# Is the name of Jesus important in worship?



## panta dokimazete

I ask the question - is it important to integrate the name of Jesus into public worship?


----------



## Coram Deo

Worship itself is in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ....

But not in every element does the name Jesus reside... 
But every element does hold Jesus Christ in his total being without needing to use his name.. His other names can be used instead.. Like Lord, Son, Messiah, His Attributes, His Other Titles, His OWN Words like Psalms 22...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Trevor - is it my question that is not clear?

I am trying to establish whether folks believe that the literal name of Jesus is important to integrate into worship. Is is scriptural? Is it essential? Can one element disregard utilizing the literal name of Jesus normatively?

I don't mean in some legalistic way - just as a matter of principle.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Of course it is. That isn't the EP argument, but I'm not EP so I'll let them speak for themselves.


----------



## Me Died Blue

trevorjohnson said:


> oh, I get it....this is a round-about argument against EP because none of the psalms contain the name of Jesus.... clever.



I noticed that as well...but actually, in order to apply one way or the other to EP, the question would have to be asked with specific regard to the _element of song_ in worship. Depending on what was meant by "worship," it could have little to no relevance to the EP debate, since song is of course only one element of corporate worship.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Me Died Blue said:


> I noticed that as well...but actually, in order to apply one way or the other to EP, the question would have to be asked with specific regard to the _element of song_ in worship. Depending on what was meant by "worship," it could have little to no relevance to the EP debate, since song is of course only one element of corporate worship.



Concur - but my proposition is that the principle of EP is flawed because it proposes the public worship element of song, *unlike any of the other elements*, never, ever, in any circumstance or frequency proclaim or acknowledge the explicit name of the revealed savior and Lord, Jesus.


----------



## Coram Deo

Oh Man...... 

I guess I am in trouble again since I end my prayers with "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit Amen" instead of "in Jesus"

Same goes for our churches that use the samething "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." for Baptism

Of course "SON" is about Jesus, just like Lord and Messiah, and his other revealed attributes in the Psalms. In Fact Psalm 2 calls him the "SON" also....



jdlongmire said:


> Concur - but my proposition is that the principle of EP is flawed because it proposes the public worship element of song, *unlike any of the other elements*, never, ever, in any circumstance or frequency proclaim or acknowledge the explicit name of the revealed savior and Lord, Jesus.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Here is an EP article on the subject:
Singing the Name of Jesus
The Psalm Singer "Can" Sing the Name of Jesus*

*by Richard Bacon*

*Copyright 2002 © First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett*

*See a PDF format of this article in The Blue Banner, v11#1*


*A*n argument is sometimes made against the position of Exclusive Psalmody (the position that one should only sing the inspired songs from the OT Psalms in worship) that since the name of Jesus is not in the OT Psalms, that we must have new hymns for the NT Church. I’ve always been a bit puzzled by the force of this “argument.” I’ve seen the argument many times and expressed in a multitude of ways, but when pressed I’ve never been able to get any of its advocates to put it into a syllogistic form for me. Recently I’ve seen the suggestion that the fact that one does not find the name of Jesus in the Psalter is evidence against using the Psalter as an exclusive praise book. In order for that fact to count as evidence however, it seems to me that a syllogism something like the following would be needed: 
 We are commanded by Scripture to sing the name of Jesus.
 The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.
 Therefore the Psalter is insufficient as a songbook for the church.
However, what is generally proposed is something like: 
 It would be nice in my opinion to sing the name of Jesus.
 The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.
 Therefore I want to use some additional hymns that _do_ contain the name of Jesus.
I do not think we are commanded anywhere in the OT to sing Jesus’ name anymore than we are commanded in the NT to sing it, so I think the argument is a sort of “red herring.” Why is the name of Jesus (an Anglicization of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehoshua) given to our savior? Because, as Matthew 1:21 informs us, “he shall save his people from their sins.” For those non-Hebraists reading this, he is called Yehoshuah (Joshua) because the Hebrew word for salvation is – you guessed it, “Yoshuah.” I wonder how many hymns are written using Jesus’ actual name that his mother or father who named him would have recognized? Probably not many, if any at all. Aside: I would not be surprised to find such hymns in Messianic congregations. 
The Psalter is, however, replete with references to the Savior in his person, work, titles, attributes, and yes even his name. In the Psalms Christ is referred to by his “title” of Messiah (Greek = “Christ”). Of course, because in the Psalms we often find the word translated into English (we should sing with _understanding_ as well as with spirit – 1 Cor. 14:15) we may not immediately recognize it. Never mind – we should learn what Jesus’ name **means** and not simply recite it as a mantra – I think all of us would agree with that regardless of our view of exclusive or non-exclusive Psalmody. 
So then, here is a non-exhaustive list of Psalms that we can sing whenever we want to have Jesus’ title of Christ/Messiah/Anointed on our lips (I’ve included the verse by reference): 
Psalm 2:2; Psalm 18:50; Psalm 20:6; Psalm 28:8; Psalm 45:7 (verbal variant); Psalm 84:9; Psalm 89:20 (verbal variant); Psalm 89:38; Psalm 89:51; Psalm 105:15; Psalm 132:10; Psalm 132:17. 
I realize that it may be possible to sing these passages and have  nothing other than King David in view. That would be a terrible misunderstanding of the Psalms, though. That would be like reading about the tabernacle without Christ in view or “the seed of Abraham” without Christ in view. The New Testament does not provide us with a new songbook in large measure because it teaches us how to *understand* the songbook God gave his church for the ages. In fact, I would maintain that there are some portions of the Psalms that are impossible to understand without a view to Christ (e.g. Psalm 68:18). 
But wait, that list includes Jesus’ title, but not his name *Jesus.* Yes, that is correct. So, does singing the Psalter alone allow us to sing the name of Jesus? Yes, it does if we recall that he is named Jesus because his name is actually the Hebrew word for salvation. It would be more accurate for me to explain that it is *one* of the Hebrew words for salvation. The Psalter uses two cognate words for “salvation.” One is YShU`AH and the other is YSh`AH. If we note carefully, the only difference is the presence or absence of the shureq (letter “u”). The following list of Psalm verses speaks of the name YShU`AH, though you will typically find it translated by the English word “salvation.” These are the places that for all intents and purposes use the Hebrew word for the name of Jesus. For the Hebraists on the list, I should add that there will often be pronominal suffixes attached, but that does not change the fact that we are singing the English *translation* rather than merely the *transliteration* of Jesus’ name. Think of singing “king of the world” in the place of the name “Vladimir” or “Walter” and you will have a similar concept. 
Psalm 3:8; 9:14; 13:5; 14:7; 20:5; 21:1, 5; 35:9; 38:22; 40:10, 16; 50:23; 51:14; 53:6; 62:1, 2, 6; 68:19; 69:29; 70:4; 71:15; 74:12; 78:22; 88:1; 89:26; 91:16; 96:2; 98:2, 3; 106:4; 116:13; 118:14, 15, 21; 119:41, 81, 123, 155, 166, 174; 140:7; 144:10; 149:4. 
These verse numbers are all as found in the English Bible. Something that struck me as I was researching Psalm 89 is that this is the restatement of the Davidic covenant which clearly speaks of Christ and it also contains both his name (translated as “salvation”) and his title “Christ” fully four times. 
Here is the “bottom line” of all this. As William Binnie said in his masterful work on the Psalms we must always read and sing the Psalms with one eye toward David and the other eye toward Christ.


----------



## CDM

When you say "Worship" do you mean just singing? Or the entire service?


----------



## Civbert

Switch my vote to no. "Jesus" does not need to be named explicitly in every worship song. And we always worship "in the name of Jesus". We can sing praises to God the Father, we can worship with Psalms alone, as long as we make it clear that we worship "in Jesus name" (by the authority as Jesus Christ our mediator and priest), and we worship and according to the Word, then we worship rightly. I see no mandate to have the word "Jesus" in every hymn.


----------



## panta dokimazete

thunaer said:


> Oh Man......
> 
> I guess I am in trouble again since I end my prayers with "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit Amen" instead of "in Jesus"
> 
> Same goes for our churches that use the samething "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." for Baptism
> 
> Of course "SON" is about Jesus, just like Lord and Messiah, and his other revealed attributes in the Psalms. In Fact Psalm 2 calls him the "SON" also....



Michael - I hope you had good rest.

Do you agree that the explicit name of the revealed savior and Lord, Jesus, should be acknowledged and integrated into NT worship?


----------



## panta dokimazete

NaphtaliPress said:


> *Here is an EP article on the subject:
> Singing the Name of Jesus
> The Psalm Singer "Can" Sing the Name of Jesus*
> 
> *by Richard Bacon*
> 
> *Copyright 2002 © First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett*
> 
> *See a PDF format of this article in The Blue Banner, v11#1*
> 
> 
> *A*n argument is sometimes made against the position of Exclusive Psalmody (the position that one should only sing the inspired songs from the OT Psalms in worship) that since the name of Jesus is not in the OT Psalms, that we must have new hymns for the NT Church. I’ve always been a bit puzzled by the force of this “argument.” I’ve seen the argument many times and expressed in a multitude of ways, but when pressed I’ve never been able to get any of its advocates to put it into a syllogistic form for me. Recently I’ve seen the suggestion that the fact that one does not find the name of Jesus in the Psalter is evidence against using the Psalter as an exclusive praise book. In order for that fact to count as evidence however, it seems to me that a syllogism something like the following would be needed:
> We are commanded by Scripture to sing the name of Jesus.
> The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.
> Therefore the Psalter is insufficient as a songbook for the church.
> However, what is generally proposed is something like:
> It would be nice in my opinion to sing the name of Jesus.
> The Psalter nowhere contains the name of Jesus.
> Therefore I want to use some additional hymns that _do_ contain the name of Jesus.




His proposition is flawed, thus his conclusions are flawed.

P1 OT worship elements (including the Psalms) were incomplete in that christos was not explicitly revealed.

P2 Jesus is the explicitly revealed name of our Lord and Savior, so we are now able to worship our revealed savior and Lord in greater completeness.

C1 As the NT church, we should incorporate the revealed name of Jesus into every element of worship to truly worship in spirit and truth revealed.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Nu uh.


----------



## jsup

To say that the Old Testament is incomplete because the name of Jesus hadn't been explicity revealed is faulty. The Old Testament writers were inspired by God to write *exactly* what He told them. To say that you shouldn't use the Psalms because they don't bear the name of Jesus excludes the names of the Father and Spirit. That's like saying don't study Revelation because it's incomplete. Yes, Jesus is the name above all names, but God hasn't made the OT obsolete because the Messiah hadn't arrived then. Are we not sing praises to Him with "psalms" and spiritual songs?


----------



## panta dokimazete

jsup said:


> To say that the Old Testament is incomplete because the name of Jesus hadn't been explicity revealed is faulty. The Old Testament writers were inspired by God to write *exactly* what He told them. To say that you shouldn't use the Psalms because they don't bear the name of Jesus excludes the names of the Father and Spirit. That's like saying don't study Revelation because it's incomplete. Yes, Jesus is the name above all names, but God hasn't made the OT obsolete because the Messiah hadn't arrived then. Are we not sing praises to Him with "psalms" and spiritual songs?



Again - the point is missed.

No one is proposing that the Psalms be ignored or that the OT is obsolete.

The proposition is that requiring the singing the Psalms *exclusively* implicitly forbids the NT church to incorporate the explicitly revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus, into the public expression of worship in song. *Unlike any other public worship element.*


----------



## jsup

Yet, you missed my point. Like Thunaer said, the name of Jesus doesn't reside in every element of worship, nor does it have to. If a church wants to sing exclusively psalms, God isn't forbidding them. Our Lord is still being worshipped. 

There might have been some missing words in the your last paragraph so I'm not quite sure where the proposition is coming from. Also, I'm not sure where the forbidding is coming from. Please elaborate.


----------



## Herald

I voted "other." Maybe I just have a hang-up on the term "public worship." I prefer "corporate worship." I believe the name of Jesus should be central to our worship. Prayer is part of worship and we do pray in the name of Jesus Christ.

As far as the the tie to EP, pretty clever JD.  

I still don't understand the whole EP debate. I've read many of the articles and links posted on the subject and at best I find a strong case for EP, but not an exclusive mandate. I am thankful that the EP side has awakened my interest in the psalms. They should be an integral part of our worship in song. I'm just not sold on the exclusivity position. Some have become so particular on the EP issue that it becomes the make or break litmus test of the church they will attend. For example: I'm a Baptist and would prefer to be part of a local body that is Baptistic. If I was looking for a Baptist church and found one that had solid preaching, proper implementation of the sacraments/ordinances of the church, exhibited the love of Christ and was EP, I would have no problem aligning myself with that body. On the other hand if I were an EP Baptist and the only EP church I could find in my area was Presbyterian, I would not attend that church simply because it is EP. I consider the other components of worship to have equal weight and would choose the church that is more in line with the majority of those components.


