# EP Split Thread



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 25, 2005)

For any of you newly convinced of EP, get your copy of _The Comprehensive Psalter_ here: 
http://www.fpcr.org/catalog/catalog-online.htm
We also sell by the case.....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> For any of you newly convinced of EP, get your copy of _The Comprehensive Psalter_ here:
> http://www.fpcr.org/catalog/catalog-online.htm
> We also sell by the case.....



Which one is better? His or this one?


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 25, 2005)

For the newby, What's EP?


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> For the newby, What's EP?



Electronic Percussion. 

No, it's Exclusive Psalmody.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 25, 2005)

> No, it's Exclusive Psalmody.



OK, I get it now. Interesting as I'm currently playing some acoustic guitar and a bit of bass in the "Praise Band" of our local PCA church. The songs are mostly solid doctrinally (... definitely not your "Hosanna and Vineyard" Charismatic fare) with a number of traditional Hymns thrown in. A couple of times lately I've attended a local OPC Church that uses the "Book of Psalms" and the "Trinity Hymnal" exclusively with simple piano accompaniment. Overall, the OPC assembly seems to emphasize "being Reformed" a bit more than the aforementioned PCA Church. I am aware of the range of distinctions in these two Churches and I can see the appeal that each has.

Would anyone with more experience care to extol the virtues of Exclusive Psalmody. For what it's worth, I'm aware that the "Regulative Principle" (is this something good for "covenantal constipation"  - remember I'm a recovering dispensationalist) is connected to this.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 25, 2005)

Brian, it is solely based upon the RPW.


----------



## daveb (Jul 25, 2005)

Brian, here's an overview of EP:

http://www.reformed.com/pub/psalms.htm

If you're looking for discussion on EP you can find it here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6252&page=1

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9743


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 25, 2005)

Thanks everyone.

As a lover of God's Word, I could be totally satisfied to simply sing the Psalms. The are so rich in content. However, as a musician, I still have a hard time buying that the Psalms were originally sung in the rigid 4-part harmony that the "Book of Psalms" as them scored in. I'm no musicologist, but I don't believe the tonic/dominant hierarchy so prevelant in typical Hymn-song constructs is what David and his musicians structured the music for the Psalms around. With the right arragements and talented players, I could "hear" the Psalms in a variety of more contemporary harmonic/melodic constructs. This wouldn't shake up the RPW adherents too badly would it?

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Thanks everyone.
> 
> As a lover of God's Word, I could totally satisfied to simply sing the Psalms. The are so rich in content. However, as a musician, I still have a hard time buying that the Psalms have be sung in a rigid 4-part harmony as indicated in the "Book of Psalms". I'm no musicologist, but I don't believe the tonic/dominant hierarchy so prevelant in typical Hymn-song constructs is what David and his musicians structured the music for the Psalms around. With the right arragements and talented players, I could "hear" the Psalms in a variety of more contemporary harmonic/melodic constructs. This wouldn't shake up the RPW adherents too badly would it?



My opinion, I don't believe so Brian. I don't know that the _sounds_ themself break the RPW.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 25, 2005)

The tunes by which the Psalms are sung is a _consequence_ of worship, not an _element_. Only the _elements_ of worship, as outlined by *WCF XXI. V.*, are regulated by Scripture as commandments of God.

The only regulated stipulation we could infer about _how_ they are to be sung (i.e. the tunes), is that Paul says worship should all be for "edification/building up" and "orderly."

Therefore, no heavy-metal Psalters are likely to be found in Reformed churches adhering to the RPW and EP... 

The _Book of Psalms for Singing_ which my Church uses (the RPCNA) contains Psalms set to four-part harmony and utilizes many original and classic tunes, even borrowing from some classic modern hymns their musical arrangement. There are also several Psalms set to chants, but I have yet to be a part of that in this Church (however, I've only been attending since February or so, and a member since April).

