincerity.



I did not say that anything was acceptable - only that which is God centered and guided by the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13)

Our sincerity is as filthy rags before God. So is our righteousness. He perfects our worship despite our failings.

God has explicitly put in His word to sing a new song to Him. (and trust me when I say - I have heard the "new is not really new" arguments.)


----------



## CDM

elnwood said:


> With respect to the issues of the Regulative Principle and Contemporary Worship, I tend to follow John Frame's thinking. He is a Reformed seminary professor and musician, and has authored "Worship in Spirit and Truth" and "Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense."



John Frame's thinking in this book on the RPW guts the historical meaning of the RPW, redefines it, then passes it on as his "perspective". He would have won many more over if he stiffened his backbone a little and just flat out denied the RPW as each and every Reformed church has understood it to be.


----------



## Scott Bushey

jdlongmire said:


> Do you think Uzzah was filled with the Holy Spirit?
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that anything was acceptable - only that which is God centered and guided by the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13)
> 
> Our sincerity is as filthy rags before God. So is our righteousness. He perfects our worship despite our failings.
> 
> God has explicitly put in His word to sing a new song to Him. (and trust me when I say - I have heard the "new is not really new" arguments.)



JD,
If God perfects worship through Christ, all worship with Christ in mind, must be acceptable.........is this correct?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Scott Bushey said:


> JD,
> If God perfects worship through Christ, all worship with Christ in mind, must be acceptable.........is this correct?



If it is guided by the Holy Spirit - otherwise it is not worship. 

(couple of quick references: 1 Corinthians 14:15 and Romans 8:5)


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> If it is guided by the Holy Spirit - otherwise it is not worship.
> 
> (1 Corinthians 14:15)



How is that verse relevant to the discussion?


----------



## Scott Bushey

jdlongmire said:


> If it is guided by the Holy Spirit - otherwise it is not worship.
> 
> (couple of quick references: 1 Corinthians 14:15 and Romans 8:5)



How does one know that what they are offering to God in worship is 'guided' by the HS?


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> How is that verse relevant to the discussion?



Sorry, I was adding another reference.

Simply that the human mind is not sufficient - neither is the human spirit - without the Holy Spirit's guidance.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Sorry, I was adding another reference.
> 
> Simply that the human mind is not sufficient - neither is the human spirit - without the Holy Spirit's guidance.



In context, isn't Paul talking about his own spirit instead of the Holy Spirit? and isn't he referring to speaking in tongues?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Scott Bushey said:


> How does one know that what they are offering to God in worship is 'guided' by the HS?



I know where you are going, brother and I agree that Scripture is the rule of faith and practice.

Sing to the Lord a new song, sing to the Lord all the Earth!


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> In context, isn't Paul talking about his own spirit instead of the Holy Spirit? and isn't he referring to speaking in tongues?



Do you think they were not trying to worship by speaking in tongues?


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Do you think they were not trying to worship by speaking in tongues?



It sounds from the context of the whole chapter that he's referring to delivering revelation to the people. After having been convinced of Cessationism I'm confused as to what I should be looking to glean from passages such as 1 Cor 14, honestly. But I assure you that it was an honest question. 

Regardless, even if they were trying to worship instead of instruct and bring new revelation, Paul still mentions his own spirit, not the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Scott Bushey

jdlongmire said:


> I know where you are going, brother and I agree that Scripture is the rule of faith and practice.
> 
> Sing to the Lord a new song, sing to the Lord all the Earth!



This is at the root of your premise; How do you know that your worship is guided by the HS?


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> It sounds from the context of the whole chapter that he's referring to delivering revelation to the people. After having been convinced of Cessationism I'm confused as to what I should be looking to glean from passages such as 1 Cor 14, honestly. But I assure you that it was an honest question.
> 
> Regardless, even if they were trying to worship instead of instruct and bring new revelation, Paul still mentions his own spirit, not the Holy Spirit.



I understand - not trying to be argumentative - but my point was more to use the verse to demonstrate that OUR efforts - spirit and mind (one can reason that just praying with the mind would be just as ineffective as praying just with the spirit) - are ineffective (to your sincerity point) - unless they are guided by the Holy Spirit - I appreciated that my point could be missed, so I added an additional Scripture to clarify - perhaps I should have been clearer initially. 

Paul was speaking in this context:

1 Corinthians 12

1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.

2You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led.

3Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 

apologies.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Scott Bushey said:


> This is at the root of your premise; How do you know that your worship is guided by the HS?



Because it is confirmed by Scripture.

Note this as an example of a new song that I believe was guided by the Holy Spirit and I believe is confirmed by Scripture.


----------



## elnwood

mangum said:


> John Frame's thinking in this book on the RPW guts the historical meaning of the RPW, redefines it, then passes it on as his "perspective". He would have won many more over if he stiffened his backbone a little and just flat out denied the RPW as each and every Reformed church has understood it to be.



I know. I still think he's right. It certainly isn't the historical view of the RPW, but I think his use of the term "regulative principle" is apt because it is based on obeying only what God commands.

For those who don't know the crux of his argument, it's basically that the regulative principle applies to all of the Christian life (since the whole of the Christian life is worship), and not just to Sunday worship, whereas the historical view draws a distinction, essentially applying a regulative principle to Sunday worship and a normative principle to the rest of life.

So essentially Frame broadens the scope of regulative principle to all of life and adds latitude for good and necessary inferences.

Does that sound accurate, mangum?


----------



## jaybird0827

elnwood said:


> I know. I still think he's right. It certainly isn't the historical view of the RPW, but I think his use of the term "regulative principle" is apt because it is based on obeying only what God commands.
> 
> For those who don't know the crux of his argument, it's basically that the regulative principle applies to all of the Christian life (since the whole of the Christian life is worship), and not just to Sunday worship, whereas the historical view draws a distinction, essentially applying a regulative principle to Sunday worship and a normative principle to the rest of life.
> 
> So essentially Frame broadens the scope of regulative principle to all of life and adds latitude for good and necessary inferences.
> 
> Does that sound accurate, mangum?


 
It may be an accurate of what Frame says. But by "adding latitude for good and necessary inferences" he's admitting things into the worship of God that you cannot require men to do them because it goes against conscience that is guided by the word of God. What is not commanded or authorized is not to be done. 

What's being described is de facto normative. That disrupts the unity of the church, because some of us will be required to abstain from doing certain things that Dr. Frame advocates. So much for the unity of believers at worship.


----------



## jaybird0827

jdlongmire said:


> I know where you are going, brother and I agree that Scripture is the rule of faith and practice.
> 
> Sing to the Lord a new song, sing to the Lord all the Earth!


 
See Romans 12:1-2, Ephesians 5:18 ff, Colossians 3:16. God has provided 150 of these new songs for the church to sing and is pleased when we sing these new songs in union with him (Psalm 22:22).


----------



## panta dokimazete

Please show me in Scripture where the 150 psalms to the exclusion of all other songs are commanded.

God is creative. (Gen 1:1)

We are to be imitators of God. (Ephesians 5:1)

We have a mandate to sing new songs. (just look through the psalms and this in Isaiah ~200 years after David)

New songs will even be sung in Heaven. (Rev 5:9 & 14:3)

Here is a search on "new song" for your convenience.


----------



## elnwood

jaybird0827 said:


> It may be an accurate of what Frame says. But by "adding latitude for good and necessary inferences" he's admitting things into the worship of God that you cannot require men to do them because it goes against conscience that is guided by the word of God. What is not commanded or authorized is not to be done.
> 
> What's being described is de facto normative. That disrupts the unity of the church, because some of us will be required to abstain from doing certain things that Dr. Frame advocates. So much for the unity of believers at worship.



I think part of unity is being charitable to different views within Christian orthodoxy. We all have our views on what constitutes a "good and necessary inference."

For example, I don't see infant baptism commanded in the New Testament, so in my mind that violates the Regulative Principle. But a paedo's view of "good and necessary inference" has more latitude than mine on this particular point. If we must restrict worship to whatever all Christians can do in good conscience, then we must get rid of infant baptism too.


----------



## AV1611

jdlongmire said:


> Please show me in Scripture where the 150 psalms to the exclusion of all other songs are commanded.



*Eph 5:19* Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 

*Col 3:16 *Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.


----------



## panta dokimazete

AV1611 said:


> *Eph 5:19* Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
> 
> *Col 3:16 *Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.



Sorry - been there and done that - these refer contextually to 3 different song forms commonly utilized by the culture and early church.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Sorry - been there and done that - these refer contextually to 3 different song forms commonly utilized by the culture and early church.



Commonly utilized by the early church? The early church that condemned anything other than the 150 Psalms at the Synod of Laodicea and Council of Chalcedon?

Those in favor of EP have shown, using the analogy of faith, that the three terms could easily be referring to the Psalms of David by citing the same Greek words in the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint. I'm sure you've heard that before, but how would you, using the same method and letting scripture interpret scripture, define a "hymn" and a "spiritual song" if the two are, as you say, to be distinguished from the inspired Psalms?


----------



## panta dokimazete

No - the early Gentile churches that Paul was Christianizing - with the breadth of their music heritages and doctrine he taught.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Those in favor of EP have shown, using the analogy of faith, that the three terms could easily be referring to the Psalms of David by citing the same Greek words in the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint. I'm sure you've heard that before, but how would you, using the same method and letting scripture interpret scripture, define a "hymn" and a "spiritual song" if the two are, as you say, to be distinguished from the inspired Psalms?



Please take a look at this thread.

This is an area I truly believe Paul would utilize his same rationale:

"One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him."


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Frame's handling of the RPW boarders on the dishonest; I prefer RJ Gore's and others' who simply deny the principle, though Gore misrepresents Calvin, and is taken to the woodshed for it by David Lachman. See _The Confessional Presbyterian_ volume 1 (2005) for the Smith/Lachman critical survey of Frame and Gore. See also the survey of 60 years of RPW literature in volume 2 (2006) and volume 3 (2007 forthcoming). Views of others such as Steve Schlissel are dealt with there. 



mangum said:


> John Frame's thinking in this book on the RPW guts the historical meaning of the RPW, redefines it, then passes it on as his "perspective". He would have won many more over if he stiffened his backbone a little and just flat out denied the RPW as each and every Reformed church has understood it to be.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Please take a look at this thread.
> 
> This is an area I truly believe Paul would utilize his same rationale:
> 
> "One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him."



Worship is not comprised of Adiaphora. If what you're saying is true, we can throw the RPW out the window and scratch our heads as to why Nadab and Abihu were consumed with fire. If the EP position is correct, then offering anything to God through worship in song other than the Psalms is sin and if your position is correct, then those who hold to EP are sinning by their failure to obey the command to sing what you interpret as "hymns and spiritual songs." Please correct me if it is not so.


----------



## satz

This might have been answered before, so sorry if I missed it.