----------



## Civbert

jdlongmire said:


> The proposition is that requiring the singing the Psalms *exclusively* implicitly forbids the NT church to incorporate the explicitly revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus, into the public expression of worship in song. *Unlike any other public worship element.*



Which doesn't matter is the worship service explicitly calls on the name of Jesus Christ as the sole authority for worship. If by prayer or liturgy, (the athority of) the name of Jesus is clearly proclaimed, then the singing of psalms is true worship. The only way psalm singing could come short of true worship would be if the whole worship service did not proclaim Christ as Lord. 

And also, it's not simply Jesus, but Jesus Christ. And we can also say "the Son of God" or the Messiah. The point is to identify the person who was crucified for our sins and rose again. Not just Jesus, but Jesus and him crucified. Jesus the Christ. 

As long as it is clear by who's authority we worship God with, then it doesn't matter if the word "Jesus" is used in our singing. There's no mandate for the word "Jesus" to be used in our worship songs.

When we use the phrase "the name of Jesus" we are speaking about His Lordship. We are not saying "Jesus" the word has power, but the one named "Jesus" is our Lord.


----------



## Herald

Civbert said:


> Which doesn't matter is the worship service explicitly calls on the name of Jesus Christ as the sole authority for worship. If by prayer or liturgy, (the athority of) the name of Jesus is clearly proclaimed, then the singing of psalms is true worship. The only way psalm singing could come short of true worship would be if the whole worship service did not proclaim Christ as Lord.
> 
> And also, it's not simply Jesus, but Jesus Christ. And we can also say "the Son of God" or the Messiah. The point is to identify the person who was crucified for our sins and rose again. Not just Jesus, but Jesus and him crucified. Jesus the Christ.
> 
> As long as it is clear by who's authority we worship God with, then it doesn't matter if the word "Jesus" is used in our singing. There's no mandate for the word "Jesus" to be used in our worship songs.
> 
> When we use the phrase "the name of Jesus" we are speaking about His Lordship. We are not saying "Jesus" the word has power, but the one named "Jesus" is our Lord.



Anthony - good points. It's really not about EP in this instance. It's all about the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and His rightful place in our worship.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Again - the point is missed.
> 
> No one is proposing that the Psalms be ignored or that the OT is obsolete.



JD,

Even if you don't think the Psalms are completely obsolete it doesn't seem like you think they're _the best_. Shouldn't we always want to bring God the best we can offer in worship? If so, and assuming that you consider NT-era hymns of human composition to be _better_ than the Psalms, wouldn't we want to always forgo the use of Psalms for what were better?


----------



## etexas

Witness Saint Paul, notice how often he incorporates the name of Our Lord into his Spirit guided Epistles. I think we are to learn from this.


----------



## dcomin

OK... here goes a newbie jumping in on a discussion... 

This whole argument against EP has always puzzled me. Why is it insisted that the want of the particular name "Jesus" in the Psalms somehow renders them less Christ-centered or Christ-honoring? 

Paul exhorts us to "Let the WORD of Christ dwell in you richly" - not "Let the name of Jesus dwell in your richly." The Psalms are so full of the glory and beauty of Jesus, it is impossible to sing them in the spirit without explicitely praising the Redeemer of whom they testify. The requirement that worship songs, in order to be truly honoring to His finished work, must incorporate the same "Jesus" doesn't make any sense to me. Who else are the Psalms about? Is He not glorified in them through their revelation of His many other names, acts and attributes? And don't the Psalter's references to the Lord as our "Savior" even anticipate the New Covenant name of Jesus (which we now sing in full appreciation of who He is)? 

I sing songs in praise of Jesus - specifically - every time a open my Psalter.


----------



## Coram Deo

Welcome, and what a great jumping in you did... 

I agree, and it is getting rather ridicules saying that Christ in NOT in the Psalm...

For all you Non-Eppers out there.. Here is alittle list for you all.....

*Christ in the Psalms*

Jesus Christ, the King (portrayed in Matthew)
Chapter 2 – Christ rejected as King of the nations
Chapter 18 – Christ is Protector and Deliverer
Chapter 20 – Christ provides salvation
Chapter 21 – Christ is given glory by God
Chapter 24 – Christ is King of Glory
Chapter 47 – Christ rules in His kingdom
Chapter 110 – Christ is King-Priest
Chapter 132 – Christ is enthroned

Jesus Christ, the Servant (portrayed in Mark)
Chapter 17 – Christ is Intercessor
Chapter 17 22 – Christ is dying Savior
Chapter 17 23 – Christ is Shepherd
Chapter 17 40 – Christ is obedient unto death
Chapter 17 41 – Christ is betrayed by a close friend
Chapter 17 69 – Chris is hated without cause
Chapter 17 109 – Christ loves those who reject Him

Jesus Christ, the Son of Man (portrayed in Luke)
Chapter 17 8 – Christ is made a little lower than angels
Chapter 17 16 – Christ’s resurrection is promised
Chapter 17 40 – Christ’s resurrection is realized

Jesus Christ, the Son of God (portrayed in John)
Chapter 17 19 – Christ is Creator
Chapter 17 102 – Christ is eternal
Chapter 17 118 – Christ is the Chief Cornerstone



Here are some of the specific prophecies about Jesus in the Book of Psalms:
Psalm Prophecy Fulfillment

2:7 God will declare Him to be His Son Matthew 3:17
8:6 All things will be put under His feet Hebrews 2:8
16:10 He will be resurrected from the dead Mark 16:6-7
22:1 God will forsake Him in His hour of need Matthew 27:46
22:7-8 He will be scorned and mocked Luke 23:35
22:16 His hands and feet will be pierced John 20:25,27
22:18 Others will gamble for His clothes Matthew 27:35-36
34:20 Not one of His bones will be broken John 19:32-33, 36
35:11 He will be accused by false witnesses Mark 14:57
35:19 He will be hated without a cause John 15:25
40:7-8 He will come to do God’s will Hebrews 10:7
41:9 He will be betrayed by a friend Luke 22:47
45:6 His throne will be forever Hebrews 1:8
68:18 He will ascend to God’s right hand Mark 16:19
69:9 Zeal for God’s house will consume Him John 2:17
69:21 He will be given vinegar and gall to drink Matthew 27:34
109:4 He will pray for His enemies Luke 23:34
109:8 His betrayer’s office will be fulfilled by another Acts 1:20
110:1 His enemies will be made subject to Him Matthew 22:44
110:4 He will be a priest like Melchizedek Hebrews 5:6
118:22 He will be the chief cornerstone Matthew 21:42
118:26 He will come in the name of the Lord Matthew 21:9



New Testament Subjects in the Book of Psalms

Trinity Psalm 110:1

Ps 110:1 Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Cross Psalm 22

Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm. It is also a Passion Psalm, telling of the death of the Christ and His Atonement. 

It starts with "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me" and ends with "It is Finished"




dcomin said:


> OK... here goes a newbie jumping in on a discussion...
> 
> This whole argument against EP has always puzzled me. Why is it insisted that the want of the particular name "Jesus" in the Psalms somehow renders them less Christ-centered or Christ-honoring?
> 
> Paul exhorts us to "Let the WORD of Christ dwell in you richly" - not "Let the name of Jesus dwell in your richly." The Psalms are so full of the glory and beauty of Jesus, it is impossible to sing them in the spirit without explicitely praising the Redeemer of whom they testify. The requirement that worship songs, in order to be truly honoring to His finished work, must incorporate the same "Jesus" doesn't make any sense to me. Who else are the Psalms about? Is He not glorified in them through their revelation of His many other names, acts and attributes? And don't the Psalter's references to the Lord as our "Savior" even anticipate the New Covenant name of Jesus (which we now sing in full appreciation of who He is)?
> 
> I sing songs in praise of Jesus - specifically - every time a open my Psalter.


----------



## dcomin

Thanks for that wonderful list, Michael! 

Basically, the argument comes to this - The Psalms are perfect songs of praise, because they are immediately inspired by God. They are full of Christ, who owns them as His very words and who is everywhere anticipated in them. BUT, they don't specifically mention the particular name "Jesus," by which the Redeemer was revealed in the New Covenant -

THEREFORE...

We will write new songs, not perfect, because not immediately inspired by God, but somehow BETTER than the Psalms because we have included in them the name "Jesus." 

What am I missing?


----------



## Coram Deo

It's Mostly dem Baptist out there..

I am one, but they sure make me want to reconsider my credo baptist stance sometimes...... 





dcomin said:


> Thanks for that wonderful list, Michael!
> 
> Basically, the argument comes to this - The Psalms are perfect songs of praise, because they are immediately inspired by God. They are full of Christ, who owns them as His very words and who is everywhere anticipated in them. BUT, they don't specifically mention the particular name "Jesus," by which the Redeemer was revealed in the New Covenant -
> 
> THEREFORE...
> 
> We will write new songs, not perfect, because not immediately inspired by God, but somehow BETTER than the Psalms because we have included in them the name "Jesus."
> 
> What am I missing?


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> Thanks for that wonderful list, Michael!
> 
> Basically, the argument comes to this - The Psalms are perfect songs of praise, because they are immediately inspired by God.



No one said they are imperfect, just incomplete.



> They are full of Christ, who owns them as His very words and who is everywhere anticipated in them. BUT, they don't specifically mention the particular name "Jesus," by which the Redeemer was revealed in the New Covenant -



Thus the source of their incompleteness.

Is the OT a complete revelation of Christ? no NT needed?



> THEREFORE...
> 
> We will write new songs, not perfect, because not immediately inspired by God, but somehow BETTER than the Psalms because we have included in them the name "Jesus."
> 
> What am I missing?



You are missing the fact that our worship is more complete than the OT worshipers - we have the revealed name of messiah to include in our worship, thus, along with the Psalms we have been given the warrant to write hymns and spiritual songs so that we can more completely worship in spirit and truth in the light of the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus.


----------



## dcomin

jdlongmire said:


> No one said they are imperfect, just incomplete.



OK... I see the distinction you're making... but I still disagree. You might very well say that the Psalms _were _incomplete during the Old Testament economy, because Christ had not yet been revealed. But that's a far cry from maintaining that they are _now _incomplete, given the fact that the light of Christ's completed work now illuminates them and shows us the fullness of the Redeemer in them. You can't look at the Psalms (or any part of the Old Testament) in abstraction from the New. The fact that we have the New Testament is precisely the reason that the Psalms are no longer "incomplete" for us.




jdlongmire said:


> You are missing the fact that our worship is more complete than the OT worshipers - we have the revealed name of messiah to include in our worship, thus, along with the Psalms we have been given the warrant to write hymns and spiritual songs so that we can more completely worship in spirit and truth in the light of the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus.



I grant that our understanding of Christ, and thus our worship of Him, is more complete than our OT counterparts. But, again, that completeness of understanding only illuminates the Psalms in His light and allows us to sing them with far more clarity of understanding than they were able to do. 

As for the statement, "we have been given the warrant to write hymns and spiritual songs so that we can more completely worship in spirit and truth in the light of the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus" I would respectfully request a scripture proof for such a warrant. 

Thanks for the brotherly exchange... and for taking it easy on the new guy


----------



## CDM

jdlongmire said:


> No one said they are imperfect, just incomplete.



If they are incomplete (i.e., missing something) then they are not perfect.


----------



## dcomin

Good point.


----------



## jsup

Quick! Someone slip in the name Jesus into the OT and then we've completed God's Word for Him. Will anyone notice?


----------



## crhoades

Worthwhile book to pick up:
The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Paperback)


----------



## Augusta

I selected 'other' because corporate worship includes all the elements and we by default include the name of Jesus in when we pray in his name. The Psalms are Jesus speaking about himself, to say they are incomplete without the Anglicized version of his name is ludicrus In my humble opinion. 

JD you need to have some scriptural backing for this new rule you have come up with that Christ's Anglicized name has to be in EACH element. I think we could even safely pray in "the savior's name" and we would be praying in the name of Jesus because his is in fact "Savior." We could conduct a whole service without using the Anglicized "Jesus" and use "Savior" instead and still be praising Him.


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> OK... I see the distinction you're making... but I still disagree. You might very well say that the Psalms _were _incomplete during the Old Testament economy, because Christ had not yet been revealed. But that's a far cry from maintaining that they are _now _incomplete, given the fact that the light of Christ's completed work now illuminates them and shows us the fullness of the Redeemer in them. You can't look at the Psalms (or any part of the Old Testament) in abstraction from the New. The fact that we have the New Testament is precisely the reason that the Psalms are no longer "incomplete" for us.



Agree in the sense that the messianic psalms are fulfilled.

Disagree in the sense that the explicit name of Jesus is not there.

See below for my rationale.



> I grant that our understanding of Christ, and thus our worship of Him, is more complete than our OT counterparts. But, again, that completeness of understanding only illuminates the Psalms in His light and allows us to sing them with far more clarity of understanding than they were able to do.
> 
> As for the statement, "we have been given the warrant to write hymns and spiritual songs so that we can more completely worship in spirit and truth in the light of the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus" I would respectfully request a scripture proof for such a warrant.



Well met - I am primarily basing the warrant utilizing these 2 Scriptures.

Ephesians 5

19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 

Colossians 3:15-17 

15And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. 

And this additional rationale:

No-one disputes the command to sing the Psalms.

The Psalms prophesy Jesus. 