This is a summary of Christian Worship I wrote for my website (www.dominionandglory.org):



> *CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.*
> When God's covenant people gather on the Lord's day to worship Him, they are engaging in a renewal and remembrance of their covenant with Him. The Worship of God is a serious issue, containing elements that are regulated by God in His Word and circumstances not regulated by His Word, save for the stipulation that all things be done "decently and in order" and for "edification"; that is, the increase of knowledge and wisdom, which can alone come from God's Word and His Truth through His Spirit. Therefore, we are to worship the Lord in Spirit and in Truth. Worship is a condition and matter of the heart first and foremost, only capable of occuring in the heart of a truly regenerate person. The elements of worship that are regulated by His Word are the ministry of the Word (the proper preaching and reading of God's Word by qualified men), prayer, the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper), and the singing of the Psalms with grace in the heart.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 25, 2005)

Info on metrical psalmody, the metrical psalter, the history of psalm tunes and sample psalters and tunes.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 25, 2005)

Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship: http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola.htm
A Brief Critique of Steven M. Schlissel´s Articles Against the Regulative Principle of Worship: http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/schlissel.htm
Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God: http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/music.htm
Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense: http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/psalm.htm
Christ in the Psalms: http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Christpsalms.html
The Teaching of Jesus On Worship: http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/The Teaching of Jesus on Worship.htm


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 25, 2005)

> Therefore, no heavy-metal Psalters are likely to be found in Reformed churches adhering to the RPW and EP...



You're too funny. 

How about creative acoustic arrangements (think Michael Card and the more mellow Paul Baloche stuff) with a contemporary Irish flair? The piece "Slip into Spring" from the Riverdance score is a decent example of what I'm thinking - although more "regulated" -) so as to provide accompaniment for singing.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 25, 2005)

Instruments would not be utilized in a RPW church such as the kind we are speaking of in this thread, as using them would violate the RPW. The tunes can be used, but in singing, not by playing of instruments.


----------



## VanVos (Jul 25, 2005)

For those who might be interested here's a debate on EP

'Is Exclusive Psalmody Taught in Scripture?'
http://www.cprc.co.uk/m3u/psalmodydebate.m3u

interesting stuff

VanVos


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> ...



Call me silly, but, brother, I laughed the hardest 
I've laughed in LONG, LONG time when I read this~


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 25, 2005)

> The tunes can be used, but in singing, not by playing of instruments.



... and I suppose the proponents of this viewpoint use the same arugments from silence (pun intended) that the Churches of Christ do. The Scriptures say that many of the Psalms were composed for instrumental accompiament.  Are we regulated by the Scriptures or not?

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> 
> 
> > The tunes can be used, but in singing, not by playing of instruments.
> ...



This has been argued at length on here. Search some older threads for debate/discussion on this topic. In short, the New Testament abrogates instruments as part of the Levitical/Temple worship system, according to this RPW viewpoint. This viewpoint has a wealth of historical support and Scriptural proof. If you want to know more, U2U me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> For those who might be interested here's a debate on EP
> 
> 'Is Exclusive Psalmody Taught in Scripture?'
> ...



Thanks, I am listening right now. Almost done with the first part of the debate.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 25, 2005)

Folks,

Thanks one and all for providing so much information to a neophyte like me on this subject. Honestly, it's not the instruments that really matter to me, it's focus upon Jesus Christ and hearing His Word exposited. I will say that if "shape note singing" is the way to go, then RPW Churches are going to need an vertiable army of "David Gamuts" (the psalmodist from "The Last of the Mohicans") to teach us how. I'm all for glorifying God with "voices only" (the voice being a marvelous instrument), let's just do it with proper intonation and articulation. There's nothing more stultifying then listening to nasal or booming singing that is out of tune.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 25, 2005)

Maybe I'm just lazy, but I really didn't want to wade through all the comments on the other threads. Plus, the formatting was gone so it was hard to read. I'm not really trying to debate anything, but I wondered if anyone would weigh in on this argument.

If we are to sing the Psalms only, then why do we sing uninspired English paraphrases?