Is it possible to prove that hymns and spiritual songs refer to psalms by staying within the bible and not having to go to any external sources, including the originals or Septuagint?


----------



## Davidius

JD, 

You have also yet to offer anything other than an assertion as to why "hymns" and "spiritual songs" are not the Psalms of David. The Apostles, the only ones with the authority to write songs that would have the same authority as the Psalms, didn't write any other songs to be sung by the Church. If so, where are they? In fact, from what I've read, the earliest hymns were written by heretics. Early church councils rejected the use of such uninspired works. Your claim that uninspired hymnody was common and accepted during the earlier church seems unfounded, unless you wish to become a Gnostic. On top of that, you have not used the analogy of faith to define hymns and spiritual songs.


----------



## Davidius

satz said:


> This might have been answered before, so sorry if I missed it.
> 
> Is it possible to prove that hymns and spiritual songs refer to psalms by staying within the bible and not having to go to any external sources, including the originals or Septuagint?



Hi Mark,

I'm not sure whether you meant to include the "originals" and the Septuagint with "external sources" or with the "bible" but the original copies no longer exist and the Septuagint is the bible. Using the analogy of faith and letting scripture interpret scripture, the supporters of EP have shown that Paul could easily be referring to the Psalms of David with all three terms since Paul, who wrote in Greek and often quoted from the Septuagint, used terms in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 which appear multiple times as headings of Psalms in the Septuagint.


----------



## satz

Hi David,

I meant to include the originals and Septuagint as external sources. 

I guess my question was, can we define hymns and spiritual songs by comparing with other places in our english bibles?


----------



## CDM

NaphtaliPress said:


> Frame's handling of the RPW boarders on the dishonest; I prefer RJ Gore's and others' who simply deny the principle, though Gore misrepresents Calvin, and is taken to the woodshed for it by David Lachman. See _The Confessional Presbyterian_ volume 1 (2005) for the Smith/Lachman critical survey of Frame and Gore. See also the survey of 60 years of RPW literature in volume 2 (2006) and volume 3 (2007 forthcoming). Views of others such as Steve Schlissel are dealt with there.



 

I found the article in the CPJ on Frame to be spot on and very gracious. It was so well done that halfway through it I became embarrassed _for_ Frame and his slight of hand antics.

At least Gore had the courage of his convictions.


----------



## Davidius

satz said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I meant to include the originals and Septuagint as external sources.
> 
> I guess my question was, can we define hymns and spiritual songs by comparing with other places in our english bibles?



Certainly arguments could be made from the English translation of the bible and be acceptable in the forum of debate. However, I'm sure you'd agree that referring to the original languages is always the _most_ helpful. Are you going anywhere specific with this line of thought?


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Worship is not comprised of Adiaphora. If what you're saying is true, we can throw the RPW out the window and scratch our heads as to why Nadab and Abihu were consumed with fire.



Nope - Nadab and Abihu were obviously not filled with the Holy Spirit. That is the root cause of their sin and thus their punishment.



> If the EP position is correct, then offering anything to God through worship in song other than the Psalms is sin and if your position is correct, then those who hold to EP are sinning by their failure to obey the command to sing what you interpret as "hymns and spiritual songs." Please correct me if it is not so.



I think you paint a more constrictive definition of sin than Paul did.

If it is sin to you to sing anything other than the Psalms, then it is sin. For you. Just as if it were a sin to drink anything other than wine with communion. Just as if it were a sin to you to pray anything other than the Lord's prayer when you pray.

It is a definitive sin to not worship God.

There are definitive elements for worship.

Scripture is not definitive on the musical format.

(BTW: Ich reiste nach Deutschland und studierte Musik, aber ich hatte viel meines deutschen grammer vergessen! )


----------



## panta dokimazete

> You have also yet to offer anything other than an assertion as to why "hymns" and "spiritual songs" are not the Psalms of David.



I included the link where I relayed my reasoning. There is historical context for it.



> The Apostles, the only ones with the authority to write songs that would have the same authority as the Psalms, didn't write any other songs to be sung by the Church. If so, where are they?



They also did not compose the melodies to go with the Psalms and only uttered them in writing as prooftexts. Maybe we should only speak the Psalms since we have lost the tunes?



> In fact, from what I've read, the earliest hymns were written by heretics. Early church councils rejected the use of such uninspired works. Your claim that uninspired hymnody was common and accepted during the earlier church seems unfounded, unless you wish to become a Gnostic.



Oy, now with the ad hominum - unless I submit to your narrow interpretation, I become a heretic. I guess Luther was, too? 



> On top of that, you have not used the analogy of faith to define hymns and spiritual songs.



Do you disagree with Augustine's definition?


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Oy, now with the ad hominum - unless I submit to your narrow interpretation, I become a heretic. I guess Luther was, too?



I merely meant to point out that your position on the practice of the early church was misinformed by pointing to the lack of orthodox hymnals from the time and the judgements of church councils. However, you are right in calling me out on my last comment, "unless you wish to become Gnostic," and I apologize for saying it.  ?


Most of our non-historical disagreements seem to be based on different understandings of the RPW. For instance, you mentioned that only saying the Psalms is a logical conclusion to my argument but I disagree. The RPW requires commands from scripture and the command we have commands that we sing Psalms. Since singing by definition requires rhythm and pitch, and since Paul doesn't command a certain tune, we can consider the tune a circumstance. I'm willing to let the discussion rest as it is because we have presuppositions that are going to continue causing us to talk past one another.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Vielen dank! Tschüss!

And I hope you understand that I do try and engage the RPW in all areas and ways that are reasonably applicable, as I am sure you do, as well.

-JD


----------



## panta dokimazete

> The RPW requires commands from scripture and the command we have commands that we sing Psalms. Since singing by definition requires rhythm and pitch, and since Paul doesn't command a certain tune, we can consider the tune a circumstance.



Just to present my RPW rationale on the subject (and this is just a recapitulation for myself):

1. We are commanded to sing psalms (not *the* Psalms, btw) and hymns and spiritual songs in worship - the historical-cultural context of the time is of 3 separate forms.

2. We are commanded to sing to the Lord a new song and we are given non-Psalmic references in Isaiah and Revelation.

3. We know the text of the Psalms, but not the musical form, so musical form is circumstantial for Psalms.

4. We have at least one church father that spoke briefly on the format of hymns as segregated from psalms, so there is a bit more "circumstantiality" to hymns.

5. We have some historical/cultural context for a "spiritual song" as differentiated from a Psalm or hymn, so there is a bit more "circumstantiality" than either of the previous 2 song types.

6. If we write music for the Psalms, and words and music for hymns and spiritual songs and these activities are drenched and affirmed by Scriptural principles and even text as well as guided by the Holy Spirit - God will honor, perfect and accept it through Christ, since worship is a component of faith and Christ is the author and perfecter of our faith.

For instance:

This spiritual song in praise of Man's freewill.

One can certainly challenge this song as appropriate or guided by the Holy Spirit in the light that it is certainly not Scriptural in it's doctrine since it ultimately glorifies Man as opposed to God. So while it may take on the "likeness" of a spiritual song that Paul references - it is not.


----------



## Davidius

Thank you for taking the time to write that all out. I think I understand your position better now. 



jdlongmire said:


> Just to present my RPW rationale on the subject (and this is just a recapitulation for myself):
> 
> 3. We know the text of the Psalms, but not the musical form, so musical form is circumstantial for Psalms.



I'm glad we agree on at least one thing! 

oh oh! you said:


> Vielen dank! Tschüss!



kannst du Deutsch?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Ich reiste nach Deutschland und studierte Musik, aber ich hatte viel meines deutschen grammer vergessen!


----------



## elnwood

Every time the New Testament refers to the 150 Psalms that we know, it makes it very clear. Luke 20:42 says, "the book of Psalms," Luke 24:44 says "everything written about me in ... the Psalms must be fulfilled," and Acts 1:20 says "For it is written in the book of Psalms." Note the definite articles. There is no dispute whatsoever that these passages are referring to the Psalter.

But in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, you don't have that. You have "addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," and "singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." There are no definite articles. Paul could have easily written "addressing one another from _the_ Psalms," or "singing _the book of_ Psalms." But he doesn't. So I think from a basic reading, "psalms" in those passages means songs of that type in general, and not exclusive to the Psalter. The burden of proof is on the EP view to show that "psalms" in those passages *must* refer to the 150 inspired, canonical Psalms that we have today.


----------



## satz

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Certainly arguments could be made from the English translation of the bible and be acceptable in the forum of debate. However, I'm sure you'd agree that referring to the original languages is always the _most_ helpful. Are you going anywhere specific with this line of thought?



Hi David,

Not really, just curious to if I missed something.

Although, I would respectfull argue that arguments from the internal consistency and context of the bible are better than having to go back to the originals.(Which is sort of why I asked the question.)

Thanks for the help!


----------



## jaybird0827

elnwood said:


> Every time the New Testament refers to the 150 Psalms that we know, it makes it very clear. Luke 20:42 says, "the book of Psalms," Luke 24:44 says "everything written about me in ... the Psalms must be fulfilled," and Acts 1:20 says "For it is written in the book of Psalms." Note the definite articles. There is no dispute whatsoever that these passages are referring to the Psalter.
> 
> But in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, you don't have that. You have "addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," and "singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." There are no definite articles. Paul could have easily written "addressing one another from _the_ Psalms," or "singing _the book of_ Psalms." But he doesn't. So I think from a basic reading, "psalms" in those passages means songs of that type in general, and not exclusive to the Psalter. The burden of proof is on the EP view to show that "psalms" in those passages *must* refer to the 150 inspired, canonical Psalms that we have today.


 
No, the burden of proof is on those who insist that God has commanded the identification of other "psalms" and the subsequent singing of them by the church. We know that the book of Psalms consists of psalms. We cannot be absolutely certain what other passages qualify as psalms. Who decides that? Where do they get the authority to make that call? You still have not proved that this is authorized, required, or commanded by God. Therefore you cannot bind men's conciences to sing them. That would be implicit faith.


----------



## Kaalvenist

Forgive me for intruding a brief article that I just wrote a couple days ago, but it seemed germaine to the subject under discussion.

On Biblical Hymns

And for another interesting quote from St. Augustine, see his Letter to Januarias, in _The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,_ Vol. I, pp. 314, 315:


> In such a case we ought by all means to adopt it, especially if it be something in defence of which Scripture can be alleged: as in the singing of hymns and psalms, for which we have on record both the example and the precepts of the Lord and of His apostles. In this religious exercise, so useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God, there is diversity of usage, and in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it; on which account the Donatists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches, while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition, which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field.