The Psalms command us to sing new songs.

The above, plus the fact that the NT writers under the influence of the Holy Spirit took multiple opportunities to frequently and explicitly name *Jesus* as Christ - name and role - sometimes just by name. It is a good and necessary consequence that including his name and role are important components of worshipping God in the fullness of spirit and truth.

Thus, along with singing the Psalms, we should compose hymns and spiritual songs in the name of Jesus, utilizing the explicitly revealed name of our savior and lord, Jesus, employing our mind and spirit, just as we do when we compose new prayers.



> Thanks for the brotherly exchange... and for taking it easy on the new guy



Enjoying the dialog! Iron sharpens iron!


----------



## panta dokimazete

hit reply instead of cancel


----------



## toddpedlar

JD - 

You will agree, I'm sure, that if in fact the Psalms are the commanded form (I know you reject this premise) of worship in song, then it's irrelevant that they are, to use your words, "incomplete". Hence, the lack of the name "Jesus" in the Psalms really isn't germane to the argument.

Todd


----------



## dcomin

jdlongmire said:


> Well met - I am primarily basing the warrant utilising these 2 Scriptures.
> 
> Ephesians 5
> 
> 19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
> 
> Colossians 3:15-17
> 
> 15And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. 16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.



These texts certainly provide a mandate to sing the canonical Psalms, since they are the only psalms, hymns and songs that can be truly called "spiritual" (i.e., inspired) and that are rightly characterized as "the Word of Christ." But I fail to see how an exhortation to "do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus" can be construed as a mandate that the songs that are sung actually incorporate that particular Anglicized name. The hermeneutic you are applying here is the same used by the "Jesus Only" crowd. The phrase "in the name of Jesus" has a much broader meaning in Scripture, as it refers to the spirit in which the thing is done. Surely, if the Psalms are indeed "the word of Christ" then when we sing them in His praise, fully informed by the completed revelation of the New Testament, we are singing them "in the name of Jesus."




jdlongmire said:


> And this additional rationale:
> 
> No-one disputes the command to sing the Psalms.
> 
> The Psalms prophesy Jesus.
> 
> The Psalms command us to sing new songs.



This gets us into an entirely new area of discussion - namely, what is meant by the command to sing "new" songs. Your assumption is that "new" refers to content. But a strong case can be made that "new" refers to the sense in which the meaning of the songs is perceived and understood. I could go into much more detail here, but I don't want to go too far afield of the original question. Suffice it to say that the command in the Psalms for God's people to sing "new songs" is not necessarily to be understood as a command to _*compose *_new songs. 



jdlongmire said:


> The above, plus the fact that the NT writers under the influence of the Holy Spirit took multiple opportunities to frequently and explicitly name *Jesus* as Christ - name and role - sometimes just by name. It is a good and necessary consequence that including his name and role are important components of worshipping God in the fullness of spirit and truth.



If the above points do not stand, this point alone is pretty weak. Certainly the name and role of Jesus are important to our worship, but the apostolic use of His name and titles hardly mandates that such be included in every element of worship. 



jdlongmire said:


> Thus, along with singing the Psalms, we should compose hymns and spiritual songs in the name of Jesus, utilizing the explicitly revealed name of our savior and lord, Jesus, employing our mind and spirit, just as we do when we compose new prayers.



Again, I don't believe you have demonstrated anything close to a biblical mandate to *compose *new hymns and spiritual songs in the name of Jesus.


----------



## dcomin

jdlongmire said:


> The psalms command us to sing new songs



In reference to the meaning of "new songs," here is an excerpt from my book, "Worship: From Genesis to Revelation" -

*The songs of the redeemed are the old songs made new. *(Revelation 14:1-5)

Many have seen in the reference to the “new song” of the redeemed not only a justification, but a virtual mandate, for the New Covenant Church to compose original songs of praise for use in the worship of God, rather than singing exclusively the Psalms of David, which was the practice of the Church in its purest days from the days of the apostles until relatively recent times. David Chilton’s comments are typical: “The New Song is… the new liturgy necessitated and brought about by the new epoch in the history of redemption. And this liturgy, the exultant response of the redeemed, belongs to the Church alone: No one could learn the Song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who have been purchased from the Land.”

One of the problems with this argument is that it fails to take into account the symbolic nature of the book of Revelation. As Michael Bushell notes, “The songs of Revelation cannot be abstracted from their apocalyptic context. They are an integral part of a very complex prophetic vision, not instances of apostolic worship practice intended to serve as a pattern for our own services of worship.”

An additional question must be asked: Does this text provide a justification for the assertion that a “new liturgy is necessitated and brought about by the new epoch in the history of redemption?” Consider the following:

1. John refers to “a new song” (singular), rather than “new songs” (plural). He is therefore not referring to the composition of a collection of songs, but to the concept of Song, as an expression of adoration before the Throne of God.

2. John uses a particle of comparison, the Greek word “hoce,” which is translated “as it were.” From this it is evident that his intention was not to identify the song that he heard as “new” in a definitive way, but rather to describe it in terms of simile, as being “like” a new song. A similar form of this particle is used in Luke 22:44 where we are told that Jesus prayed earnestly and “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” The intention was not to say that Jesus actually sweat drops of blood, but that his sweat was “like” great drops of blood. Likewise, John does not intend us to understand that he heard an actual “new song,” but that what he heard was “like” a new song.

3. John says that “no one could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.” Again, it is apparent that he is not speaking of the content of a specific song, for anyone can learn the music and lyrics of particular songs, regardless of whether or not they are redeemed. John refers instead to the meaning of the Song that he heard, which was concealed from the minds of those who did not have the understanding of faith.

With these important considerations from the text in mind, is it not possible – even probable – that John’s words here make perfect and glorious sense when seen in the light of the Church’s use of the Psalms of David in its worship assemblies? Remember that the Psalms were the exclusive praise songs of the apostolic Church. Man-written hymns were not introduced until hundreds of years after John wrote. When a Jew was converted to Christ, the Psalms of David, which he had sung from his infancy, suddenly became – in a very real sense – “new songs!” Did not Paul say, “For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14).

And what do we find in the case of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus? “Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in … the Psalms concerning Me. And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45). How must the words of Psalm 2, or 22, or 45, or 110, or 118 have sounded like new songs to those who had been accustomed to singing them in the shadows of unrevealed realities! 

The effect of the light of the Gospel upon the remnant of Israel redeemed by His grace was to cause them to sing “as it were, a New Song” unto the Lord – not “new” in substance or content, but “new” in richness of meaning and fullness of glory to the God and Savior of men! Seen in this light, the song of the redeemed, which was “as it were, a new song,” and which could only be learned by them, shows us the wonderful way in which the Psalms come alive with meaning in the full light of Christ’s redemption to those whose eyes are opened to see their testimony concerning Jesus.


----------



## elnwood

This is tangential, but related ... in this post-resurrection period, can one truly be said to have shared the gospel if they do not mention the name Jesus? Can be one be saved if they do not confess the name Jesus?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

dcomin said:


> In reference to the meaning of "new songs," here is an excerpt from my book, "Worship: From Genesis to Revelation" -



Available here.


----------



## dcomin

Thanks Andrew! Here ya go...


----------



## panta dokimazete

toddpedlar said:


> JD -
> 
> You will agree, I'm sure, that if in fact the Psalms are the commanded form (I know you reject this premise) of worship in song, then it's irrelevant that they are, to use your words, "incomplete". Hence, the lack of the name "Jesus" in the Psalms really isn't germane to the argument.
> 
> Todd



hmmm - it depends on what you consider the premise. If the RPW is the starting point then does the explicit name of Jesus (originatives or derivatives) have any relevance in worship?

If it does, then the relevance to EP follows.


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> This gets us into an entirely new area of discussion - namely, what is meant by the command to sing "new" songs. Your assumption is that "new" refers to content. But a strong case can be made that "new" refers to the sense in which the meaning of the songs is perceived and understood. I could go into much more detail here, but I don't want to go too far afield of the original question. Suffice it to say that the command in the Psalms for God's people to sing "new songs" is not necessarily to be understood as a command to compose new songs.



hm - I have always found this to be the opposite - "new song" should be considered in the sense it was originally contextualized - it is weaker to propose that "new song" does not actually mean compose and sing new songs. You don't have to qualify it for one. "New song" betrays the EP presupposition.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> hmmm - it depends on what you consider the premise. If the RPW is the starting point then does the explicit name of Jesus (originatives or derivatives) have any relevance in worship?
> 
> If it does, then the relevance to EP follows.



No, the only thing that has relevance if the RPW is the starting point is what God has authorized. So he was right; this point is absolutely irrelevant (to one who understands the RPW, at least). If God were to tell us to dance around and cluck like chickens it doesn't matter what we think about it or that we would be clucking instead of saying Jesus' name.


----------



## toddpedlar

jdlongmire said:


> hmmm - it depends on what you consider the premise. If the RPW is the starting point then does the explicit name of Jesus (originatives or derivatives) have any relevance in worship?
> 
> If it does, then the relevance to EP follows.



You seem to be resting your claim on the fact that under EP, one cannot sing the specific Greek version of our Lord's name in worship song. My point is that such an argument doesn't address whether EP is correct or not. EP has to be argued for (or against) based on Scripture - and nowhere that i know of is there a Scriptural command to pronounce the name "Jesus" while singing in worship.

Since there is no such command, I don't believe it's proper to try to construct an argument based on the (what I see as purely) sentimental argument that we ought to sing Jesus' name. 

Todd


----------



## Ravens

There are red herrings on both sides. The "Jesus name" issue is a red herring on the non-EP side. in my opinion, even the "inspired is better" is a bit of a red herring on the EP side.

The fundamental issue for anyone who agrees on the RPW is:

*What has God authorized, what has He commanded us to sing?*

Period. If one doesn't see that, one doesn't understand the RPW.


----------



## panta dokimazete

toddpedlar said:


> You seem to be resting your claim on the fact that under EP, one cannot sing the specific Greek version of our Lord's name in worship song.





> My point is that such an argument doesn't address whether EP is correct or not. EP has to be argued for (or against) based on Scripture - and nowhere that i know of is there a Scriptural command to pronounce the name "Jesus" while singing in worship. Since there is no such command, I don't believe it's proper to try to construct an argument based on the (what I see as purely) sentimental argument that we ought to sing Jesus' name.



Todd - this is not an appeal to emotion, although the debate can certainly drive strong feelings.

I am baffled that there must be an explicit command to *sing* the name of our savior in public worship. Even though it is by that name we are saved. Are we not commanded to confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord? What do people sing with? Why would we exclude singing from the act of confessing to the world that Jesus is Lord?

The EP'er *must* concur with this statement:

_God forbids the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship._

and in the same manner:

_It is sin for the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship._


----------



## toddpedlar

jdlongmire said:


> Todd - this is not an appeal to emotion, although the debate can certainly drive strong feelings.
> 
> I am baffled that there must be an explicit command to *sing* the name of our savior in public worship.



It all hinges on what you believe the proper mode of worship to be. We might think it's right to sing Christ's name during worship - but if it is true that only the Psalms are commanded to be sung, then what we think about the rightness of signing Christ's name is irrelevant. 



> Even though it is by that name we are saved. Are we not commanded to confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord? What do people sing with? Why would we exclude singing from the act of confessing to the world that Jesus is Lord?
> 
> The EP'er *must* concur with this statement:
> 
> _God forbids the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship._
> 
> and in the same manner:
> 
> _It is sin for the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship._




Would it have been a sin for a priest of Israel, to consult with a 
chemist and get some really nice, new and sweet smelling incense to burn
in the temple during his temple service? He'd be following the command
to make a sweet aroma to his Lord, after all.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Todd - do you agree that these statements are good and necessary consequences derived from Scripture?

_God forbids the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.

It is sin for the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship._

Does any EP'er?


----------



## toddpedlar

jdlongmire said:


> Todd - do you agree that these statements are good and necessary consequences derived from Scripture?
> 
> _God forbids the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.
> 
> It is sin for the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship._
> 
> Does any EP'er?



I'm not sold on EP, but I am trying to appreciate the arguments made - and 
they seem to me to be quite sound. I will answer you that if indeed
the Psalms are the only lawful songs to be sung in worship, then singing
the name of Jesus in corporate worship is a sin, as ridiculous as that sounds
to you. However ridiculous sounding that sentence might be to some,
if God has dictated a particular pattern of worship for believers, then 
to do contrary things is sin. The case is quite simple from that perspective.

Now what is needful is the case to be made that in fact God does 
prescribe the Psalms as our only worship song (and that is a case that
has been argued ad infinitum in other places)

I'm a bit concerned that it seems that all you're trying to do is make a 
ridiculous-sounding sentence come out of the lips of an EP'er, in order to 
make their case look bad, and yours, good. That's not particularly sound
argumentation, nor is it particularly cordial (admittedly, you might not be
attempting to do what I said you seem to be doing - but it has all the marks 
of it). 

However, you didn't answer my question about the incense - and it's
relevant - quite clearly so.