I am not biased. I really could go either way on this one. I vote for simplicity, whatever the music we use to worship. So if it's a couple of Psalms, or Hymns or both, it really doesn't matter to me.

But if we're going to be dogmatic about EP, then why is it that we make a distinction with no difference? The metrical psalter is no different than scripturally based hymns to me, especially when they're sung to a hymn tune. Logically I don't see how we can make statements that EP'ers only sing inspired Scripture. English metrical psalms are not inspired.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 25, 2005)

> If we are to sing the Psalms only, then why do we sing uninspired English paraphrases?



If we are to read God's Word, then why do we read uninspired English translations?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VanVos_
> ...



I am coming down on the side of the second speaker so far. Not done listening yet.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

St. Augustine on Psalm 150 (and the use of instruments to praise God):



> Psalm CL.
> 
> 1. Although the arrangement of the Psalms, which seems to me to contain the secret of a mighty mystery, hath not yet been revealed unto me, yet, by the fact that they in all amount to one hundred and fifty, they suggest somewhat even to us, who have not as yet pierced with the eye of our mind the depth of their entire arrangement, whereon we may without being over-bold, so far as God giveth, be able to speak. Firstly, the number fifteen, whereof it is a multiple this number fifteen, I say, signifieth the agreement of the two Testaments. For in the former is observed the Sabbath, which signifieth rest; in the latter the Lord's Day, which signifieth resurrection. The Sabbath is the seventh day, but the Lord's Day, coming after the seventh, must needs be the eighth, and is also to be reckoned the first. For it is called the first day of the week, and so from it are reckoned the second, third, fourth, and so on to the seventh day of the week, which is the Sabbath. But from Lord's Day to Lord's Day is eight days, wherein is declared the revelation of the New Testament, which in the Old was as it were veiled under earthly promises. Further, seven and eight make fifteen. Of the same number too are the Psalms which are called "of the steps," because that was the number of the steps of the Temple. Further too, the number fifty in itself also containeth a great mystery. For it consisteth of a week of weeks, with the addition of one as an eighth to complete the number of fifty. For seven times seven make forty-nine, whereto one is added to make fifty. And this number fifty is of so great meaning, that it was after the completion of that number of days from the Lord's Resurrection, that, on the fiftieth day exactly, the Holy Spirit came upon those who were gathered together in Christ. And this Holy Spirit is in Scripture especially spoken of by the number seven, whether in Isaiah or in the Apocalypse, where the seven Spirits of God are most directly mentioned, on account of the sevenfold operation of one and the self-same Spirit. And this sevenfold operation is mentioned in Isaiah. ...Hence also the Holy Spirit is spoken of under the number seven. But this period of fifty the Lord divided into forty and ten: for on the fortieth day after His Resurrection He ascended into heaven, and then after ten days were completed He sent the Holy Spirit: under the number forty setting forth to us the period of temporal sojourn in this world. For the number four prevaileth in forty; and the world and the year have each four parts; and by the addition of the number ten, as a sort of reward added for the fulfilment of the law in good works, eternity itself is figured. This fifty the number one hundred and fifty containeth three times, as though it were multiplied by the Trinity. Wherefore for this reason too we make out that this number of the Psalm is not unsuitable.
> 
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

I'm done.  I'll let the good Dr. speak for himself as he pleases. No need for debate in this thread.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 26, 2005)

Kevin, I am basically in the same state as you in that I am basically neutral, and I have different mental barriers to each side at this point. I do not personally see your question as a problem for EP, but I'll refrain from discussing it here out of respect for Matt's request. I did, however, give a brief response to Phillip when he asked the same question about one-third of the way down this page.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> If we are to sing the Psalms only, then why do we sing uninspired English paraphrases?


We translate them on the same grounds that we put Scripture into the common tongue (1 Cor. 14). No one is edified unless they can understand it. So unless you wish to teach your congregation Hebrew, you will have to translate. 