Here, St. Augustine refers to the songs which they sing as "hymns and psalms," and also as "divine songs" (all three terms found in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16) -- but note that he says that these are "of the prophets," and contrasts them with the "psalms" sung by the Donatists, which were "of human composition." I would argue that, since Augustine reproved the Donatists for their "singing of psalms *of human composition,*" and contrasted this with the practice of the African churches, the "grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches," that Augustine was opposed to uninspired hymns, and that he at least sang only inspired songs, if not only Psalms.


----------



## panta dokimazete

jaybird0827 said:


> No, the burden of proof is on those who insist that God has commanded the identification of other "psalms" and the subsequent singing of them by the church. We know that the book of Psalms consists of psalms. We cannot be absolutely certain what other passages qualify as psalms. Who decides that? Where do they get the authority to make that call? You still have not proved that this is authorized, required, or commanded by God. Therefore you cannot bind men's conciences to sing them. That would be implicit faith.



nope - God commands new songs very plainly - not only in the Psalms, but by the prophet Isaiah and even references new songs in Heaven - if we are filled with the Holy Spirit and guided by Scripture, then the new song is acceptable worship.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> Forgive me for intruding a brief article that I just wrote a couple days ago, but it seemed germaine to the subject under discussion.
> 
> On Biblical Hymns
> 
> And for another interesting quote from St. Augustine, see his Letter to Januarias, in _The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,_ Vol. I, pp. 314, 315:
> Here, St. Augustine refers to the songs which they sing as "hymns and psalms," and also as "divine songs" (all three terms found in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16) -- but note that he says that these are "of the prophets," and contrasts them with the "psalms" sung by the Donatists, which were "of human composition." I would argue that, since Augustine reproved the Donatists for their "singing of psalms *of human composition,*" and contrasted this with the practice of the African churches, the "grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches," that Augustine was opposed to uninspired hymns, and that he at least sang only inspired songs, if not only Psalms.



Funny how 2 people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.



> We are not, however, to be restrained by this, if more good is to be expected from our consenting with those who are zealous for the ceremony, than loss to be feared from our displeasing those who protest against it. In such a case we ought by all means to adopt it, especially if it be something in defense of which Scripture can be alleged: as in the singing of hymns and psalms, for which we have on record both the example and the precepts of the Lord and of His apostles. In this religious exercise, so useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God, there is diversity of usage, and in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it; on which account the Donstists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches, while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition, which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field. But when brethren are assembled in the church, why should not the time be devoted to singing of sacred songs, excepting of course while reading or preaching is going on, or while the presiding minister prays aloud, or the united prayer of the congregation is led by the deacon's voice? At the other intervals not thus occupied, I do not see what could be a more excellent, useful, and holy exercise for a Christian congregation.



When he says the Donstists reproach us - I think he is saying in context that "they put us to shame" - note what he says about his African brethren "in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it".

I think he is rather complimentary of the Donstists' musical worship - contrasting the African "grave chanting" with the Donstists whose songs "rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field".


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> Funny how 2 people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> When he says the Donstists reproach us - I think he is saying in context that "they put us to shame" - note what he says about his African brethren "in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it".
> 
> I think he is rather complimentary of the Donstists - contrasting the African "grave chanting" with the Donstists whose songs "rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field".


1. I doubt that "reproach" can be as easily interpreted or translated as "shame" as you understand it. I haven't yet seen the Latin in which he originally wrote the epistle, but I would like to see your interaction with that before you try to change stuff.

2. His remark concerning the indifference of his brethren in Africa seems to be the cause to which he is attributing the gross errors in practice of the Donatists. If they had not been indifferent regarding this ordinance, the singing of human compositions never would have arisen to profane the ordinance.

3. I think that, given the admittedly universal belief and practice of the early church fathers regarding musical instruments -- and Augustine is no exception -- I cannot see his remarks regarding "the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field" as being "rather complimentary."


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Just saw this posted; 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/r-f-w/message/9551

<<Dear All I thought folk might be interested in the following published on the James Begg Society Website.http://www.jbeggsoc.org.uk/

Best regards 
Matthew member FPCS Inverness
website: www.holdfast.co.nr

*In Spirit and in Truth: An Anthology on Christian Worship*

(PDF files, requiring Adobe Acrobat Reader)

Introduction
Reasons wherefore Christians ought to Worship God in Singing
His Praises not with the Matter and Sense of Dr. Watts’ Psalms
and Hymns, but with the Matter and Sense of David’s Psalms;
Because God has Commanded the Latter, but not the Former.
1759

Singing of Psalms, The Duty of Christians under the New
Testament - Thomas Ford 1652

A Gospel Ordinance concerning the Singing of Scripture Psalms,
Hymns and Spiritual Songs - Cuthbert Sidenham 1653

Reasons for and against Singing of Psalms in Private or Publick
Worship - David Rees 1737

An Essay on Psalmody - William Romaine 1775

The Psalmody of the Church - Josias Chancellor 1873

The Pattern on the Mount - Walter Scott 1877

Inspired Psalmody - H. C. R. Bazely 1878

The Psalms of David the only Inspired and Authorized Service of Praise - Rev. S. P. Stewart 1893

Extract from “The Character of a Godly Man” - Thomas Watson
1666
>>


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> 3. I think that, given the admittedly universal belief and practice of the early church fathers regarding musical instruments -- and Augustine is no exception -- I cannot see his remarks regarding "the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field" as being "rather complimentary."





St.Augustine said:


> ...because it was obvious to remark that all sound, which is the material of song, is by nature of three kinds. For it is either produced by the voice, as in the case of those who sing with the mouth without an instrument; or by blowing, as in the case of trumpets and flutes; or by striking, as in the case of harps and drums, and all other instruments that give their sound when struck.
> 
> CHAP. 18.--NO HELP IS TO BE DESPISED, EVEN THOUGH IT COME FROM A PROFANE SOURCE.
> 
> 28. But whether the fact is as Varro has related, or is not so, still we ought not to give up music because of the superstition of the heathen, if we can derive anything from it that is of use for the understanding of Holy Scripture;


 



> ...and when the trumpet sounds, soldiers know that they are to advance or retreat, or do whatever else the state of the battle requires.



from here



> But if the Law, as a schoolmaster, lead unto Grace one made an offender, as though for this purpose more grievously wounded, that he may desire a Physician; against the baneful sweetness, whereby lust prevailed, the Lord gives a sweetness that works good, that by it Continence may the more delight, and "our land gives her fruit," whereby the soldier is fed, who by the help of the Lord wars down sin.
> 
> *Such soldiers the Apostolic trumpet enkindles for battle with that sound*,


 from here

I think Augustine uses battlefield analogies and the use of instruments in a positive context.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> 1. I doubt that "reproach" can be as easily interpreted or translated as "shame" as you understand it. I haven't yet seen the Latin in which he originally wrote the epistle, but I would like to see your interaction with that before you try to change stuff.



Results for 'reproach'
English Latin
reproach insequor, opprobrium

Results for 'opprobrium'
Latin English
opprobrium reproach, disgrace.

so - it could be read to mean - "they disgrace us in comparison"


----------



## jaybird0827

jdlongmire said:


> nope - God commands new songs very plainly - not only in the Psalms, but by the prophet Isaiah and even references new songs in Heaven - if we are filled with the Holy Spirit and guided by Scripture, then the new song is acceptable worship.


 
You still have not convinced me that what is immediate or in a vision of the church triumphant is commanded for the church. You cannot do that. We know that Psalms are commanded for the church. We don't know that any particular songs are commanded for the church. Psalms were in use by the time of Isaiah. That which he speaks in regard to "new songs" is sufficiently covered in the Psalms. The Psalms are sufficient.

There is ample evidence already on this thread contributed by others. There are numerous threads on this forum. As soon as one ends, another one will begin*. *

You will not convince me to change my position, and I will not convince you to change yours. This is clear. 

I hereby resign from this thread. I am done.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Results for 'reproach'
> English Latin
> reproach insequor, opprobrium
> 
> Results for 'opprobrium'
> Latin English
> opprobrium reproach, disgrace.
> 
> so - it could be read to mean - "they disgrace us in comparison"



JD,

I know I said I was bowing out but the conversation has shifted slightly and you're doing some real acrobatics here to make Augustine say something other than what he's plainly saying. Just to first clear the issue up historically, Augustine was not a friend of the Donatists. He supported the use of the Roman military to quell their church movement in Northern Africa. 



> In this religious exercise, so useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God, there is diversity of usage, and in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it; on which account the Donatists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition



I don't see how this statement can rationally be interpreted to mean that Augustine approved of what was going on in their churches. Look at how Augustine contrasts what the other churches were doing compared to the Donatists. Augustine says that what the real Church was doing was "useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God" and says that the Donatists were "too indifferent in regard to it." The Donatists were indifferent toward the practice Augustine is describing as "useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God." Instead, the Donatists "inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition." Augustine is not saying his own "grave" practice is bad! He's using the word "grave" to describe a reverent, controlled, devotional state of mind and contrasts it with the Donatists inflaming their 'passions' (_not_ their minds!) in their revels (wild parties)! And whereby? They 'sing psalms of human compositions.'


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Results for 'reproach'
> English Latin
> reproach insequor, opprobrium
> 
> Results for 'opprobrium'
> Latin English
> opprobrium reproach, disgrace.
> 
> so - it could be read to mean - "they disgrace us in comparison"



Also, you translated the wrong Latin word back into English. Opprobrium is a noun. Augustine is using the verb "to reproach," not the noun "reproach." 

insequor : to follow, pursue, assail, reproach, rebuke, attack.

This is not meant to be offensive to you personally, but with this definition of 'insequor' and what I just said previously about the way Augustine contrasts the Donatists with the practice of the rest of the Church, your translation of the word is not at all tenable. This issue of worship is just one of the many problems that Augustine was pointing out in the doctrine of the Donatists.


----------



## panta dokimazete

By the by - thank you all for challenging me!  

Dialogue makes me learn more and more!

Glad to have you back, Carolina.  and thank you for your winsome tone!

I am at work, but will return.

Food for thought, though - in the quotes above - Augustine seemed to say that musical resources (among others) even from a source you may not agree with doctrinally, may be useful if it assists us to glorify God and can be turned to that purpose.

And on the "reproach" issue - good catch on the noun vs verb, apologies - of course it could still be "they stand as a rebuke in comparison" 

I'll touch on your other items in a bit.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> By the by - thank you all for challenging me!
> 
> Glad to have you back, Carolina.
> 
> I am at work, but will return.




 Haha thanks! Just as a note, I've made some edits to my most recent contribution.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Also - what do you reckon this means in context?



St. Augustine said:


> ...there is a diversity of usage...


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Haha thanks! Just as a note, I've made some edits to my most recent contribution.



 Me too! - to my penultimate post to this one...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Anybody have a link to the original Latin?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I've looked but I do not think the Latin is online for this letter; note the name is mispelled above I think (it is Januarius). I may be wrong but should be looking for _Ad inquistionem Ianuarii_. Or under Augustine's letters to Januarius.
The following is a useful table:
http://www02.homepage.villanova.edu/allan.fitzgerald/august5.htm
Someone who has access should check Migne via the reference at this link.