Would a priest, offering up an offering of incense in the temple, using
an incense of his own composition (super-duper sweet, let's say), 
be guilty of sin? He understands that God approves of a sweet-smelling
aroma, so he decided, as part of his priestly duties, to do this good
thing.

Would he be guilty of sin? Yes. Why? The answer is the same
(again, assuming EP) as the answer I gave above - because it is
contrary to God's prescribed pattern of worship.


----------



## elnwood

elnwood said:


> This is tangential, but related ... in this post-resurrection period, can one truly be said to have shared the gospel if they do not mention the name Jesus? Can be one be saved if they do not confess the name Jesus?



To continue my thought, is the gospel still fully present in this era without the name of Jesus? Can people still be saved through the promise through types and shadows of the Old Testament?

If proclaiming the name of Jesus is a necessary part of the gospel in the New Testament period (and I believe it is), why is the name of Jesus forbidden to be sung in the church? Are we saying that we should sing songs that do not contain the full gospel message?


----------



## toddpedlar

elnwood said:


> To continue my thought, is the gospel still fully present in this era without the name of Jesus? Can people still be saved through the promise through types and shadows of the Old Testament?



Absolutely not.



> If proclaiming the name of Jesus is a necessary part of the gospel in the New Testament period (and I believe it is), why is the name of Jesus forbidden to be sung in the church? Are we saying that we should sing songs that do not contain the full gospel message?



The question of forbidding singing His name in worship can only be resolved by looking at what God requires in worship. If God requires the Psalms only, then Jesus' name is forbidden to be sung in the church. 

As for the "full gospel message", one shouldn't look to one or another element of worship and expect to get the "full gospel message" each and every time that element is participated in. A reading from many sections of the OT (and the NT, for that matter!) often won't contain the "full gospel message". Your potential test, then, isn't particularly stringent.


----------



## panta dokimazete

toddpedlar said:


> I'm not sold on EP, but I am trying to appreciate the arguments made - and
> they seem to me to be quite sound. I will answer you that if indeed
> the Psalms are the only lawful songs to be sung in worship, then singing
> the name of Jesus in corporate worship is a sin, as ridiculous as that sounds
> to you. However ridiculous sounding that sentence might be to some,
> if God has dictated a particular pattern of worship for believers, then
> to do contrary things is sin. The case is quite simple from that perspective.



But the fundamental question is:

*Who* (not *how*) has God commanded us to worship?

If we are not commanded to worship and include the explicit name of Jesus, we are sinning if we do.

If we are commanded to use the name of Jesus in worship, that drives _every other conclusion._

*How* is a product of this fundamental question.



> I'm a bit concerned that it seems that all you're trying to do is make a
> ridiculous-sounding sentence come out of the lips of an EP'er, in order to
> make their case look bad, and yours, good. That's not particularly sound
> argumentation, nor is it particularly cordial (admittedly, you might not be
> attempting to do what I said you seem to be doing - but it has all the marks
> of it).



I appreciate your concern - it is mostly reductio ad absurdum, though.

The conclusion to the premise is untenable or undesirable.

If it is non sequitur - I am willing to learn...



> However, you didn't answer my question about the incense - and it's
> relevant - quite clearly so.
> 
> Would a priest, offering up an offering of incense in the temple, using
> an incense of his own composition (super-duper sweet, let's say),
> be guilty of sin? He understands that God approves of a sweet-smelling
> aroma, so he decided, as part of his priestly duties, to do this good
> thing.
> 
> Would he be guilty of sin? Yes. Why? The answer is the same
> (again, assuming EP) as the answer I gave above - because it is
> contrary to God's prescribed pattern of worship.



The answer on the incense - absolutely agree and not relevant to my point.

My point is a fundamental question - does God desire the explicit name of Jesus to be integrated into our worship? 

Based on the good and necessary consequences of Scripture and the Holy Spirit (WCF 2:6) - the answer should be plainly - "Yes!"

That answer then invalidates the fundamental premise of EP - that the Psalms are the sufficient and complete songbook for the NT church, since they do not contain the explicit name of Jesus, anglicized or in other forms.

They certainly contain _christos_ - no argument - but if _there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved_ (Acts 4:12) - what is that name?

Hebrews 13:15
Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name.


----------



## panta dokimazete

toddpedlar said:


> The question of forbidding singing His name in worship can only be resolved by looking at what God requires in worship. If God requires the Psalms only, then Jesus' name is forbidden to be sung in the church.





the apostle Paul said:


> 2 Thessalonians 1:12
> 
> We pray this so that *the name of our Lord Jesus* may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.





> WCF 2:10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.


Examining the fruit of the EP doctrine through the lens of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture clearly resolves this issue. For me, anyway.


----------



## Kaalvenist

All of our worship is to be offered in the name of Jesus Christ, by the name of Jesus Christ, for the name of Jesus Christ. ALL OF IT. Whether or not the name "Jesus" is particularly mentioned. And you believe this too. If you sing Psalms in worship, JD, you should be singing them in the name, by the name, for the name. If baptism is administered in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned in the formula for baptism. If the Lord's Prayer is prayed in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned. If the Old Testament is read (or probably preached from) in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned. But the name of Jesus is still being honored. Your argument rests upon some supposed explicit command that we sing the name of Jesus -- not the actual command, that we do all things, including sing, IN the name of Jesus. I really doubt that you would have ever come to such a conclusion, except in your polemics against exclusive psalmody -- mostly because it is impossible for you to be consistent. You don't use the explicit name "Jesus" in every element of worship (as in the aforementioned examples). You have no problem singing songs that do not include His name (Psalms, Amazing Grace, Doxology -- any other examples?), or observing sacraments that do not include His name (baptism), or praying prayers that do not include His name (the Lord's Prayer), or reading Scriptures that do not include His name (the entire Old Testament). The explicit name "Jesus" is not the important thing. The Person of Christ Jesus our Lord, revealed throughout the Scriptures, praised throughout all the Scriptures (especially the Psalms), in all of our elements of worship, is the important thing.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> All of our worship is to be offered in the name of Jesus Christ, by the name of Jesus Christ, for the name of Jesus Christ. ALL OF IT. Whether or not the name "Jesus" is particularly mentioned. And you believe this too. If you sing Psalms in worship, JD, you should be singing them in the name, by the name, for the name. If baptism is administered in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned in the formula for baptism. If the Lord's Prayer is prayed in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned. If the Old Testament is read (or probably preached from) in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned. But the name of Jesus is still being honored. Your argument rests upon some supposed explicit command that we sing the name of Jesus -- not the actual command, that we do all things, including sing, IN the name of Jesus. I really doubt that you would have ever come to such a conclusion, except in your polemics against exclusive psalmody -- mostly because it is impossible for you to be consistent. You don't use the explicit name "Jesus" in every element of worship (as in the aforementioned examples). You have no problem singing songs that do not include His name (Psalms, Amazing Grace, Doxology -- any other examples?), or observing sacraments that do not include His name (baptism), or praying prayers that do not include His name (the Lord's Prayer), or reading Scriptures that do not include His name (the entire Old Testament). The explicit name "Jesus" is not the important thing. The Person of Christ Jesus our Lord, revealed throughout the Scriptures, praised throughout all the Scriptures (especially the Psalms), in all of our elements of worship, is the important thing.



Sean - I certainly agree that all of worship should be done in and through the name of Jesus.

And I certainly have no issue singing songs or administration of the elements where his explicit name is not mentioned occasionaly.

As far as consistency is concerned though - you would think it odd if the explicit name of Jesus were *never* mentioned - and in fact _*prohibited*_ by form of the element - in the administration/practice of prayer, preaching and the sacraments in public worship. It just does not compute that the form of praise should be such that the explicit name of Jesus would _by the element's very premise_ prohibit the very name by which we are saved. 

*That* is inconsistent.


----------



## Kaalvenist

....And I answered "no," because your real question is not, "Is the name of Jesus important in worship?" Your real question is, "Is it essential, in the new covenant era, to incorporate the explicit name 'Jesus' in every element of worship?" With that, I disagree. And to confuse those two seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> Sean - I certainly agree that all of worship should be done in and through the name of Jesus.
> 
> And I certainly have no issue singing songs or administration of the elements where his explicit name is not mentioned occasionaly.
> 
> As far as consistency is concerned though - you would think it odd if the explicit name of Jesus were *never* mentioned - and in fact _*prohibited*_ by form of the element from the administration/practice of prayer, preaching and the sacraments in public worship. It just does not compute that the form of praise should be such that the explicit name of Jesus would _by the element's very premise_ prohibit the very name by which we are saved. *That* is inconsistent.


I feel like I'm  ... but....

1. The explicit name of Jesus is prohibited by the form given to us in the administration of baptism.

2. The explicit name of Jesus is prohibited by the form given to us in the Lord's Prayer.

3. The explicit name of Jesus is prohibited in our singing of Psalms (with which you agree).

4. Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Kaalvenist

I'm going to go eat some dinner now. Have a good evening.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> ....And I answered "no," because your real question is not, "Is the name of Jesus important in worship?" Your real question is, "Is it essential, in the new covenant era, to incorporate the explicit name 'Jesus' in every element of worship?" With that, I disagree. And to confuse those two seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous.



Sorry if you think I am being disingenuous - I know how important the doctrine of EP is to you, but I wanted to create a platform of discussion from which to land on my ultimate point.

I think that folks reading the thread get the intent. We have smart people - and any ulterior motive was revealed early on. 

Besides - this is really about the only area I have any substantial disagreement with "hyper-orthodox"  Reformed doctrine.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> I feel like I'm  ... but....
> 
> 1. The explicit name of Jesus is prohibited by the form given to us in the administration of baptism.



uhhh....huh?

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

wait - you may be making a point I am not following - I'll stop here until you come back.


----------



## Coram Deo

That is Dispensationalism, plain in view....

What you are saying is that Christ was not revealed through the old testament and that Salvation was received differently...

The Old Testament was complete in the knowledge of the Messiah and everything, and I MEAN EVERYTHING needed for salvation was there in the old testament...

Abraham was Saved by Faith.... Faith in WHO? The Lord Jesus Christ!!!
Salvation was the same then, now and until the end of this age....
Salvation was through FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ (without his english name) by the permenant indwelling of the Holy Spirit throughout the Old testament and in the New....

All the Old Testament Saints where saved through Faith in Christ, their knowledge was NOT imcomplete or imperfect...

All the Old Testament Saints knew the Psalms, and knew they were about the Lord Jesus Christ.. The Psalms are Perfect......

You have shown your true colors..........


But it matters little, I am beating a 






jdlongmire said:


> No one said they are imperfect, just incomplete.
> 
> Thus the source of their incompleteness.


----------



## panta dokimazete

thunaer said:


> You have shown your true colors..........
> 
> 
> But it matters little, I am beating a



**sigh** - I hope you have enjoyed your strawman...are you having fun trying to make me something I am not? Since your assertion is so flawed, I am not going to burst your bubble with a response.

Michael, I pray you get additional restful sleep.


----------



## elnwood

thunaer said:


> That is Dispensationalism, plain in view....
> 
> What you are saying is that Christ was not revealed through the old testament and that Salvation was received differently...
> 
> The Old Testament was complete in the knowledge of the Messiah and everything, and I MEAN EVERYTHING needed for salvation was there in the old testament...



Agreed. The dispensationalism charge is a strawman and completely unwarranted. But while we're on the strawman topic ...

Are you saying that Jews who believe in the Old Testament have EVERYTHING they need for salvation? So we should expect that Jewish believers today are believers worshipping the same God, just as they were in the Old Testament? So they do not have to become Christians, but already are?

That sounds like Zionist dispensationalism, plain in view ...


----------



## etexas

Leaving EP alone and JUST talking about the name of Jesus in worship...........man I love it, I love to to worship the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ .


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> uhhh....huh?
> 
> Acts 2:38
> Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> wait - you may be making a point I am not following - I'll stop here until you come back.


Back. 

I am not aware of any churches, other than Oneness Pentecostals (who have their own theological reasons for their practice), which use a different baptismal formula than (with some variation), "N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (cf. Matt. 28:19). Is this the formula pronounced in your church when this sacrament is administered? If so, the point stands. If not, this is still the formula used in virtually all Christian churches; so the point still stands with regard to virtually all Christian churches.

What of the other points which you failed to address? Are we allowed to pray the Lord's Prayer, JD? And you still have yet to address the fact that "singing the name of Jesus" is distinct from "singing IN the name of Jesus." Do you recognize these to be two distinct things? And do you likewise recognize that Paul, in those passages, exhorted us to sing *IN* Jesus' name, not to sing Jesus' name? If so, you have yet to demonstrate that exclusive psalmodists are violating some principle of Holy Scripture, that we are to use the explicit name "Jesus" in our songs of praise.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Perhaps a better way to put JD's argument is like this: the OT holds forth Christ and the gospel in types and shadows (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5). The NT presents the reality. This is the classic teaching that revelation is progressive: it reaches a climax in Christ (Col. 2:3).

It seems to me that Jesus taught something of the magnitude of the new revelation he ushered in when he said:

[1] That the least in the kingdom are greater than John the Baptist (the last of the OT prophets).

[2] That new wine can't be put in the old wine skins.

The Psalms, being OT, only make reference to Christ according to types and shadows (temple, land, animal sacrifice, national kingship, etc.), not the reality.

It would seem strange for the new covenant people of God, once the reality has come, to sing about it *only *in types and shadows.

ps: If the Psalter was God's perfect hymnbook, why is it then converted into metrical Psalms for us to sing? Why not leave the form as is?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> Back.
> 
> I am not aware of any churches, other than Oneness Pentecostals (who have their own theological reasons for their practice), which use a different baptismal formula than (with some variation), "N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (cf. Matt. 28:19). Is this the formula pronounced in your church when this sacrament is administered? If so, the point stands. If not, this is still the formula used in virtually all Christian churches; so the point still stands with regard to virtually all Christian churches.
> 
> What of the other points which you failed to address? Are we allowed to pray the Lord's Prayer, JD? And you still have yet to address the fact that "singing the name of Jesus" is distinct from "singing IN the name of Jesus." Do you recognize these to be two distinct things? And do you likewise recognize that Paul, in those passages, exhorted us to sing *IN* Jesus' name, not to sing Jesus' name? If so, you have yet to demonstrate that exclusive psalmodists are violating some principle of Holy Scripture, that we are to use the explicit name "Jesus" in our songs of praise.



Glad you are back - see Marty's response above - very good summary of some key points - but back to Jesus' explicit name for a moment - even though some think it is a pedantic point ...some might even make that claim of EP...

Ok - for the baptismal "formula" - even though you have not heard it used, what scriptural, creedal or doctrinal principle would prohibit one from including the explicit name of Jesus? 

That is - one cannot follow the logic of baptismal doctrine and *by good and necessary consequence* deduce:
_
God forbids the utterance of the explicit name of Jesus in the administration of baptism._

Same for prayer - Not sure how honing in on the Lord's prayer, except as it is used as a model is proving anything - we certainly use Christ's model as an example, but I am sure you agree that we have liberty around that model for content. 

And certainly *by good and necessary consequence* deduce no implicit prohibition, such as:

_
God forbids the utterance of the explicit name of Jesus in public worship praying._

So - back to EP - note my earlier references to the WCF (even though I mis-numbered them - going back to rectify at some point...):



> Chapter 1
> 
> VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or *by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture*: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
> 
> and
> 
> X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.



and using but 1 of many, many supporting verses:



> 2 Thessalonians 1:12
> 
> We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.



Then examining the _*necessary consequences*_ of the Exclusive Psalmody doctrine:

_God forbids the utterance of the explicit name of Jesus in public praise worship._

One can plainly see the fundamental flaw in EP.

*If that Name is the one and only name by which we are saved and the Name glorified by God - isn't that Name worthy of public praise?*


----------



## toddpedlar

jdlongmire said:


> Then examining the _*necessary consequences*_ of the Exclusive Psalmody doctrine:
> 
> _God forbids the utterance of the explicit name of Jesus in public praise worship._
> 
> One can plainly see the fundamental flaw in EP.
> 
> *If that Name is the one and only name by which we are saved and the Name glorified by God - isn't that Name worthy of public praise?*



JD - 

After accusing others of setting up strawmen, you have yourself returned to one. No EPer says that one cannot give public praise to the name of Jesus, and the fact that His Greek-form name, "Jesus" is not pronounced in worship song in EP churches is UTTERLY DIFFERENT than saying that in such churches His Name is not being praised. 

You have also made a logical error here - the fact that "Jesus" is not sung in EP churches is no fundamental flaw, IF their argument concerning the commands of God having to do with worship is correct. You are holding this up (the need to specifically pronounce "Jesus" in worship song) as a fundamental requirement, and judging all else by it. What makes THAT a fundamental, foundational requirement? How, Scripturally, do you come to this conclusion that it is the requirement that trumps all, including (potentially) commands by God to worship IN SONG using the Psalms only (nobody is arguing that "Jesus" cannot be said at ALL, or even in the preponderance of worship elements - Every EP worship service I have been involved in was completely characterized by praise of Jesus Christ)? 

To close, to ask a question that I may have lost in the shuffle. WHAT IF God commanded the use of Psalms only for worship song? Are you not willing to accept that, in that case, Jesus' name would not be pronounced in corporate singing? Don't you think that God's specific directions about worship should be heard over and above the desire to sing the name "Jesus"? Don't you think it possible that the church in this age can give praise to Jesus using the inspired Psalms? 

Todd


----------



## Kaalvenist

JD,

My point from those particular forms was that, in the use of those forms, keeping to how they have been delivered in Holy Scripture, we would never use the word "Jesus" _in the use of those forms._ Likewise in the singing of Psalms. I'm addressing the individual forms used, not the element of worship itself (which is what you seem to be trying to do). You know -- because I have said many times -- that I believe God regulates the singing of His praise in a way different than He does prayer or other elements of worship.

I think I see where your problem is. You are looking at the passages in the New Testament that refer to "the name of Jesus," etc., as referring to the bare sounding of the word "Jesus." But when the Bible uses such phrases as "the name of God," "the name of the LORD," "the name of Jesus," etc., it is not referring solely, or even primarily, to the bare sounding of those words. Note the Shorter Catechism's answers relative to the third commandment:

Q. 54. _What is required in the third commandment?_
_A._ The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.
Q. 55. _What is forbidden in the third commandment?_
_A._ The third commandment forbiddeth all profaning or abusing of any thing whereby God maketh himself known.

Additionally, you are attempting to take very general statements, such as "glorifying the name," "whatever you do, in word or deed," etc., and trying to apply those to inserting the word "Jesus" in our songs used in the public worship of God. As per Dr. Bacon's syllogism, you must prove that the Bible commands that the word "Jesus" be used explicitly in the texts from which we sing in public worship, for this argument to be valid. Arguments from analogy, or arguments from general declarations regarding honoring or acting in "the name of Jesus" (which more refer to honoring His Person, rather than paying some homage to those syllables; as per Acts 4:12, are people saved because of particularly pronounced syllables, or because of the Person and work of Jesus Christ?), are not valid.


----------



## panta dokimazete

toddpedlar said:


> JD -
> 
> After accusing others of setting up strawmen, you have yourself returned to one. No EPer says that one cannot give public praise to the name of Jesus, and the fact that His Greek-form name, "Jesus" is not pronounced in worship song in EP churches is UTTERLY DIFFERENT than saying that in such churches His Name is not being praised.



Todd, Jesus' explicit name is *not ever* being praised in song at EP churches. Thus, their worship, by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture, is incomplete.



> You have also made a logical error here - the fact that "Jesus" is not sung in EP churches is no fundamental flaw, IF their argument concerning the commands of God having to do with worship is correct.



*IF* is a big word with lots of potential for creativity (IF a frog had wings, etc...). My point is that the argument is _fundamentally flawed_ by it's inevitable conclusion as it relates to the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus.



> You are holding this up (the need to specifically pronounce "Jesus" in worship song) as a fundamental requirement, and judging all else by it. What makes THAT a fundamental, foundational requirement? How, Scripturally, do you come to this conclusion that it is the requirement that trumps all, including (potentially) commands by God to worship IN SONG using the Psalms only (nobody is arguing that "Jesus" cannot be said at ALL, or even in the preponderance of worship elements - Every EP worship service I have been involved in was completely characterized by praise of Jesus Christ)?



Again - examining the necessary consequence of the doctrine - it is not Scriptural. Just like the Oneness doctrine is not Scriptural. Notwithstanding the characterization of the worship of EP churches - many of the elect have worshiped in Christ under a flawed doctrine (and still do, I am sure you will agree). God does take our imperfect worship and make it acceptable through Jesus.



> To close, to ask a question that I may have lost in the shuffle. WHAT IF God commanded the use of Psalms only for worship song? Are you not willing to accept that, in that case, Jesus' name would not be pronounced in corporate singing? Don't you think that God's specific directions about worship should be heard over and above the desire to sing the name "Jesus"? Don't you think it possible that the church in this age can give praise to Jesus using the inspired Psalms?



again, Todd - I am not interested in speculation - we can WHAT IF forever. I am interested in WHAT IS.

*IS* uttering the explicit name of Jesus Christ in public worship song a sin?

You do understand that is a foundational proposition of EP? 

Singing anything other than the 150 Psalms in public worship _IS sin_.

According to the EP doctrine, composing a song that is guided by the Holy Spirit and bounded by Scriptural principles with the explicit name of Jesus in it and sung in public worship, _IS sin_ against God?

It strains logic, emotion and spirit - the EP doctrine strains the gnat and swallows the camel.


----------



## toddpedlar

jdlongmire said:


> Todd, Jesus' explicit name is *not ever* being praised in song at EP churches. Thus, their worship, by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture, is incomplete.



But where do you draw that deduction from? Where is there a 
command specifically to praise Jesus' name IN SONG? We all
agree that Jesus' name is to be praised - and worship song
is NOT the only way.

Your deduction is false if there is a command to sing none other
than the inspired Psalms. One part of Scripture cannot 
be interpreted so as to contradict another - this I know you know
and understand. 



> *IF* is a big word with lots of potential for creativity (IF a frog had wings, etc...). My point is that the argument is _fundamentally flawed_ by it's inevitable conclusion as it relates to the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus.
> 
> Again - examining the necessary consequence of the doctrine - it is not Scriptural.



It is only possible to prove it to be unscriptural by proving that we
are commanded to sing Jesus' name in public worship.



> again, Todd - I am not interested in speculation - we can WHAT IF forever. I am interested in WHAT IS.
> 
> *IS* uttering the explicit name of Jesus Christ in public worship song a sin?
> 
> You do understand that is a foundational proposition of EP?



Yup, and it's based on the interpretation of Scripture which says that
we are commanded to sing none other than the Psalms. If that 
command is correct, then singing Jesus name in public worship is 
sin.



> Singing anything other than the 150 Psalms in public worship _IS sin_.
> 
> According to the EP doctrine, composing a song that is guided by the Holy Spirit and bounded by Scriptural principles with the explicit name of Jesus in it and sung in public worship, _IS sin_ against God?
> 
> EP strains the gnat and swallows the camel.



There is nothing, by the way, in EP doctrine that is against composition of songs that mention Jesus' name. It is ONLY (EPers, correct me if I'm wrong here) the singing of those songs in worship. The Geneva College choral groups sing uninspired hymns in concert, it should be noted. I gather that some of them probably praise our Lord's name. 

I'm sure you'd also agree that IF singing other than the 150 Psalms in worship is a sin, then the choice to compose such a song specifically with public worship singing in mind CANNOT BE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.


----------



## CDM

jdlongmire said:


> But the fundamental question is:
> 
> That answer then invalidates the fundamental premise of EP - that the Psalms are the sufficient and complete songbook for the NT church, since they do not contain the explicit name of Jesus, anglicized or in other forms.



If the Psalms are insufficient as you've stated several times now, why do you lead your curch in singing such lacking and sub-standard songs then? Why not sing just your hymns and contemporary songs that are laced with the letters J-E-S-U-S? That way you can have pure and complete (not incomplete like the Pslams) worship.



elnwood said:


> Agreed. The dispensationalism charge is a strawman and completely unwarranted. But while we're on the strawman topic ...
> 
> Are you saying that Jews who believe in the Old Testament have EVERYTHING they need for salvation? So we should expect that Jewish believers today are believers worshipping the same God, just as they were in the Old Testament? So they do not have to become Christians, but already are?
> 
> That sounds like Zionist dispensationalism, plain in view ...



This may help: how was the Jew saved in the O.T. up until the closing of the N.T. canon? 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.​
What was "scripture" in the Apostle Paul's mind? - the O.T. 



I follow Jesus said:


> Leaving EP alone and JUST talking about the name of Jesus in worship...........man I love it, I love to to worship the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ .



The _name_ or the Person?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> If the Psalms are insufficient as you've stated several times now, why do you lead your curch in singing such lacking and sub-standard songs then? Why not sing just your hymns and contemporary songs that are laced with the letters J-E-S-U-S? That way you can have pure and complete (not incomplete like the Pslams) worship.



C'mon, Chris - I am not beating up the Psalms - I hold them in high esteem - particularly since they are Scripture. I am not advocating the opposite extreme, either. *Without* the Psalms we would have incomplete worship, too.


----------



## panta dokimazete

toddpedlar said:


> But where do you draw that deduction from? Where is there a
> command specifically to praise Jesus' name IN SONG? We all
> agree that Jesus' name is to be praised - and worship song
> is NOT the only way.



ok - to follow your thinking - where is there a *specific* command to use the name of Jesus in worship?



> Your deduction is false if there is a command to sing none other
> than the inspired Psalms. One part of Scripture cannot
> be interpreted so as to contradict another - this I know you know
> and understand.



Yup - and agree. My deduction is also false if the explicit name of Jesus in public worship does not fall under this:

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.



> It is only possible to prove it [EP] to be unscriptural by proving that we are commanded to sing Jesus' name in public worship.



It all depends on the order of priority.

Is the explicit name of Jesus to be included in public worship? 

That is the first order premise.

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.