----------



## panta dokimazete

In this context:



> We are not, however, to be restrained by this, if more good is to be expected from our consenting with those who are zealous for the ceremony, than loss to be feared from our displeasing those who protest against it. In such a case we ought by all means to adopt it...



Is he not talking about adopting the style of the Donatists's songs?



> especially if it be something in defense of which Scripture can be alleged



and in another work:



> we ought not to give up music because of the superstition of the heathen, if we can derive anything from it that is of use for the understanding of Holy Scripture;


----------



## panta dokimazete

NaphtaliPress said:


> I've looked but I do not think the Latin is online for this letter; note the name is mispelled above I think (it is Januarius). I may be wrong but should be looking for _Ad inquistionem Ianuarii_. Or under Augustine's letters to Januarius.
> The following is a useful table:
> http://www02.homepage.villanova.edu/allan.fitzgerald/august5.htm
> Someone who has access should check Migne via the reference at this link.



Thank you - I had found that same reference and thought it linked to the Latin...durn it!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I will be a DTS library next week and they have Migne and while I intend to spend most of my time in the rare book closet there, if I have time, and patience, I'll try to find it and make a copy. I tend to agree with the EP reading of this, however, I too am not clear what practice in the orthodox churches Augustine is criticizing. That they did not sing in all the churches?


----------



## Davidius

So we can have the full text in front of us:


> We are not, however, to be restrained by this, if more good is to be expected from our consenting with those who are zealous for the ceremony, than loss to be feared from our displeasing those who protest against it. In such a case we ought by all means to adopt it, especially if it be something in defense of which Scripture can be alleged: as in the singing of hymns and psalms, for which we have on record both the example and the precepts of the Lord and of His apostles. In this religious exercise, so useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God, there is diversity of usage, and in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it; on which account the Donstists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches, while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition, which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field. But when brethren are assembled in the church, why should not the time be devoted to singing of sacred songs, excepting of course while reading or preaching is going on, or while the presiding minister prays aloud, or the united prayer of the congregation is led by the deacon's voice? At the other intervals not thus occupied, I do not see what could be a more excellent, useful, and holy exercise for a Christian congregation.



Now on to my rebuttals.



jdlongmire said:


> And on the "reproach" issue - good catch on the noun vs verb, apologies - of course it could still be "they stand as a rebuke in comparison"



Riiiiight  



jdlongmire said:


> Also - what do you reckon this means in context?



Augustine says there are diverse _usages_. If something has various usages, that means the same thing can be used in multiple ways, right? I can sing inspired songs in the congregation on the Sabbath and when I am a husband and a father I will sing them with my family. I can sing them in prayer to console myself. There are multiple uses but one substance. This fits very well with what Augustine says in the rest of the passage. He goes on to chide the Donatists because they "are rather too indifferent in regard to it." What is the "it" to which Augustine here refers other than the singing of divine songs, which are "so useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God" and have a "diversity of usages." 

indifferent:	without interest or concern; not caring; apathetic

As I have touched on in my analysis of the way Augustine contrasts the practice of the Donatists with the rest of the church, he is obviously rebuking the Donatists for being so indifferent (disinterested) with regard to the singing of these divine songs which are so beneficial in so many ways. Instead, they have "psalms of human composition" which "inflame their passions in their revels." He is directly juxtaposing and contrasting how the Donatists were 'inflaming their passion in their revels' with these songs composed by man and the 'inducing of a devotional frame of mind' that leads to 'strength of love to God,' which was done with 'hymns and psalms.' We cannot but conclude first that Augustine is _not_ in favor of what was going on as well as that he attributes the error of the Donatists with their use of 'psalms of human composition.' 

After reading the entire passage that you provided, it seems to me that the only thing Augustine is perhaps commending is human songs for things other than corporate worship. 

Note this and tell me what you think:



> ...which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field. *But when brethren are assembled in the church*, why should not the time be devoted to *singing of sacred songs*, excepting of course while reading or preaching is going on, or while the presiding minister prays aloud, or the united prayer of the congregation is led by the deacon's voice? At the other intervals not thus occupied, I do not see what could be a more excellent, useful, and holy exercise for a Christian congregation.



This fits well with your last quote from another work of Augustine, which said that music should not "be given up because of the heathen." We shouldn't stop listening to music altogether because of the fact that the heathen have so greatly perverted it. Some people would think that listening to any heathen music or reading any heathen literature should be considered wrong. However, because of common grace we can gain, to an extent, useful things from this. For example, the art of Logic, given to us by the Greek philosophers, is of great use in following the arguments made in scripture and in making our own arguments when writing/speaking. 



> We are not, however, to be restrained by this, if more good is to be expected from our consenting with those who are zealous for the ceremony, than loss to be feared from our displeasing those who protest against it. In such a case we ought by all means to adopt it, especially if it be something in defense of which Scripture can be alleged: as in the singing of hymns and psalms, for which we have on record both the example and the precepts of the Lord and of His apostles.



It looks to me like Augustine is talking about aspects of the worship ceremony other than singing here at the beginning (perhaps we need more context from the beginning of this section) because he mentions that their practices should be adopted _if_ Scripture can defend it by examples and precepts. He then makes a transition and uses the singing of 'psalms and hymns' as an example of an element of the worship ceremony because it can be defended by 'the example and the precepts of the Lord and His apostles.' If you add this on to what I just said about the _end_ of the fuller paragraph you quoted, it all ties together nicely. He uses singing inspired psalms as an example of something that should be adopted in the worship ceremony due to examples and precepts of Jesus and the Apostles. He then goes on to chide the Donatists for being indifferent to this practice and instead inflaming their passions and their revels with psalms of human composition. He _then_ goes on to say that men should be allowed to compose songs (in general, which fits with your other quote about the heathens' songs) but that these songs have no such place when we are 'assembled in the Church.'


----------



## Davidius

One more thing.

As I already noted in a much earlier post, worship songs other than the Psalms were outlawed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (21 years after Augustine's death) because heresies (like those of the Donatists) were being introduced through such songs. Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo and since the issue probably didn't just fall into the lap of the Council in 451 it's quite likely that Augustine was one of those pushing for this kind of ruling, especially after reading that text.


----------



## AV1611

jdlongmire said:


> Sorry - been there and done that - these refer contextually to 3 different song forms commonly utilized by the culture and early church.



 If you say so...


----------



## CDM

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> On more thing.
> 
> As I already noted in a much earlier post, worship songs other than the Psalms were outlawed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (21 years after Augustine's death) because heresies (like those of the Donatists) were being introduced through such songs. Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo and since the issue probably didn't just fall into the lap of the Council in 451 it's quite likely that Augustine was one of those pushing for this kind of ruling, especially after reading that text.



Good point,


----------



## panta dokimazete

Trying to contextualize "revels":




Augustine said:


> Letter 29
> When I was informed after your departure that some were becoming openly violent, and declaring that they could not submit to the prohibition (intimated while you were here) of that feast which they call Lætitia, vainly attempting to disguise their *revels* under a fair name,





> Letter 22 Since, however, these drunken *revels* and luxurious feasts in the cemeteries are wont to be regarded by the ignorant and carnal multitude as not only an honour to the martyrs, but also a solace to the dead, it appears to me that they might be more easily dissuaded from such scandalous and unworthy practices in these places,





> Contra Faustum, Book XV In this doctrine of lying devils you are invited to fabulous dwellings of angels in a happy clime, and to fragrant fields where nectar flows for ever from trees and hills, in seas and rivers. These are the fictions of your foolish heart, which *revels* in such idle fancies.



Looks like it is always used in a negative connotation - so, I'll at least concede that he is not implying that their revels are appropriate. 

More to come.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Looks like it is always used in a negative connotation - so, I'll at least concede that he is not implying that their revels are appropriate.
> 
> More to come.



And he says that their revels are inflamed by the use of psalms of human composition....I wonder what his opinion of these psalms of human composition is...


----------



## Augusta

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> And he says that their revels are inflamed by the use of psalms of human composition....I wonder what his opinion of these psalms of human composition is...



Coming from a charismatic church where they deliberately "inflamed" the congregation this makes a lot of sense. God wants worship in spirit and truth, not emotional roller coaster worship that is whipped up and manipulated.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> And he says that their revels are inflamed by the use of psalms of human composition....I wonder what his opinion of these psalms of human composition is...



Simply songs not inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

As opposed to someone with the Holy Spirit in them composing songs.

It would certainly fit his opinion of the Donatists.

Just as I would consider songs about God and Christ written by Mormons.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Also - to give context when Augustine mentions the "divine songs of the *prophets in our churches*" it is likely he considered himself a prophet in his church. that would certainly draw a contrast to merely human compositions...



> The bishop in Ignatius, moreover, is not only an administrative and liturgical officer. He is also a *prophet*. This is especially true in his own case. In Philad., ch. 7, he gives us an instance of his gifts in this direction, while the name Theophorus ("God-inspired"), which he assumes, is likely not a 77 proper name but an epithet to indicate his prophetic character. One may note, similarly, how he urges Polycarp to seek for heavenly revelations (Poly. 2:2). Not inappropriately, therefore, did the Smyrnaeans remember Polycarp as "an apostolic and prophetic teacher"


 from here


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Simply songs not inspired by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> As opposed to someone with the Holy Spirit in them composing songs.
> 
> It would certainly fit his opinion of the Donatists.
> 
> Just as I would consider songs about God and Christ written by Mormons.




A song is either written by man or by the Holy Spirit. A song "Inspired by the Holy Spirit" would be Scripture. We already have 150 songs that were inspired by the Holy Spirit. One would need to proclaim oneself a prophet before saying that their writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit. If they aren't a prophet, they should just say their songs are what they are: of human composition. There is no third category. If what you are saying is from the Holy Spirit then what you're saying is infallible and absolutely authoritative and should be added to the Bible.


----------



## panta dokimazete

The inspiration to write a song is quite a bit different than the inspiration to write Scripture, even though Scripture contains some songs, just as it contains some prayers.

I would equate the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to write a song much the same as the inspiration that guides us in prayer.

We can pray "uninspired" and "Inspired" prayers in church, so in likewise manner...


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> The inspiration to write a song is quite a bit different than the inspiration to write Scripture, even though Scripture contains some songs, just as it contains some prayers.
> 
> I would equate the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to write a song much the same as the inspiration that guides us in prayer.
> 
> We can pray "uninspired" and "Inspired" prayers in church, so in likewise manner...


And it is that kind of playing around with the word "inspired" that has led men to claim the Scriptures to be "inspired," but not actually the infallible Word of God. When we speak of "inspired" vs. "uninspired" songs, we are referring to songs which have or have not been indited by the Holy Ghost, and committed to Scripture; or canonical vs. non-canonical songs. Please don't confuse the issue by watering down the term "inspired."