> Yup, and it's based on the interpretation of Scripture which says that
> we are commanded to sing none other than the Psalms. If that
> command is correct, then singing Jesus name in public worship is
> sin.



This is a second order premise. If Scripture interprets Scripture and it can by good and neccessary consequence be deduced that the explicit name of Jesus is to be included in the elements of public worship, the second order question that validates or invalidates EP - did the Apostle Paul mean *only* the 150 Psalms when he commanded psalms and hymns and spiritual songs? - can be by good and necessary deduction answered "NO" (law of non-contradiction), since the explicit and revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus, is nowhere mentioned.


----------



## bwsmith

If He is the object, desire, and goal of worship, His name is central.


----------



## panta dokimazete

bwsmith said:


> If He is the object, desire, and goal of worship, His name is central.


----------



## CDM

bwsmith said:


> If He is the object, desire, and goal of worship, His name is central.



No, he is not the [sole] goal. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are _the_ goal. The Psalms are Trinitarian while many hymns exclude the Father and the Spirit from worship -- among other things.


----------



## panta dokimazete

mangum said:


> No, he is not the [sole] goal. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are _the_ goal. The Psalms are Trinitarian while many hymns exclude the Father and the Spirit from worship -- among other things.



He is *a* goal and the question remains - how does His explicit name fit into public worship?

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.


----------



## toddpedlar

jdlongmire said:


> He is *a* goal and the question remains - how does His explicit name fit into public worship?
> 
> Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
> A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.



Prayer, preaching, reading of the Word, baptism (reference to "The Son", which is perfectly good praise, by title, of Jesus Christ), the Lord's Supper, etc.


----------



## toddpedlar

A song commonly used in contemporary worship services:

"I love You Lord 
and I lift my voice 
To worship You 
O my soul, rejoice! 

Take joy, my King 
in what you hear 
May it be a sweet, sweet sound 
in Your ear."

JD, is this a song that in your mind appropriately praises Jesus Christ?


----------



## panta dokimazete

toddpedlar said:


> A song commonly used in contemporary worship services:
> 
> "I love You Lord
> and I lift my voice
> To worship You
> O my soul, rejoice!
> 
> Take joy, my King
> in what you hear
> May it be a sweet, sweet sound
> in Your ear."
> 
> JD, is this a song that in your mind appropriately praises Jesus Christ?



Actually, I like Piper's addition, which we include:

I love You, Lord, and I stand amazed;
My sins are gone! May Your name be praised!
Exult, my soul! And behold His face;
I will ever sing, O my King, of Your grace.

But you miss the point - the point is - how is worship regulated?

If this is a first order requirement:

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment *requireth* the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.

NONE of the 2nd order requirements can contradict it.

EP implicitly does.


----------



## panta dokimazete

You know - as we have been discussing this, I did a quick read through on the CCLI top 100 - which I consider to be the "other end" from EP- virtually none have the explicit name of Jesus in them either.

Which should be convicting to Christian songwriters - myself included.


----------



## toddpedlar

I wish you'd answer the question. Would that song qualify for you as a praising of Jesus Christ in worship song? Of course you get the drift... if you say it's a song that appropriately praises Jesus, then you're caught saying that a song can appropriately praise Jesus without mentioning his Greek name.

So... let me deal with one problem, then your question. I fully accept the question and answer 54 that you've quoted. It should be carefully noted, however, that the authors of that catechism question were EPers. So quoting it as support for non-EP is probably not the best logical strategy.

Seriously, though - do all the Scriptural names of God need to be sung in order for Him to receive adequate praise in the entireity of our worship? Is the Lord's Supper flawed because we don't use the name "Jehovah Jireh"? 

Secondly, where does that catechism question bear on worship (in all its elements as you continue to stress)? Why is NOT naming Jesus Christ (or Jehovah Jireh, since I don't believe any Psalm actually contains that name of God) in worship song a contravention of the answer to this catechism question? I assume you are claiming that the EP position runs afoul of that answer - but youre making rather significant leaps in order to support that position. Perhaps the authors of the catechism would argue that the use of Jesus' name in public worship song, since they held to the EP position, would be an INAPPROPRIATE use of His name - and thus the NON-EP position fails in light of this catechism question.


----------



## Davidius

jdlongmire said:


> Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
> A. The third commandment *requireth* the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.
> 
> NONE of the 2nd order requirements can contradict it.
> 
> EP implicitly does.



Exactly, so anything that we do while not saying "Jesus!!" is an infraction of the third commandment. 

As much as I hear you throwing around words like "premise," I really wish you'd actually study some logic.



jdlongmire said:


> Actually, I like Piper's addition, which we include:
> 
> I love You, Lord, and I stand amazed;
> My sins are gone! May Your name be praised!
> Exult, my soul! And behold His face;
> I will ever sing, O my King, of Your grace.



I don't see Jesus' name here. Now I'm just confused; I thought you liked this one.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> He is *a* goal and the question remains - how does His explicit name fit into public worship?
> 
> Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
> A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.


You seem to have seized upon this Q&A from the Catechism, ignoring the rest of it, disregarding the fact that this does not require us to use every name of God in public worship, refusing to answer my question re: Acts 4:12 -- do you really think that this Catechism demonstrates a _Puritanical_ belief that the name "Jesus" needs to be used in our songs of public worship? You are grasping at straws, JD.

You seem to now realize that there is no requirement in Scripture that we use the word "Jesus" in our songs. You are now trying to rely upon "good and necessary consequence" -- but the consequences you are drawing are neither good nor necessary. You argue that our Saviour is more honored by singing songs that use the word "Jesus." I argue that He is honored by singing songs that He gave by inspiration, appointed to be used in public worship, and to which He adds His blessing; not by singing songs that lack His inspiration, His appointment, or His blessing, regardless of whether they employ the word "Jesus."

If God appointed the Psalms for singing in public worship, why don't the songs you sing in public worship require His appointment? They were used, not because they were inspired, not because they were infallible, not because they revealed Christ to come, not because of their doctrinal completeness, but *because they were appointed.* They were (and are) all of these things; but the essential thing was their appointment for use in public worship. Why don't the songs in your church's hymnbook, or on your church's overhead projector (or however you do it) require that appointment which the Psalms required? How does our being in the New Testament dispensation change that requirement for divine appointment? How does our greater filling with the Spirit, and our freedom from the ceremonies of the law, abrogate the requirement for specific, particular, defined texts to be appointed for our singing of God's praise?


----------



## panta dokimazete

toddpedlar said:


> I wish you'd answer the question. Would that song qualify for you as a praising of Jesus Christ in worship song? Of course you get the drift... if you say it's a song that appropriately praises Jesus, then you're caught saying that a song can appropriately praise Jesus without mentioning his Greek name.



Todd - I have never said that a song can't praise Jesus without mentioning his explicit name. The song you quoted with the Piper addition I think is a fine spiritual song used in the proper context.



> So... let me deal with one problem, then your question. I fully accept the question and answer 54 that you've quoted. It should be carefully noted, however, that the authors of that catechism question were EPers. So quoting it as support for non-EP is probably not the best logical strategy.



Why would using their logic against their conclusion be an error? - it is a common logic tool - reductio ad absurdum.



> Seriously, though - do all the Scriptural names of God need to be sung in order for Him to receive adequate praise in the entireity of our worship? Is the Lord's Supper flawed because we don't use the name "Jehovah Jireh"?



Would it be a sin to ever utter Jehovah Jireh in the Lord's Supper?



> Secondly, where does that catechism question bear on worship (in all its elements as you continue to stress)? Why is NOT naming Jesus Christ (or Jehovah Jireh, since I don't believe any Psalm actually contains that name of God) in worship song a contravention of the answer to this catechism question? I assume you are claiming that the EP position runs afoul of that answer - but youre making rather significant leaps in order to support that position. Perhaps the authors of the catechism would argue that the use of Jesus' name in public worship song, since they held to the EP position, would be an INAPPROPRIATE use of His name - and thus the NON-EP position fails in light of this catechism question.



You keep using the EP conclusion to deny the first order premise.

If it is a sin to use Jesus' name in song (which EP implicitly confirms) - that contradicts the 3rd commandment as it applies the element of worship song.

If the 3rd commandment is a higher priority on the content of worship - it helps resolve the foundational premise of EP - the Apostle Paul was commanding only the 150 Psalms when he commanded psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Paul would not be contradicting the commandment and it would also be consistent (if you study Scripture) with his usage of the explicit name of Jesus in his writings.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Dave - are you just trying to be inflammatory? Are you purposefully working to rile me up?

premise - a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn


----------



## Davidius

I'd have a little bit more to work with if you would stay with the same argument for more than a few posts. I'm having trouble figuring out just what exactly you're arguing for.

Are the Psalms deficient because they don't have the Greek word "Jesus" in them?

Is the RPW deficient because it pits the 2nd commandment against the third?

Can songs not have the Greek word "Jesus" in them and still be acceptable? If the answer to this question is "yes," then I don't even see what the point of this thread is. You said you liked Piper's ditty so what's your problem with the 2nd commandment's divine authorization of only the Psalms?

I really do appreciate that you've moved on, at least for a moment, from the "sing a new song" mantra and become a little more creative but keeping up with just what it is you're trying to get across throughout this thread has been difficult. 



jdlongmire said:


> Dave - are you just trying to be inflammatory? Are you purposefully working to rile me up?
> 
> premise - a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn



I'm just taking note of the fact that you have been trying to place everyone else's arguments under meticulous logical scrutiny, continuously pointing out "this false premise" or "that false premise" or that "wrong conclusion" or that _reductio ad absurdum_ while at the same time putting forth arguments characterized by _reductio ad absurdum_ of the highest absurdity.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> If the 3rd commandment is a higher priority on the content of worship - it helps resolve the foundational premise of EP - the Apostle Paul was commanding only the 150 Psalms when he commanded psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Paul would not be contradicting the commandment and it would also be consistent (if you study Scripture) with his usage of the explicit name of Jesus in his writings.


Actually, since exclusive psalmody rests upon the second commandment; and since the second commandment comes before the third commandment; we could argue that exclusive psalmody "is a higher priority on the content of worship (song)." I believe that the order of the issuing of the ten commandments shows us God's priority in the commandments. For example: It is a worse sin to deny there to be a God, than to not worship Him in an acceptable manner. It is worse to murder than to commit adultery, and worse to commit adultery than to steal, etc. So I would argue that God is, only after the acknowledging of Him to be the only true God, and our God, etc., concerned with the purity of His worship, and that we worship Him only in His appointed way.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> You seem to have seized upon this Q&A from the Catechism, ignoring the rest of it, disregarding the fact that this does not require us to use every name of God in public worship, refusing to answer my question re: Acts 4:12 -- do you really think that this Catechism demonstrates a _Puritanical_ belief that the name "Jesus" needs to be used in our songs of public worship? You are grasping at straws, JD.



No - I am just using your references to make my argument. I believe that EP proponents have made a fundamental flaw in their reasoning. 



> You seem to now realize that there is no requirement in Scripture that we use the word "Jesus" in our songs. You are now trying to rely upon "good and necessary consequence" -- but the consequences you are drawing are neither good nor necessary. You argue that our Saviour is more honored by singing songs that use the word "Jesus." I argue that He is honored by singing songs that He gave by inspiration, appointed to be used in public worship, and to which He adds His blessing; not by singing songs that lack His inspiration, His appointment, or His blessing, regardless of whether they employ the word "Jesus."



And I believe you are wrong.



> If God appointed the Psalms for singing in public worship, why don't the songs you sing in public worship require His appointment? They were used, not because they were inspired, not because they were infallible, not because they revealed Christ to come, not because of their doctrinal completeness, but *because they were appointed.* They were (and are) all of these things; but the essential thing was their appointment for use in public worship. Why don't the songs in your church's hymnbook, or on your church's overhead projector (or however you do it) require that appointment which the Psalms required? How does our being in the New Testament dispensation change that requirement for divine appointment? How does our greater filling with the Spirit, and our freedom from the ceremonies of the law, abrogate the requirement for specific, particular, defined texts to be appointed for our singing of God's praise?



Because Jesus, though the Apostle Paul, gave the NT church that liberty.

Ephesians 5:19
speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,

Colossians 3:16
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing each other, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, in grace singing in your hearts to the Lord;


----------



## Kaalvenist

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'd have a little bit more to work with if you would stay with the same argument for more than a few posts. I'm having trouble figuring out just what exactly you're arguing for.
> 
> Are the Psalms deficient because they don't have the Greek word "Jesus" in them?
> 
> Is the RPW deficient because it pits the 2nd commandment against the third?
> 
> Can songs not have the Greek word "Jesus" in them and still be acceptable? If the answer to this question is "yes," then I don't even see what the point of this thread is. You said you liked Piper's ditty so what's your problem with the 2nd commandment's divine authorization of only the Psalms?
> 
> I really do appreciate that you've moved on, at least for a moment, from the "sing a new song" mantra and become a little more creative but keeping up with just what it is you're trying to get across throughout this thread has been difficult.