----------



## panta dokimazete

not my intent, Kaal...thus the capital "I" on inspired - and to further clarify: when I pray in church it is "uninspired" and the songs I write and sing in church are "uninspired"...unless I am praying the Scripture or singing Scripture, then my prayer and song is Inspired to the degree that I am a vessel communicating the Holy Infallible Inspired Word of God

To the degree that I am a bearer or temple of the Holy Spirit and to the degree that I am guided by the Holy Spirit and validated by Scripture I am "i"nspired - but my little "i" inspired prayer and song is acceptable to God as worship.


----------



## gwine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> And he says that their revels are inflamed by the use of psalms of human composition....I wonder what his opinion of these psalms of human composition is...


It could refer to songs that people composed from their wrongful interpretation of Scripture, as was pointed out. I wonder why, if it is ok to sing The Psalms in the common language, we can not sing other Scripture as well, since it is, after all, the inspired word of God made known in the common tongue.

From the WCF XVI


> VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him;[20] not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's sight;[21] but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.


Would you consider worship a good work? And if so would not the singing of Scripture (including the Psalms) be a sincere effort to please God? Or do you think a paraphrase is wrong, since a song typically doesn't exactly follow the wording of Scripture? And, if paraphrases are wrong, how far off can we go in singing The Psalms before we go outside the camp?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

gwine said:


> Would you consider worship a good work? And if so would not the singing of Scripture (including the Psalms) be a sincere effort to please God? Or do you think a paraphrase is wrong, since a song typically doesn't exactly follow the wording of Scripture? And, if paraphrases are wrong, how far off can we go in singing The Psalms before we go outside the camp?


If EP is prescribed for song everything else is proscribed; so it still gets back to the basic argument. As far as paraphrases see the article linked below.​Psalmody Objections Answered: Paraphrases
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/paraphrases.htm

​


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Since yet another thread has morphed into yet another EP discussion perhaps this thread needs renaming?


----------



## panta dokimazete

They started it!!!!


----------



## Davidius

Augusta said:


> Coming from a charismatic church where they deliberately "inflamed" the congregation this makes a lot of sense. God wants worship in spirit and truth, not emotional roller coaster worship that is whipped up and manipulated.



 
I come from the same kind of church! This is one reason why the RPW has become so dear to me. I'm sure you understand very well.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> They started it!!!!


----------



## ChristopherPaul

NaphtaliPress said:


> Since yet another thread has morphed into yet another EP discussion perhaps this thread needs renaming?



Such is inevitable when considering the acceptability of Praise songs. The EP discussion is not off topic because that argument is at the heart of the praise song issue. If uninspired song is permissible in church then how can praise songs not be permitted? By what standard do we allow How Great Thou Art but not Holy is the Lord?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If by the "heart of the praise song issue" you mean EP's don't have to answer the question, then I agree. Carry on; don't mind me; I'm a grump today.



ChristopherPaul said:


> Such is inevitable when considering the acceptability of Praise songs. The EP discussion is not off topic because that argument is at the heart of the praise song issue. If uninspired song is permissible in church then how can praise songs not be permitted? By what standard do we allow How Great Thou Art but not Holy is the Lord?


----------



## gwine

NaphtaliPress said:


> If EP is prescribed for song everything else is proscribed; so it still gets back to the basic argument. As far as paraphrases see the article linked below.​Psalmody Objections Answered: Paraphrases
> http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/paraphrases.htm
> 
> ​


Thanks for the article. If I may summarize the last part it seems to be saying that those who think The Psalms should only be sung in a "wooden format" are the ones who are rejecting EP and using this as a counter argument. But this doesn't answer my questions: If it is permissible to sing The Psalms in the common language, then why can't we sing any part of Scripture?

RPW : If A is not commanded then it is forbidden.

Christian liberty : If A is not forbidden then it is allowed.

Your statement : If A is commanded then B is forbidden.

Setting aside for now whether your premise is true (If EP is prescribed for song), can you give me the Scriptural justification for your statment (If EP is prescribed for song everything else is proscribed)? I am having trouble both with the Scriptural references and with the broader everything else catagory, since your statement doesn't follow how I understood the RPW.

And so, to repeat myself, again, I would still like an answer to my questions about the WCF XVI-6.

Would you consider worship a good work? And if so would not the singing of Scripture (including the Psalms) be a sincere effort to please God?


----------



## gwine

ChristopherPaul said:


> Such is inevitable when considering the acceptability of Praise songs. The EP discussion is not off topic because that argument is at the heart of the praise song issue. If uninspired song is permissible in church then how can praise songs not be permitted? By what standard do we allow How Great Thou Art but not Holy is the Lord?


Actually I might be fine with not allowing either if neither song was taken from a Scripture passage(s) or a reasonable paraphrase of such. Saying "the Lord reigns" ten times in a praise song is not scriptural, in my opinion. Reading Scripture is reading the inspired word of God. Singing Scripture is singing the inspired word of God.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

To clarify then, since according to EPs, the element of public worship is singing of psalms, singing anything else is proscribed, in accordance with the RPW. 

If singing of psalms is the element of worship God has commanded, singing something else in worship is not in accordance with what God has commanded in his word for his public worship; first paragraph of WCF 16. It could not be a good work to use other scripture for worship song that has not been prescribed for that purpose. 



gwine said:


> Thanks for the article. If I may summarize the last part it seems to be saying that those who think The Psalms should only be sung in a "wooden format" are the ones who are rejecting EP and using this as a counter argument. But this doesn't answer my questions: If it is permissible to sing The Psalms in the common language, then why can't we sing any part of Scripture?
> 
> RPW : If A is not commanded then it is forbidden.
> 
> Christian liberty : If A is not forbidden then it is allowed.
> 
> Your statement : If A is commanded then B is forbidden.
> 
> Setting aside for now whether your premise is true (If EP is prescribed for song), can you give me the Scriptural justification for your statment (If EP is prescribed for song everything else is proscribed)? I am having trouble both with the Scriptural references and with the broader everything else catagory, since your statement doesn't follow how I understood the RPW.
> 
> And so, to repeat myself, again, I would still like an answer to my questions about the WCF XVI-6.
> 
> Would you consider worship a good work? And if so would not the singing of Scripture (including the Psalms) be a sincere effort to please God?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

NaphtaliPress said:


> To clarify then, since according to EPs, the element of public worship is singing of psalms, singing anything else is proscribed, in accordance with the RPW.
> 
> If singing of psalms is the element of worship God has commanded, singing something else in worship is not in accordance with what God has commanded in his word for his public worship; first paragraph of WCF 16. It could not be a good work to use other scripture for worship song that has not been prescribed for that purpose.



Yes, I think this is a fair statement and is why the EP vs. IP or “No P” issue is very relevant to the Praise Song question. Basically, we must insist that the issue _should _come up when discussing the permissibility of praise songs especially if we are confessional.


----------



## Davidius

> Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him, talk ye of all his wondrous works. (1 Chron 16:9)






gwine said:


> Setting aside for now whether your premise is true (If EP is prescribed for song), can you give me the Scriptural justification for your statment (If EP is prescribed for song everything else is proscribed)? I am having trouble both with the Scriptural references and with the broader everything else catagory, since your statement doesn't follow how I understood the RPW.




The justification for everything else be proscribed if EP is prescribed comes from the foundational verses for understanding the RPW, like Deuteronomy 4:2...


> You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.



And in another place:


> Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it. (Deut. 12:32)



We are neither to add to nor take away from what God has commanded us. Whenever God has given instruction in worship He has always been careful to make sure to remind us that we cannot add to what He has prescribed. This is why Nadab and Abihu were consumed with fire...


> Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, *which he had not commanded them*. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD has said, 'Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.'"



Forgive me if you know all of this already, but this is what it seemed like you were asking. 

We have discussed how, using the analogy of faith, the "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" listed in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 could easily be referring to the Psalms of David, since these terms all appear in the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint, the version of the OT that Paul quoted from. It would be considered a form of triadic expression: three words grouped together but meaning the same thing (e.g. the kind of expressions that our found sometimes in the bible like "commandments, statutes and precepts" and "sin, iniquity and transgressions). Since the bible is to be the source of authority for all of our understanding of redemption and worship, we have asked those who do not hold to EP to explain, using the same analogy of faith, what a "hymn" or a "spiritual song" might be _other_ than the Psalms of David & Asaph. No one has even attempted to do so. The only responses we've gotten in this vein are vague assertions and reading-in of modern day definitions of "hymn" into the biblical text. If it cannot be proven from scripture that these two words mean "uninspired compositions" then we should only sing from the large, wonderful Hymnal that God himself has put right smack dab in the middle of our bibles and then commanded us to sing.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Ok - to boil this down to burden of proof requirements:

New song is commanded *first* chronologically in the Psalms.

If the EP rationale is to hold that the "new song" were the Psalms alone, then they must also reconcile *at least* 3 things:

1. *New* does not mean *new* as in brand new or substantially different from earlier types.

2. The reiterated command in Isaiah to sing a new song is not truly *new* songs - He is referring to the Psalms.

3. The supporting fact that there will be new song in Heaven.

Reference verses

If these cannot be absolutely reconciled - the psalms, hymns, spiritual songs "stacking" rationale is moot.


----------



## Lauren Mary

For one of the better, more solidly Bible-based discussions out there cautioning about contemporary worship, I recommend reading "Worship in Melting Pot" by Peter Masters.

Amazon.com: Worship in the Melting Pot: Books: Peter Masters 

Blessings all for 2007.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Ok - to boil this down to burden of proof requirements:
> 
> New song is commanded *first* chronologically in the Psalms.
> 
> If the EP rationale is to hold that the "new song" were the Psalms alone, then they must also reconcile *at least* 3 things:
> 
> 1. *New* does not mean *new* as in brand new or completely original.
> 
> 2. The reiterated command in Isaiah to sing a new song is not truly *new* songs - they refer to the Psalms.
> 
> 3. The supporting fact that there will be new song as we worship in Heaven.
> 
> Reference verses
> 
> If these cannot be absolutely reconciled - the psalms, hymns, spiritual songs "stacking" rationale is moot.



Is the New Covenant "brand new or completely original"? If "new song" means what you say it means, why didn't the Apostles, who were the ones who would've had the same inspiration that David had, write any new songs? Why don't we have any evidence of hymnals from the primitive church? If God gave David and Asaph divine inspiration to write the Psalms and if the Psalms aren't adequate for New Covenant worship, it seems as though God would have inspired the Apostles to write a new divine hymnbook for the New Covenant. I know this is conjecture, but really.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Is the New Covenant "brand new or completely original"? If "new song" means what you say it means, why didn't the Apostles, who were the ones who would've had the same inspiration that David had, write any new songs? Why don't we have any evidence of hymnals from the primitive church? If God gave David and Asaph divine inspiration to write the Psalms and if the Psalms aren't adequate for New Covenant worship, it seems as though God would have inspired the Apostles to write a new divine hymnbook for the New Covenant. I know this is conjecture, but really.



The "completely original" is probably a bit hyperbolic, though accurate in the new context - I am going to refine my words - back in a sec.

...

Done, now I want to interact with your post...


----------



## gwine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> . . . Since the bible is to be the source of authority for all of our understanding of redemption and worship, we have asked those who do not hold to EP to explain, using the same analogy of faith, what a "hymn" or a "spiritual song" might be _other_ than the Psalms of David & Asaph. No one has even attempted to do so. The only responses we've gotten in this vein are vague assertions and reading-in of modern day definitions of "hymn" into the biblical text. If it cannot be proven from scripture that these two words mean "uninspired compositions" then we should only sing from the large, wonderful Hymnal that God himself has put right smack dab in the middle of our bibles and then commanded us to sing.


Maybe my attempt to do so isn't obvious. Why can we not sing other Scripture? Are they not inspired? Could they not be the other hymns that Paul talks about?


> 25About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, 26and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken.


I see the argument that if EP is commanded then nothing else is allowed in the same vein as the argument going on in the baptism thread. It is asserted there that just because adult baptism is commanded (repent and be baptized) it does not mean that infants are forbidden to be baptized. Maybe you will say that the first concerns the RPW and the second doesn't, and if so I don't know what to say, since I'm already out of my league. I am just trying to understand each of these topics (EP, baptism, head coverings, _etc._) and find myself amazed that there are so many on each side.

But I thank you for attempting to enlighten me.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> 3. The supporting fact that there will be new song as we worship in Heaven.




This is another assertion. Even if it were true, we aren't in heaven right now.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Is the New Covenant "brand new or completely original"?



I agree with you that I was being hyperbolic - I modified it to "substantially different from the original" to take that into account - and yes, the new covenant is substantially different from the old.



> If "new song" means what you say it means, why didn't the Apostles, who were the ones who would've had the same inspiration that David had, write any new songs? Why don't we have any evidence of hymnals from the primitive church? If God gave David and Asaph divine inspiration to write the Psalms and if the Psalms aren't adequate for New Covenant worship, it seems as though God would have inspired the Apostles to write a new divine hymnbook for the New Covenant. I know this is conjecture, but really.



Maybe they did - maybe God did not want them preserved because He wanted *new* songs written to His glory.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This is another assertion. Even if it were true, we aren't in heaven right now.




Cooper's rule - When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense

Revelation 5:9
And they sang a *new song*, saying, " Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Revelation 14:3
And they sang a *new song* before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth.

You are right - I should have said - the supporting fact that new songs will be sung in Heaven - I was asserting that these songs were for worship, but it seemed to make plain sense to me that they were.

And I know that we aren't in Heaven now, but I believe we are to live as if we were.


----------



## Davidius

gwine said:


> Maybe my attempt to do so isn't obvious. Why can we not sing other Scripture? Are they not inspired? Could they not be the other hymns that Paul talks about?
> 
> I see the argument that if EP is commanded then nothing else is allowed in the same vein as the argument going on in the baptism thread. It is asserted there that just because adult baptism is commanded (repent and be baptized) it does not mean that infants are forbidden to be baptized. Maybe you will say that the first concerns the RPW and the second doesn't, and if so I don't know what to say, since I'm already out of my league. I am just trying to understand each of these topics (EP, baptism, head coverings, _etc._) and find myself amazed that there are so many on each side.
> 
> But I thank you for attempting to enlighten me.



I know where you're coming from, friend. Your inquisitiveness is great. I was in the very same spot not too long ago, trying to sort this all out for myself. I came out of a charismatic congregation where anything was acceptable and when I first was introduced to the RPW it was a very new concept but very refreshing and very much a blessing. 

As to your comment regarding EP and Baptism, the difference for Infant Baptism is that we _do_ we have a command to place the sign of the Covenant of Grace on our children in Genesis 17. Your quote of Paul singing hymns is fine but that still doesn't tell us what a "hymn" is according to the bible. 

For instance, Jesus and his disciples are quoting as having sung a "hymn" before taking the Passover together. 


> Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." *And when they had sung a hymn*, they went out to the Mount of Olives.



It is almost universally agreed that the "Hallel Psalms" are being referred to here when it says that they sung a hymn (literally "they hymned"). The Hallel Psalms were a group of psalms, 113-118 to be exact, which were commonly sung by the Jews at events like Passover and Pentecost.

http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/504/hallel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallel

If they really were singing the Hallel Psalms, which is very likely, then this is another example of the word "hymn" being used with reference to Psalms.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> It is almost universally agreed that the "Hallel Psalms" are being referred to here when it says that they sung a hymn (literally "they hymned"). The Hallel Psalms were a group of psalms, 113-118 to be exact, which were commonly sung by the Jews at events like Passover and Pentecost.
> 
> http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/504/hallel.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallel
> 
> If they really were singing the Hallel Psalms, which is very likely, then this is another example of the word "hymn" being used with reference to Psalms.



*Almost* universally agreed...particularly by proponents of EP... 

Not mocking, just pointing out that there is some presuppositional bias there...


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> *Almost* universally agreed...particularly by proponents of EP...
> 
> Not mocking, just pointing out that there is some presuppositional bias there...



I purposefully provided links that were not from EP websites because I knew you would say something like that.


----------



## panta dokimazete




----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I came out of a charismatic congregation where anything was acceptable and when I first was introduced to the RPW it was a very new concept but very refreshing and very much a blessing.



Just for the record - and I know we have ranged pretty far from the OP - I resonate with this experience very much, as I came from a tradition bound, doctrinally non-existent, Arminian based background. When I began to understand Reformed doctrine, I was *overjoyed* to understand that there could be consistent application of God's word to God's worship and to life overall! 

What I have found, however, is that there seems to be a tendency to move from *licentiousness* in doctrine or worship and overcompensate toward *legalism*, when we should be embracing Christian *liberty*. ("his yoke is easy and his burden is light")

That is to say - careful freedom or bounded freedom - it is not an oxymoron. The Lord gives us liberty through Christ, and we have now become slaves to righteousness, so our good work is to seek to obey, while not becoming slaves to man-made principles. 

It is late and I am sleepy, so I hope this makes sense...


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Just for the record - and I know we have ranged pretty far from the OP - I resonate with this experience very much, as I came from a tradition bound, doctrinally non-existent, Arminian based background. When I began to understand Reformed doctrine, I was *overjoyed* to understand that there could be consistent application of God's word to God's worship and to life overall!
> 
> What I have found, however, is that there seems to be a tendency to move from *licentiousness* in doctrine or worship and overcompensate toward *legalism*, when we should be embracing Christian *liberty*. ("his yoke is easy and his burden is light")
> 
> That is to say - careful freedom or bounded freedom - it is not an oxymoron. The Lord gives us liberty through Christ, and we have now become slaves to righteousness, so our good work is to seek to obey, while not becoming slaves to man-made principles.
> 
> It is late and I am sleepy, so I hope this makes sense...



EP is actually quite freeing. Never again will I have to look back with regret on having sung a song for so long only to come to realize that it teaches bad doctrine. Never again will I have to wonder if the songs I'm currently singing are acceptable to God and whether they contain any error. I still try to remain as exegetical as possible with my arguments for it instead of basing it just on a benefit like that, but I just wanted to point out that it's not a burdensome, legalistic thing.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> *Almost* universally agreed...particularly by proponents of EP...
> 
> Not mocking, just pointing out that there is some presuppositional bias there...


And as I said in my article that I submitted to examination (remember that?), I have checked between two and three dozen commentators on Matthew (26:30) and Mark (14:26), and they *unanimously* affirm this to be a reference to the Hallel Psalms. Only a few of these men held to exclusive psalmody (and in some of those cases, whether or not they held to exclusive psalmody is a subject hotly debated). J.D., do you know of even one commentator who asserts that they did not sing the Hallel Psalms? I would be interested to find out (in order to give more fullness to my examination).


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> And as I said in my article that I submitted to examination (remember that?)



How could I foget? 



> I have checked between two and three dozen commentators on Matthew (26:30) and Mark (14:26), and they *unanimously* affirm this to be a reference to the Hallel Psalms. Only a few of these men held to exclusive psalmody (and in some of those cases, whether or not they held to exclusive psalmody is a subject hotly debated). J.D., do you know of even one commentator who asserts that they did not sing the Hallel Psalms? I would be interested to find out (in order to give more fullness to my examination).



Kaal - I was simply pointing out the obvious, that this line of conjecture would certainly resonate with the EP position. I think there is good rationale to consider the Hallel Psalms as the "hymns" they sang. There is just not conclusive evidence, since the Scriptures do not make it perfectly clear.

Grace and Peace,

JD


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> EP is actually quite freeing. Never again will I have to look back with regret on having sung a song for so long only to come to realize that it teaches bad doctrine. Never again will I have to wonder if the songs I'm currently singing are acceptable to God and whether they contain any error. I still try to remain as exegetical as possible with my arguments for it instead of basing it just on a benefit like that, but I just wanted to point out that it's not a burdensome, legalistic thing.



Well met! And I am certainly not trying to bind your conscience that it is - how can it be a burden when you seek only to do God's will guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit? I do not condemn, I exhort!

My point is, when we get to the point we begin to prescribe EP as the *only* acceptable form of musical worship so that we condemn other's worship outside of EP as sin, then I believe that is legalistic. There is just not a strong enough case to make such a strong claim.

I will concede that there is a good case for EP as a "safe" option, if one is constraining themselves to a very reductionary sense of musical worship and "new" song, but I also believe that there is a strong case for imitative creativity of the Divine (Gen 1:1) (Eph 5:1) and a mandate and liberty to sing new song in that context when it is bounded by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. That is foundational to my systematic in this area.

I also apply the context of the parable of talents - that God has entrusted some with talents in the contemporary usage of the term to glorify God in worship, feed the sheep, equip the saints, as well as welcome in the stranger (Mat. 25:35) in the context of the Great Commission.

I also apply the mandate "Test everything, keep the good" (1Thes. 5:21) in this context by carefully examining the content of any element of worship that I have stewardship of to insure it's appropriateness in worship.

Do I do this perfectly? No, but I do it in the full confidence that my paltry efforts will be acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Just as you can be assured of the same through EP.

Grace and Peace, my brother!

-JD


----------



## panta dokimazete

An additional thought:

I believe that the resonance to EP, particularly to those who come to the Reformed faith from a non-Reformed background, is a reaction to the widespread *lack* of a consistent systematic in the area of musical worship, just as the (my!) resonance to expository preaching as opposed to the non-systematic, topical approach taken by many (most?) non-Reformed preachers.