 

JD, If you acknowledge that we can sing songs in worship that do not include the word "Jesus," then you can't argue that we are required, whether by explicit command, approved example, or good and necessary consequence, to use the word "Jesus" in our songs. You should therefore have no problem with _practical_ exclusive psalmody, although you protest vigorously against _doctrinal_ exclusive psalmody -- since actually maintaining this as a principle precludes the singing of any songs which include the word "Jesus," which you insist is wrong because of the requirement of Scripture by good and........oh wait, never mind.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> Because Jesus, though the Apostle Paul, gave the NT church that liberty.
> 
> Ephesians 5:19
> speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,
> 
> Colossians 3:16
> Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing each other, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, in grace singing in your hearts to the Lord;


JD, how do those abrogate the requirement for appointment? Could you please explain the meaning of those verses, demonstrating that those passages demand the interpretation that appointment for particularly defined texts has been abrogated? (And you still didn't answer the question, what exactly is so different between these two dispensations, as to require the abrogation of such a requirement.)


----------



## panta dokimazete

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'd have a little bit more to work with if you would stay with the same argument for more than a few posts. I'm having trouble figuring out just what exactly you're arguing for.



Whose weakness is that?



> Are the Psalms deficient because they don't have the Greek word "Jesus" in them?



They do not completely fulfill the command to worship in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.



> Is the RPW deficient because it pits the 2nd commandment against the third?



The RPW is not deficient in that it does not require EP.



> Can songs not have the Greek word "Jesus" in them and still be acceptable? If the answer to this question is "yes," then I don't even see what the point of this thread is. You said you liked Piper's ditty so what's your problem with the 2nd commandment's divine authorization of only the Psalms?



Because EP implicitly forbids and determines it to be a sin for the name of Jesus to be included in the element of public worship song *ever*.



> I really do appreciate that you've moved on, at least for a moment, from the "sing a new song" mantra and become a little more creative but keeping up with just what it is you're trying to get across throughout this thread has been difficult.



lol - I haven't "moved on" - it is just not a prominent part of this discussion.



> I'm just taking note of the fact that you have been trying to place everyone else's arguments under meticulous logical scrutiny, continuously pointing out "this false premise" or "that false premise" or that "wrong conclusion" or that _reductio ad absurdum_ while at the same time putting forth arguments characterized by _reductio ad absurdum_ of the highest absurdity.



And you have demonstrated this assertion how, exactly?


----------



## toddpedlar

jdlongmire said:


> Todd - I have never said that a song can't praise Jesus without mentioning his explicit name. The song you quoted with the Piper addition I think is a fine spiritual song used in the proper context.



Okay. Your contention was, though, that the Psalms cannot exclusively be used because they do not sufficiently give praise to Jesus (because his Greek name is missing from them). 




> Why would using their logic against their conclusion be an error? - it is a common logic tool - reductio ad absurdum.



But that's not what you were doing, it didn't seem. YOu weren't 
critiquing Q&A 54, but you were using it to support your position of
anti-EP. All I was saying that in order to use that answer in that
way is absurd, since they would very likely argue that to sing Jesus'
name in worship is an inappropriate use of his name. They would not,
nor do I, nor does any EP, consider the non-use of "Jesus" in worship
song a violation of the 3rd commandment. 



> Would it be a sin to ever utter Jehovah Jireh in the Lord's Supper?



Why would it be? Are the words for the Lord's Supper prescribed?
Not that I can see. However, according to EP, the worship songs to
use are prescribed. 



> You keep using the EP conclusion to deny the first order premise.



Just what is the first order premise you think EP denies?

Who does the ordering, anyway?



> If it is a sin to use Jesus' name in song (which EP implicitly confirms) - that contradicts the 3rd commandment as it applies the element of worship song.



Why does EP contradict the 3rd commandment? 



> If the 3rd commandment is a higher priority on the content of worship - it helps resolve the foundational premise of EP - the Apostle Paul was commanding only the 150 Psalms when he commanded psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Paul would not be contradicting the commandment and it would also be consistent (if you study Scripture) with his usage of the explicit name of Jesus in his writings.



I really don't see how this argumentation helps anything concerning the practice of EP. You've not proven that EP is a contradiction of the 
3rd commandment in any way - rather, it seems to me that you're taking AS A PREMISE the statement that EP violates the 3rd commandment, since nowhere have you produced any other Scriptural backing. 

I am bowing out of this - we're talking past each other. You can certainly have the last word (between us anyway).


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> No - I am just using your references to make my argument. I believe that EP proponents have made a fundamental flaw in their reasoning.


The third commandment does not require that all of God's titles be employed in our singing of God's praise. This is not said in the Catechism, nor (more importantly) in Scripture. This appears to be "a fundamental flaw in (your) reasoning."

Acts 4:12. Are people saved because of the sounding of a two-syllable word, or because of the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> JD, how do those abrogate the requirement for appointment? Could you please explain the meaning of those verses, demonstrating that those passages demand the interpretation that appointment for particularly defined texts has been abrogated? (And you still didn't answer the question, what exactly is so different between these two dispensations, as to require the abrogation of such a requirement.)



Because in light of the 3rd commandment and in light of the revealed name of Jesus, we should include the Psalms of David, but we should also write new songs (hymns and spiritual songs) that include the revealed name of our Savior and Lord, Jesus.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> They do not completely fulfill the command to worship in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.


You're now shifting your argumentation, from the question of whether or not the word "Jesus" needs to appear in our songs, to a bare reading of those two texts. This is, incidentally, what David was referring to when he said that you don't stick with the same line of argument for more than a few posts.


jdlongmire said:


> The RPW is not deficient in that it does not require EP.


God appointed the Psalms for singing in public worship under the Old Testament. That appointment has not been relaxed, abrogated, or expanded to encompass other texts. God's regulation is coextensive with His appointment. Ergo, the RPW requires EP.


jdlongmire said:


> Because EP implicitly forbids and determines it to be a sin for the name of Jesus to be included in the element of public worship song *ever*.


EP explicitly forbids the use of any unappointed songs. God has commanded the use of songs of His own inspiration and appointment. He has not commanded the use of any other songs, whether or not the word "Jesus" appears therein. It seems that, in the Bible's discussion of song in worship, the Psalms take all precedence and priority; I still haven't found where the Bible declares it to be important that the word "Jesus" gets included in our songs.


----------



## KMK

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I still don't understand the whole EP debate. I've read many of the articles and links posted on the subject and at best I find a strong case for EP, but not an exclusive mandate. I am thankful that the EP side has awakened my interest in the psalms. They should be an integral part of our worship in song. I'm just not sold on the exclusivity position. Some have become so particular on the EP issue that it becomes the make or break litmus test of the church they will attend. For example: I'm a Baptist and would prefer to be part of a local body that is Baptistic. If I was looking for a Baptist church and found one that had solid preaching, proper implementation of the sacraments/ordinances of the church, exhibited the love of Christ and was EP, I would have no problem aligning myself with that body.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> Because in light of the 3rd commandment and in light of the revealed name of Jesus, we should include the Psalms of David, but we should also write new songs (hymns and spiritual songs) that include the revealed name of our Savior and Lord, Jesus.


Whoa, whoa, whoa.

I asked a simple question. It did not involve the third commandment, the use of the word "Jesus," etc. You shifted the argument to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, and indicated that those relaxed or abrogated the requirement for the appointment of defined texts for our singing God's praise. How do those texts relax that abrogation? Where do they even imply that that is the meaning to be attached to "hymns and spiritual songs"?

Again, the third commandment does not require that every name of God be sung in public worship. No one believes that -- not even you.


----------



## panta dokimazete

toddpedlar said:


> Okay. Your contention was, though, that the Psalms cannot exclusively be used because they do not sufficiently give praise to Jesus (because his Greek name is missing from them).



My contention is that the Psalms do not completely fulfill the command to worship God in song, since they never, ever mention the revealed name of our Savior and Lord, Jesus.

They may imply and prophesy "christos", but they are no more a complete revelation of Jesus than the OT alone is.

I agree that we may sing them in light of the NT revelation, but you would no more sing them exclusively than you would exclusively preach the OT or exclusively pray as the OT taught.

EP not only denies this contention - it also makes it a *sin* to compose any song *ever* for public worship that has the revealed name of our Savior and Lord, Jesus.



> But that's not what you were doing, it didn't seem. YOu weren't
> critiquing Q&A 54, but you were using it to support your position of
> anti-EP. All I was saying that in order to use that answer in that
> way is absurd, since they would very likely argue that to sing Jesus'
> name in worship is an inappropriate use of his name. They would not,
> nor do I, nor does any EP, consider the non-use of "Jesus" in worship
> song a violation of the 3rd commandment.



If you don't see any potential absurdity in this statement:


> to sing Jesus' name in worship is an inappropriate use of his name



Then I concur with your concluding statement below.



> I am bowing out of this - we're talking past each other. You can certainly have the last word (between us anyway).



Blessings in the name of Jesus Christ.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa.
> 
> I asked a simple question. It did not involve the third commandment, the use of the word "Jesus," etc. You shifted the argument to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, and indicated that those relaxed or abrogated the requirement for the appointment of defined texts for our singing God's praise. How do those texts relax that abrogation? Where do they even imply that that is the meaning to be attached to "hymns and spiritual songs"?
> 
> Again, the third commandment does not require that every name of God be sung in public worship. No one believes that -- not even you.



All the names of God should be included in public worship - all elements - and treated with reverence and awe - frequency is not the point.

EP implicitly denies this.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> My contention is that the Psalms do not completely fulfill the command to worship God in song, since they never, ever mention the revealed name of our Savior and Lord, Jesus.
> 
> They may imply and prophesy "christos", but they are no more a complete revelation of Jesus than the OT alone is.
> 
> I agree that we may sing them in light of the NT revelation, but you would no more sing them exclusively than you would exclusively preach the OT or exclusively pray as the OT taught.
> 
> EP not only denies this contention - it also makes it a *sin* to compose any song *ever* for public worship that has the revealed name of our Savior and Lord, Jesus.


My contention is that it is a sin to add any human writings to the Holy Scriptures, regardless of whether or not those writings include the word "Jesus." Adding of human hymns to the Psalms in their appointed place is sinful (being an addition of human writings to Holy Scripture), regardless of whether the word "Jesus" is used therein. I do not take issue with the name "Jesus" -- I take issue with hymns of human composition being used where God's Hymnbook should have the exclusive place.

We are, as you said, commanded "to worship God in song." Taken on the face of it, logically, this command would be fulfilled in the singing of Psalms. The New Testament does not appoint new hymns with the name "Jesus" appearing therein, but constantly turns back to the Psalms, applying them to Christ.

The reason why we do not exclusive read or preach from the Old Testament is because God has also given us the New Testament. When He did so, He did not give New Testament psalms, hymns, and songs, to replace or supply any perceived want in the Old Testament psalms, hymns, and songs. It is an illogical argument to say that the inspired, appointed Old Testament is insufficient, so that we require the inspired, appointed New Testament; therefore the inspired, appointed Old Testament Psalms must be supplemented by uninspired, unappointed hymns.


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> All the names of God should be included in public worship - all elements - and treated with reverence and awe - frequency is not the point.
> 
> EP implicitly denies this.


You say "should," as though that were commanded us. Could you show us that command, please? I have never heard anyone ever -- EVER -- argue that every name of God must be used in every element of worship. And you aren't even arguing it. You're simply stating it, as though it is an assumed principle. I challenge that principle, and challenge you to prove it from Scripture. When was the last time that every name of God was employed in the sacrament of baptism? or the Lord's Supper? If you say they "should be included in public worship - all elements," how can we get away with singing even a single song, but neglecting to mention even one of His names? How can the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper be administered, but neglect "Jehovah Jireh"? etc., etc. -- if "all the names of God *SHOULD* be included"? Your qualifier, "frequency is not the point," would serve only to not require that any one name be employed twice.

Where stands it written?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> It is an illogical argument to say that the inspired, appointed Old Testament is insufficient, so that we require the inspired, appointed New Testament



Why is this illogical? Are you claiming that the OT is a sufficient revelation of God for the NT church for all matters of faith and practice?


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> Why is this illogical? Are you claiming that the OT is a sufficient revelation of God for the NT church for all matters of faith and practice?


Finish the quote, JD: "It is an illogical argument to say that the inspired, appointed Old Testament is insufficient, so that we require the inspired, appointed New Testament; *therefore the inspired, appointed Old Testament Psalms must be supplemented by uninspired, unappointed hymns.*" I acknowledge the first part; I said that it is illogical to conclude from thence the second part.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> You say "should," as though that were commanded us. Could you show us that command, please? I have never heard anyone ever -- EVER -- argue that every name of God must be used in every element of worship. And you aren't even arguing it. You're simply stating it, as though it is an assumed principle. I challenge that principle, and challenge you to prove it from Scripture. When was the last time that every name of God was employed in the sacrament of baptism? or the Lord's Supper? If you say they "should be included in public worship - all elements," how can we get away with singing even a single song, but neglecting to mention even one of His names? How can the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper be administered, but neglect "Jehovah Jireh"? etc., etc. -- if "all the names of God *SHOULD* be included"? Your qualifier, "frequency is not the point," would serve only to not require that any one name be employed twice.
> 
> Where stands it written?