----------



## Augusta

jdlongmire said:


> I will concede that there is a good case for EP as a "safe" option, if one is constraining themselves to a very reductionary sense of musical worship and "new" song, but I also believe that there is a strong case for imitative creativity of the Divine (Gen 1:1) (Eph 5:1) and a mandate and liberty to sing new song in that context when it is bounded by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. That is foundational to my systematic in this area.



The thing is, it is unprecedented in scripture that humans are allowed to be "creative" when it comes to the worship of God. Not only were the sculpters not allowed to be creative when building the temple but all of the temple design was by God and not only that, he didn't leave the talent up to them either. He charimatically granted them the abilities to carry out the job. (Ex 31)

This also with the Psalms and the playing of instruments. The singers and players were divinely appointed for the job. (1 Chron 15 & 16) 

We can be creative and delight men. We may even delight God with our talents OUTSIDE of worship in the solemn assemblies. We are nowhere given liberty in this area as pertains to worship.


----------



## Davidius

Augusta said:


> The thing is, it is unprecedented in scripture that humans are allowed to be "creative" when it comes to the worship of God. Not only were the sculpters not allowed to be creative when building the temple but all of the temple design was by God and not only that, he didn't leave the talent up to them either. He charimatically granted them the abilities to carry out the job. (Ex 31)
> 
> This also with the Psalms and the playing of instruments. The singers and players were divinely appointed for the job. (1 Chron 15 & 16)
> 
> We can be creative and delight men. We may even delight God with our talents OUTSIDE of worship in the solemn assemblies. We are nowhere given liberty in this area as pertains to worship.





There has never been room for the creativity of man in divine worship. We shouldn't take scriptures that have nothing to do with worship out of context and ruin God's RPW.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Augusta said:


> The thing is, it is unprecedented in scripture that humans are allowed to be "creative" when it comes to the worship of God. Not only were the sculpters not allowed to be creative when building the temple but all of the temple design was by God and not only that, he didn't leave the talent up to them either. He charimatically granted them the abilities to carry out the job. (Ex 31)
> 
> This also with the Psalms and the playing of instruments. The singers and players were divinely appointed for the job. (1 Chron 15 & 16)
> 
> We can be creative and delight men. We may even delight God with our talents OUTSIDE of worship in the solemn assemblies. We are nowhere given liberty in this area as pertains to worship.



Who said we were to be creative in worship apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scripture?

Are you not filled with the Holy Spirit? Does His Spirit not guide us to worship Him in spirit and in truth though Jesus Christ?

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Philippians 3:3
for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Who said we were to be creative in worship apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scripture?
> 
> Are you not filled with the Holy Spirit? Does His Spirit not guide us to worship Him in spirit and in truth though Jesus Christ?
> 
> Colossians 1:16
> For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.



The Spirit guides us through the Word. It sounds like you're talking about some kind of Charismatic notion of being 'led by the Spirit.' What is the Spirit going to tell us to do that isn't already laid out in the bible?


----------



## panta dokimazete

...and the Bible says to sing to the Lord a new song.

Thus the Lord grants us this liberty through the Holy Spirit.

Just as he grants us liberty in prayer.

A Scripture bounded liberty.


----------



## Augusta

jdlongmire said:


> Who said we were to be creative in worship apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scripture?
> 
> Are you not filled with the Holy Spirit? Does His Spirit not guide us to worship Him in spirit and in truth though Jesus Christ?
> 
> Colossians 1:16
> For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
> 
> Philippians 3:3
> for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh



JD, I am sure you know the difference between the way we are filled with the Holy Spirit and the way God filled people with the Holy Spirit for ecstatic works. Are you a cessationist? Do you believe what you might write as a song would be inspired in the same way scripture is inspired? Do you really believe that?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Augusta said:


> JD, I am sure you know the difference between the way we are filled with the Holy Spirit and the way God filled people with the Holy Spirit for ecstatic works. Are you a cessationist? Do you believe what you might write as a song would be inspired in the same way scripture is inspired? Do you really believe that?



no, I do not believe that - I explained that earlier in the thread, I believe.

I believe you are confusing, or think that I am confusing, the categories of inspiration.

I can pray inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit and guided by Scripture in worship without considering my prayer *inspired* in the same manner Scripture was categorically inspired to be written. 

In the same manner, I can compose and sing songs that are inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit and guided by Scripture in worship without considering my song to be *inspired* in the same manner Scripture was categorically inspired to be written.

In both practices, my worship will be made acceptable to God through Christ.

Confusing these categories of inspiration is the error of many Charismatic churches.


----------



## panta dokimazete

A couple other thoughts:

The disciples were specifically given direct or indirect guidance on all the elements of worship, except for songs and singing. If Christ wanted to change or clarify the ordinance of music and song, He could have spoken directly to the issue or had one of the apostles speak directly to it.

Also - how is it that EPers will accept the creative exercise of melody and harmony composition for the Psalms and not the exercise of lyrics guided by the Holy Spirit and Scripture for new songs?

I assure you that the Psalms could be (and probably have been) set to melodies and harmonies that would be VERY unedifying and not glorifying to God.

If the composer can be trusted to glorify God through appropriate melody, harmony and instrumental arrangement, why could they not be trusted to be guided by the Holy Spirit and bound by Scripture to compose new songs to fulfill the Scriptural mandate and commandment of God?


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> A couple other thoughts:
> 
> The disciples were specifically given direct or indirect guidance on all the elements of worship, except for songs and singing. If Christ wanted to change or clarify the ordinance of music and song, He could have spoken directly to the issue or had one of the apostles speak directly to it.



You're right, Christ could've done that, but he didn't. So the apostles and the rest of the early church continued to sing the Psalms, like the Church had been doing for years, and just like Paul encouraged them to do. 



> Also - how is it that EPers will accept the creative exercise of melody and harmony composition for the Psalms and not the exercise of lyrics guided by the Holy Spirit and Scripture for new songs?
> 
> I assure you that the Psalms could be (and probably have been) set to melodies and harmonies that would be VERY unedifying and not glorifying to God.
> 
> If the composer can be trusted to glorify God through appropriate melody, harmony and instrumental arrangement, why could they not be trusted to be guided by the Holy Spirit and bound by Scripture to compose new songs to fulfill the Scriptural mandate and commandment of God?



This is a strawman because we've already been over this. A song, by nature of being such, has rhythm and a tune. We are commanded to sing Psalms but God chose not to include specific tunes in the requirement for singing. Therefore, the tune itself is a circumstance. It is not the element of worship itself. The words are. They're being carried on a tune that is not part of the actual command. 

Also, you used the phrase "guided by the Holy Spirit _and_ scripture" again, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Does the Holy Spirit speak to you other than through the Scripture? Are you a prophet?

We have been promised that the Holy Spirit would be a comforter and a teacher for us, that he would pray for us when we can't find the words. Where does the bible say that one of his jobs is to help us write songs? I'll repeat my sentiment from earlier: If your songs are from the Holy Spirit, they're either already in the bible or they should be added to it.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> How could I foget?
> 
> 
> 
> Kaal - I was simply pointing out the obvious, that this line of conjecture would certainly resonate with the EP position. I think there is good rationale to consider the Hallel Psalms as the "hymns" they sang. There is just not conclusive evidence, since the Scriptures do not make it perfectly clear.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> JD


Well then, since you begrudgingly confess that "there is good rationale to consider the Hallel Psalms as the 'hymns' they sang," is there any "good rationale" to suppose that they sang anything else? Especially uninspired compositions? Maybe hymns to pagan Greek deities or heroes? 

And do the Scriptures have to "make it perfectly clear," i.e. spell it out in so many words, for us to be reasonably certain that they sang the Hallel Psalms? Again, if every commentator, regardless of denomination, theological bent, or conservatism, asserts that they sang the Hallel Psalms, I don't really see what the issue is.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> We have been promised that the Holy Spirit would be a comforter and a teacher for us, that he would pray for us when we can't find the words. Where does the bible say that one of his jobs is to help us write songs? I'll repeat my sentiment from earlier: If your songs are from the Holy Spirit, they're either already in the bible or they should be added to it.



Then so should our prayers, by your logic. Or we should only pray the prayers that have been given to us in Scripture.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Commonly utilized by the early church? The early church that condemned anything other than the 150 Psalms at the Synod of Laodicea and Council of Chalcedon?



I went back and read the Canons of Laodecia - items of note:



> Canon 15
> 
> *No others shall sing in the Church*, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from *a book*.
> 
> Canon 17
> 
> The Psalms are not to be joined together in the congregations, but a lesson shall intervene after every psalm.
> 
> Canon 59
> 
> No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be *read* in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments.



Interesting - it seems the Psalms were read, not sung and the canonical singers (the only singers allowed, hmm...) sang from *a* book, not *the* book of Psalms.

That lends credence to the fact that songs other than the Psalms were sung by the early church, well by the authorized singers of the early church, anyway.



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> One more thing.
> 
> As I already noted in a much earlier post, worship songs other than the Psalms were outlawed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (21 years after Augustine's death) because heresies (like those of the Donatists) were being introduced through such songs. Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo and since the issue probably didn't just fall into the lap of the Council in 451 it's quite likely that Augustine was one of those pushing for this kind of ruling, especially after reading that text.



The only thing I can find in the first Council of Chalcedon about psalms, songs, singing or singers is that they cannot be married into heterodoxy.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This is a strawman because we've already been over this. A song, by nature of being such, has rhythm and a tune. We are commanded to sing Psalms but God chose not to include specific tunes in the requirement for singing. Therefore, the tune itself is a circumstance. It is not the element of worship itself. The words are. They're being carried on a tune that is not part of the actual command.



Dave - we've only been over this inasmuch as you made this assertion and I have not responded, so I wanted to make sure that I did.

We are commanded to sing new song by God, and we are given guidance in the composition of these new songs to do all things by the Holy Spirit, bounded by Scripture, through Jesus Christ, for the glory of God.

New songs can have elements of prayer, praise and preaching - none of which are specifically prescribed as to the content and composition except they must follow the same ruleset described above.

To apply such a strict dictum as EP to the element of song in worship must necessarily lead to the constraint of prayer and preaching to only those elements which have been specifically given in Scripture. 

Exegesis is the liberty (bounded freedom) given by God to the leaders and teachers of the church, in spoken and sung word. 

All elements and circumstances (ex: vernacular and melody) must be guided in the same manner described above, so this liberty applies to the use of instrumental music and the composition of musical accompaniment to songs. (I would say that Handel's Messiah would be a good illustration of the principle - a more modern example would be M.W. Smith's Agnus Dei.)


----------



## CDM

jdlongmire said:


> ...New songs * have elements of prayer, praise and preaching*one of which are specifically prescribed as to the content and composition except they must follow the same ruleset described above.