This is where you strain a gnat to swallow a camel, my friend.

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.

Do you agree that the statement above is true and is of good and necessary consequence?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> Finish the quote, JD: "It is an illogical argument to say that the inspired, appointed Old Testament is insufficient, so that we require the inspired, appointed New Testament; *therefore the inspired, appointed Old Testament Psalms must be supplemented by uninspired, unappointed hymns.*" I acknowledge the first part; I said that it is illogical to conclude from thence the second part.



just to help me understand - can you make a syllogism of your statement?


----------



## Kaalvenist

jdlongmire said:


> This is where you strain a gnat to swallow a camel, my friend.
> 
> Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
> A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.
> 
> Do you agree that the statement above is true and is of good and necessary consequence?


JD, please don't liken me to a Pharisee and then call me "friend." One or the other; it just sounds too inharmonious when you put them together.

My question regarded the natural reading ("good and necessary consequence," if you will) of your statement. You said, "All the names of God (which includes perhaps at least a dozen names) should be included in public worship - all elements (which includes prayer, reading of Scripture, preaching the Word, singing God's praise, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, etc.) - and treated with reverence and awe - frequency is not the point." If you would like to retract your statement, admit that you went a bit too far, feel free. I believe that I should bow out at this point, as I cannot see any profit to be made in continuing this argument.

I make my appeal to anyone who reads this thread: Do the arguments which JD has set forth warrant the conclusion that "the explicit name 'Jesus'" be included in our songs of praise? Has he -- or anyone else, for that matter -- satisfactorily answered the objections which others have raised to his position, including those not yet convinced of exclusive psalmody? Is not Jesus Christ our Lord praised in the singing of His own Psalms, with a clarity and sufficiency that He, and His apostles and early church, found sufficient? Regardless of whether or not you embrace exclusive psalmody, do not be led to an attachment to the bare sounding of syllables (which can lead to all manner of error), but to the Person and work of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kaalvenist said:


> JD, please don't liken me to a Pharisee and then call me "friend." One or the other; it just sounds too inharmonious when you put them together.



Would it have been ok to call you my brother?



> My question regarded the natural reading ("good and necessary consequence," if you will) of your statement. You said, "All the names of God (which includes perhaps at least a dozen names) should be included in public worship - all elements (which includes prayer, reading of Scripture, preaching the Word, singing God's praise, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, etc.) - and treated with reverence and awe - frequency is not the point." If you would like to retract your statement, admit that you went a bit too far, feel free. I believe that I should bow out at this point, as I cannot see any profit to be made in continuing this argument.



I believe in the course of worshipping God throughout the days, weeks, months and years, that we should include some of those names - not every one, every time - but all of them at some point - in the public worship of God and that every element should be subject to the commandments of God.

I also believe that the revealed name of our Savior and Lord, Jesus, holds a special place in NT worship and that his revealed Name should have a special place in our worship and in all elements of worship.

EP implicitly denies that Jeus' explicit name is not subject to the above.



> do not be led to an attachment to the bare sounding of syllables (which can lead to all manner of error), but to the Person and work of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.



I would also warn the reader to not let your human desire to trust in the reasoning or traditions of Man to lead you away from singing praises using the revealed name of our Savior and Lord, Jesus.


----------



## dcomin

jdlongmire said:


> I would also warn the reader to not let your human desire to trust in the reasoning or traditions of Man to lead you away from singing praises using the revealed name of our Savior and Lord, Jesus.



My apologies for being too busy to keep up with these posts, but honestly, I don't know where ya'll find the time... I'd love to know your secret for how to get things done and still maintain a constant online discussion. 

Now, JD... you really should be careful about equating the EP position with the "traditions of Man." God inspired the Psalms and commanded His people to sing them in His praise. The singing of Psalms is NOT a tradition of Man. On the other hand, uninspired hymns are indeed imposed upon the church through human tradition, and bind God's people to sing songs which He has nowhere commanded in His Word. It is the hymn singing tradition that has its origin with Man, not the EP position.


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> My apologies for being too busy to keep up with these posts, but honestly, I don't know where ya'll find the time... I'd love to know your secret for how to get things done and still maintain a constant online discussion.



It is weird, but I have had a LOT of unaccustomed free time these past 2 days. 



> Now, JD... you really should be careful about equating the EP position with the "traditions of Man."



Believe me when I say - I am trying to be.



> God inspired the Psalms and commanded His people to sing them in His praise. The singing of Psalms is NOT a tradition of Man.



No debate there. 

It's that darn "E" part...



> On the other hand, uninspired hymns are indeed imposed upon the church through human tradition, and bind God's people to sing songs which He has nowhere commanded in His Word. It is the hymn singing tradition that has its origin with Man, not the EP position.



This is *only* true if the EP contention that psalms *and* hymns *and* spiritual songs are "stacked" references by Paul as opposed to 3 separate and distinctive song forms. The intent, language, cultural and historical context are just not there.

I'll tell you beforehand, I have been down this path and remain unconvinced.

Welcome back, BTW -


----------



## dcomin

I figured it was the "E" part that was tripping you up. And I doubt there is anything I can add to convince you that the intent, language, cultural and historical context really IS there to support the EP position that Paul is not referring to three distinct types of song forms. But I am firmly persuaded that it is. But even absent such an agreement, the force of the word "spiritual" (i.e., inspired) rules out the possibility that Paul is referring to extra-biblical man-written compositions.

Nevertheless, we are now very far afield of the original topic regarding the singing of the specific name of Jesus. On that subject, I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said by others. 

Thanks for the welcome back...


----------



## panta dokimazete

dcomin said:


> I figured it was the "E" part that was tripping you up. And I doubt there is anything I can add to convince you that the intent, language, cultural and historical context really IS there to support the EP position that Paul is not referring to three distinct types of song forms.But I am firmly persuaded that it is.



I understand - and your persuasion should guide your worship - as long as it is Scripture drenched and Spirit led (or vice versa). 



> But even absent such an agreement, the force of the word "spiritual" (i.e., inspired) rules out the possibility that Paul is referring to extra-biblical man-written compositions.



I'd like to explore this assertion sometimes - I learn through discussion. Particularly since he made the parallel when he wrote pray and sing with the mind and spirit (my paraphrase)...



> Nevertheless, we are now very far afield of the original topic regarding the singing of the specific name of Jesus. On that subject, I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said by others.
> 
> Thanks for the welcome back...



 Appreciate your tone, brother, much appreciated...


----------



## JohnV

JD:



> But even absent such an agreement, the force of the word "spiritual" (i.e., inspired) rules out the possibility that Paul is referring to extra-biblical man-written compositions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to explore this assertion sometimes - I learn through discussion. Particularly since he made the parallel when he wrote pray and sing with the mind and spirit (my paraphrase)...
Click to expand...


I think you're getting close. I'd like to see a better bottom line myself. What is it we are called to do in worship? What part does singing have in that? What does the Bible say about these things? Do we apply to singing what the Confessions say about things which we may believe? (i.e., the Confessions are about what we are to believe, leaving some things to conscience and forbidding other things.) Etc., etc. 

It seems to me that we'll get closer to the truth of things if we go that way.


----------



## JohnV

What I mean is, if you take Douglas' assertion here and look at it without polemic favouratism then it is a really curious position to take. For one would have to ask if anyone understood the word "hymn" when David and Asaph were writing the Psalms, when they said "This one's a hymn, as oppose to that one being a psalm, or that other one being a spiritual song." Can you think of any culture, including the Jewish culture during the time of the writing of Ephesians and Collosians, which would not know what was meant by the word "hymn" as we know it today? It is an inceiveable stretch, to my mind, to assume that the words used by Paul refer exclusively to the Psalms. I just can't see it, no matter how hard I try to separate myself from my own preconceptions and polemical favouratism. It is inconceiveable to me. I just do not see any possible way that the readers of Ephesians and Collosians would take it that way, as if referring exclusively to the Psalms. 

That's just not what the Psalms are about, whether as revelation or a divinely inspired psalter. And I think this is what you're driving at, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## panta dokimazete

JohnV said:


> I just do not see any possible way that the readers of Ephesians and Collosians would take it that way, as if referring exclusively to the Psalms.
> 
> That's just not what the Psalms are about, whether as revelation or a divinely inspired psalter. And I think this is what you're driving at, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## dcomin

JohnV said:


> What I mean is, if you take Douglas' assertion here and look at it without polemic favouratism then it is a really curious position to take. For one would have to ask if anyone understood the word "hymn" when David and Asaph were writing the Psalms, when they said "This one's a hymn, as oppose to that one being a psalm, or that other one being a spiritual song." Can you think of any culture, including the Jewish culture during the time of the writing of Ephesians and Collosians, which would not know what was meant by the word "hymn" as we know it today? It is an inceiveable stretch, to my mind, to assume that the words used by Paul refer exclusively to the Psalms. I just can't see it, no matter how hard I try to separate myself from my own preconceptions and polemical favouratism. It is inconceiveable to me. I just do not see any possible way that the readers of Ephesians and Collosians would take it that way, as if referring exclusively to the Psalms.



My assertion is based on the biblical usage of the terms *psalm*, *hymn *and *song*. As for the word *hymn*, it appears nowhere in the Old Testament except in the titles of the Psalms (which were not part of the original text, but were generally accepted in Paul's day and were part of the Septuagint text). In the NT, it appears in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19, and in the Gospel accounts of Jesus singing a "hymn" with His disciples at the Last Supper (which most scholars agree was a part of the Great Hallel - the Psalter selections traditionally sung at Passover). The word *song *appears in several OT passages, sometimes referring specifically the the songs of the temple, and sometimes referring to less sacred compositions. The word *psalm*, of course, refers most properly to the Psalter, but is sometimes used in a more generic sense. 

The EP position, in seeking to understand how Paul's readers would have understood these terms when they first received His letter, looks to the occurance of these terms in the Psalm titles of the Septuagint, where various selections are designated as "songs" or "hymns" or "psalms" (and sometimes two or more of these terms are applied to the same Psalm). The use of three different terms to denote the same thing is certainly not foreign to the biblical writers - consider such phrases as "laws, statutes and commandments," or "miracles, signs and wonders," or "sin, transgression and iniquity." Did the Jews understand the distinction between these terms? Was the author's purpose to set forth three distinct things or to emphasize a single thing? 

I have no doubt that the Jews understood the difference between a "hymn" and a "song" when they read these terms in the titles of David's Psalms. But the fact remains that these terms, in biblical usage, all refer to the selections of the Psalter and it is no stretch to conclude that Paul's readers, when they read his statements in Colossians and Ephesians, would have understood him as referring to that collection of sacred and inspired songs, hymns and psalms that were universally used in God's worship. 

It is really not a curious position to take. If the EP conclusion regarding these terms is not correct, then what did Paul have in mind when he used the words "hymn" and "song" in distinction from "psalm"? Where was the collection of "hymns" or "songs" that the believers in Galatia or Ephesus would have identified as being a different body of compositions from the selections identified in the Septuagint as psalms, hymns and songs?


----------



## JohnV

Douglas:

I'm sorry. I took for granted that we both knew this argument full well. It's been related on this board several times. You state it as concisely as I've seen it. So I've read, and considered it a number of times. 

What I said was that I where you get EP from in this argument remains something that I cannot wrap my mind around. When I think this through I come out in exactly the same position as before, namely that Paul is therefore referring the psalms hymns and spiritual songs in general. 

I'm not going to argue against Paul's use of triads to refer to the same thing. I've known that for years. I'm not arguing against that there may be a reference to the Great Hallel. I'm not saying that any of what you say is necessarily wrong. I just don't see the logical connection between all that and the conclusion that these words in Eph. and Col. are therefore a reference to the Psalms only. To me that's an impossible conclusion. No one at any time would have understood it that way. Such a conclusion would result in absurdities. 

And we have seen a number of them in these discussions. Hymn-singers are lawbreakers? Sinners? That's quite a step, isnt' it? 

Or that pastors have a completely different RPW applying to them. Whatever is not specifically forbidden the mouthpiece of God may proclaim as doctrine from the pulpit. If he believes that the Bible teaches Presuppositionalism, then it would be unfaithful of him not to preach that. So he is not forbidden. But if I were to say that the Bible indicates that we are to praise God for the many blessing we receivce from Him, a number of which you will find in the Prayers and Praises sections of this Board's forums, that we are to shout them and sing them too, I suddenly become a lawbreaker. If that means that I ought to include the name of Jesus in my songs of thanksgiving, I become a lawbreaker. It's even been said that we are forbidden to include the name of Jesus in our songs because we do not find it in the Psalms; whatever is not commanded is forbidden, so therefore the name of Jesus is in our songs forbidden. These are the kinds of absurdities that result from this kind of logic. 

My main point was that, whatever might be your position, I myself cannot conceive of such a possibility that the readers in Paul's day would have understood the words, "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" to be understood as a reference exclusively to the Psalms. A reference to the Psalms? I can imagine that, yes. But exclusively to the Psalms? That comes completely out of left field for me.

[edit]My mentioning a different RPW for ministers is in reference to another EP thread where this was discussed.[/edit]


----------