If these new songs "have elements of prayer praise and preaching" then it follows you would never have women singing these "new songs" in a choir or individual setting during the public worship of God right?


----------



## panta dokimazete

mangum said:


> If these new songs "have elements of prayer praise and preaching" then it follows you would never have women singing these "new songs" in a choir or individual setting during the public worship of God right?



can you say - "leading question"?

No more (or less) than I would allow anyone to participate in corporate prayer or praise in worship. Say in terms of responsive/corporate reading or praying. It would be dependent on the content and context.


----------



## CDM

jdlongmire said:


> can you say - "leading question"?
> 
> No more (or less) than I would allow anyone to participate in corporate prayer or praise in worship. Say in terms of responsive/corporate reading or praying. It would be dependent on the content and context.



It's a logical deduction from your premise. Call it a leading question if you like.

Perhaps you can describe the right context that you would approve of a woman singing a solo or in a choir during the public worship of God?

Thanks.


----------



## panta dokimazete

mangum said:


> It's a logical deduction from your premise. Call it a leading question if you like.
> 
> Perhaps you can describe the right context that you would approve of a woman singing a solo or in a choir during the public worship of God?
> 
> Thanks.



I can think of several - a song setting of the Magnificat jumps immediately to mind - all in context of that person being under the authority of the Elders.


----------



## CDM

So is this singing by the female soloist and/or choir praying and preaching as you mentioned in your earlier post?

"all in context of that person being under the authority of the Elders." How is the context of the woman being under the authority of the Elders shown .... a headcovering?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Help me understand your last post - is your laughter mocking?

If so, we are done.


----------



## CDM

jdlongmire said:


> Help me understand your last post - is your laughter mocking?
> 
> If so, we are done.



No, not mocking you.  My laughing is done with a sense of irony in regard to older posts dealing with visible signs of authority.

Revised post: *So is this singing by the female soloist and/or choir praying and preaching as you mentioned in your earlier post?

"all in context of that person being under the authority of the Elders." How is the context of the woman (or man) being under the authority of the Elders shown or known?*


----------



## panta dokimazete

mangum said:


> No, not mocking you.  My laughing is done with a sense of irony in regard to older posts dealing with visible signs of authority.



Ah, gotcha - didn't catch the reference.  



> Revised post: *So is this singing by the female soloist and/or choir praying and preaching as you mentioned in your earlier post?
> 
> "all in context of that person being under the authority of the Elders." How is the context of the woman (or man) being under the authority of the Elders shown or known?*



I am not sure I understand - in the same context that they can participate in, say, the reading of Scripture and prayer. The Elders have the responsibility, authority and oversight over the content and context of public worship as well as the participators.


----------



## CDM

jdlongmire said:


> Ah, gotcha - didn't catch the reference.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure I understand - in the same context that they can participate in, say, the reading of Scripture and prayer. The Elders have the responsibility, authority and oversight over the content and context of public worship as well as the participators.



Now I'm confused. Let me try to clarify with (hopefully) no leading questions. 

You said,


> New songs can *have elements of prayer, praise and preaching *- none of which are specifically prescribed as to the content and composition except they must follow the same ruleset described above.



Now, for example, a woman is singing a solo to the people of God during public worship. According to your statement(s) this is praying and preaching. So, this is in fact leading the people of God in prayer and in preaching isn't it?


----------



## panta dokimazete

mangum said:


> Now I'm confused. Let me try to clarify with (hopefully) no leading questions.
> 
> You said,
> 
> 
> Now, for example, a woman is singing a solo to the people of God during public worship. According to your statement(s) this is praying and preaching. So, this is in fact leading the people of God in prayer and in preaching isn't it?



I believe I said praise, prayer or preaching and I suppose I should have added all the elements from the WCF - which one of those would you consider the Magnificat?

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths, and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasion; which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.


----------



## CDM

Forget the Magnificat. I am simply trying to get an idea of what you hold to. When a woman is up there singing a solo of _Shine, Jesus Shine_ is it not your belief that she is (can/could be) praying, praising or preaching?

So, again, can she or can't she lead the praying, praising, and preaching? I would assume you'd say "No." BUT my question is wouldn't this be a contradiction?


----------



## Davidius

I wonder how long we can keep this thread going.


----------



## elnwood

jaybird0827 said:


> No, the burden of proof is on those who insist that God has commanded the identification of other "psalms" and the subsequent singing of them by the church. We know that the book of Psalms consists of psalms. We cannot be absolutely certain what other passages qualify as psalms. Who decides that? Where do they get the authority to make that call? You still have not proved that this is authorized, required, or commanded by God. Therefore you cannot bind men's conciences to sing them. That would be implicit faith.



Jaybird, do you even know what a psalm is? A psalm is a type of song. Strong's defines psalmos primarily as "a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode." As I noted, when the bible means from _the_ Psalms or _from the book of Psalms_, it says so, but it doesn't in these passages. To assume that Ephesians 5:18 Colossians 3:16 means specifically the Psalter is just poor exegesis.

When the bible commands that we pray, we don't ask what qualifies as a prayer. Should we only pray _the_ Lord's Prayer, because we cannot be absolutely certain what qualifies as a prayer? No! We know what a prayer is, and we know what a psalm is. We don't assume that we should only pray prayers in the canon, so why should we assume this for songs?


----------



## Davidius

elnwood said:


> Jaybird, do you even know what a psalm is? A psalm is a type of song. Strong's defines psalmos primarily as "a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode." As I noted, when the bible means from _the_ Psalms or _from the book of Psalms_, it says so, but it doesn't in these passages. To assume that Ephesians 5:18 Colossians 3:16 means specifically the Psalter is just poor exegesis.



Actually, poor exegesis is pointing at "hymns and spiritual songs" and saying "aha!" when you can't even define what those two terms are by using the analogy of faith. EPers have done real exegesis in pointing to the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint. What is a spiritual song, Don? How is it different from a hymn?

David, Asaph, and the Sons of Korah were given divine inspiration to write the 150 Psalms especially to be sung by God's people. Where in the New Testament do we get the idea that God decided to change his methodology from given inspiration to certain men to write authoritative songs for the entire church to just letting anyone write any song they want?




> When the bible commands that we pray, we don't ask what qualifies as a prayer. Should we only pray _the_ Lord's Prayer, because we cannot be absolutely certain what qualifies as a prayer? No! We know what a prayer is, and we know what a psalm is. We don't assume that we should only pray prayers in the canon, so why should we assume this for songs?



More poor exegesis. Jesus said pray _like this_ not _pray this_ whereas Paul said _sing *these* songs_ and no where is there a command to _write_ songs.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Jesus said pray _like this_ not _pray this_ whereas Paul said _sing *these* songs_ and no where is there a command to _write_ songs.


 Q186.What rule hath God given for our direction in the duty of prayer?
The whole Word of God is of use to direct us in the duty of praying; (a) but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer, which our Saviour Christ taught his disciples, commonly called the Lord's Prayer. (b)
Q187.How is the Lord's Prayer to be used?
The Lord's Prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern according to which we are to make other prayers; but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer. (c)


----------



## elnwood

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Actually, poor exegesis is pointing at "hymns and spiritual songs" and saying "aha!" when you can't even define what those two terms are by using the analogy of faith. EPers have done real exegesis in pointing to the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint. What is a spiritual song, Don? How is it different from a hymn?
> 
> David, Asaph, and the Sons of Korah were given divine inspiration to write the 150 Psalms especially to be sung by God's people. Where in the New Testament do we get the idea that God decided to change his methodology from given inspiration to certain men to write authoritative songs for the entire church to just letting anyone write any song they want?
> 
> More poor exegesis. Jesus said pray _like this_ not _pray this_ whereas Paul said _sing *these* songs_ and no where is there a command to _write_ songs.



David, I don't think you even understand my post. My argument has nothing to do with "hymns and spiritual songs." My argument is that there is no reason, other than your own presuppositions, that "psalms" in this passage is restricted to the 150 psalms. If Paul intended those passages to mean specifically the 150 Psalms, he had the Greek vocabulary to say so. But he didn't. There is no exegetical reason that those passages must mean the Psalter exclusively.

When is a psalm a psalm? Only if it is part of the canon? Are there only 150 songs ever written that are psalms?


----------



## Davidius

NaphtaliPress said:


> Q187.How is the Lord's Prayer to be used?
> The Lord's Prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern according to which we are to make other prayers; but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer. (c)



Yes, I do understand that the Lord's Prayer may be used as a prayer. I was just making a point by saying that Jesus wasn't restricting us to that, whereas songs for congregational worship have, throughout redemptive history, been limited to that which God has appointed. In other words, the elements of prayer and song are governed by different statues as far as the Regulative Principle is concerned.


----------



## Davidius

elnwood said:


> David, I don't think you even understand my post. My argument has nothing to do with "hymns and spiritual songs." My argument is that there is no reason, other than your own presuppositions, that "psalms" in this passage is restricted to the 150 psalms. If Paul intended those passages to mean specifically the 150 Psalms, he had the Greek vocabulary to say so. But he didn't. There is no exegetical reason that those passages must mean the Psalter exclusively.
> 
> When is a psalm a psalm? Only if it is part of the canon? Are there only 150 songs ever written that are psalms?



A Psalm may be a general term but the question is not "how many meanings does the word 'Psalm' have?" but rather "what did Paul mean when he used those three words?" As I mentioned before, the people of God had been singing THE Psalms for generations, following God's command. Are you saying that Paul, in a quick few strokes of the pen, is completely altering the way we should understand the RPW as it relates to song by saying that we can now just sing whatever we want? The only other problem with that idea is, as I also mentioned earlier, that there is no command to write new songs. Men had been divinely appointed for this task in this task and no one, not even the Apostles, was charged with writing new works. So when Paul just says to sing certain songs you're still adding onto that your own right to write new ones. And so I think my point still stands. We know that Paul's words were used in the titles of the songs. We have apostolic example of the singing of Psalms in the New Testament. We have no new divine appointments of songwriters, nor do we have any divine command to write new songs. Your interpretation of these verses also requires a large shift in the nature and severity of God's RPW, something which I don't see any support for. So I will continue to assert that Paul is using triadic expressions to refer to the Psalms of the Bible.


----------



## Davidius

Before you pull out the "sing a new song" argument on me again, can we just call it quits on this thread?


----------



## panta dokimazete

...and I will continue to assert that Paul was speaking in a language and terms understandable and understood by his audience - mostly Greek speaking gentiles
from pagan backgrounds - that would have certainly been introduced to the Psalms, but would have culturally understood the other forms as distinct from the Psalms or psalms.

God's command in the Psalms and in Isaiah is to sing a *new* song.


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Before you pull out the "sing a new song" argument on me again, can we just call it quits on this thread?



too late!!!   

...but I am ok with that


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> too late!!!
> 
> ...but I am ok with that


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Me thinks the horse stinketh...


----------