> But if we're going to be dogmatic about EP, then why is it that we make a distinction with no difference? The metrical psalter is no different than scripturally based hymns to me, especially when they're sung to a hymn tune. Logically I don't see how we can make statements that EP'ers only sing inspired Scripture. English metrical psalms are not inspired.



The Scottish metrical psalters are a literal translation of the Hebrew. Hence their reputation for being harder to sing  The Dutch, Swiss, and English psalters tend to paraphrase more, and on those, I would agree with you, they more resemble uninspired hymns. 

As for the music, it is a convention. We don't know Hebrew music, but we are commanded to sing, and to sing together. Music is a circumstance for the element of song, not an element itself. 

I am not dogmatic about this issue either, though I am EP by default. To me, the whole debate hinges upon the exegesis of "psalms, hymns, and spirutal songs" by Paul. What did Paul mean? How did the early Gentile church understand him? Hopefully, as I learn Greek this year, I will come to a better understanding of this issue. Plus, it's harder to be EP these days when most Reformed churches today have forgotten it. Only a few micro-denominations still practice it in America.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 26, 2005)

Thanks for the replies. I really do see both sides of the issue. But I can't see this as a hill to die on, or as something that precludes us from worshipping together. When with the RPCNA, I'll do as they do out of deference to them. But from what I gather, they will not reciprocate, which makes me wonder if that kind of thinking pleases God. Our worship is translated anyway. That's not an excuse for flippant behavior, but we should realize that singing Psalms does not make us closer to God or commend us to Him. If our worship is pleasing, it is only by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 26, 2005)

Kevin,
You write: 



> singing Psalms does not make us closer to God



Would singing Psalms bring us closer to God than singing something that clearly breaks the RPW or possibly could break the RPW?

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

Singing Psalms is the only way we can be closer to God through worship, practically speaking. Only God's Word is wise. Only God's Word can truly edify us. The whole translation argument is rediculous, in my opinion... sorry. Even the newer Psalters that rhyme and paraphrase slightly teach us exactly what the original Hebrew does, and in easily-memorizable song form. When I compare it with my ESV or other translation, it is no different than if someone was reading from the KJV and I followed along in the ESV. God's Word is still God's Word. Plus, what better way to memorize God's Word? There are people in my Church who have the entire Book of Psalms memorized from singing it their whole life.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Let's NOT do this - let's not get into a new EP thread just yet. I've gone back and read everything ont he board on this subject, from the beginning. I think a lot of what was written is off the subject and chasing a lot of ghosts and smoke screens. Let's not jusmp the gun again and get into wrong ideas off the bat. I'll post some ideas later on and write some things as well. But I don't want to get into a shooting match just yet. (Just yet!) Even in reading my own responses and posts in those thread I have to roll my eyes at myself for arguing the way I did. I'll explain later.
> 
> [Edited on 7-26-2005 by webmaster]



I haven't yet put forward my arguments opposed to EP. That is another thread. And besides, I'm still working on that. My biggest problem right now is determining with certainty whether or not I am coming at this reactionarily rather than objectively. So far, all I've done is wait for some argument in favour of EP, as if it had the burden of proof. 

I'd be looking forward to a good discussion on this. It was Matt's original change from credo to paedo that first got my interest to this Board. That wasn't what made me want to join, but it is what made me stop here to have a look. It was the matter and type of discussion that ensued that got me to join up.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

You can download the EP debate here.

They are both persuasive. I am landing on the 2nd speakers side though. He is not EP. He is very pro Psalm singing though.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

EP is simple. People make it so complicated and argue from emotion more than Scripture, in my opinion.

The simplicity of it rests on the fact that Paul commands us to sing something in Eph 5:19/Col 3:16 ... all we have to do is step back from our 21st century, biased interpretation, and think "What would a first century person have interpreted or understood this as?"


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

Listen to the debate Gabe. You might learn something other than your preconceived notions. Just like when you impose your understanding of Reformed Baptists by your own experience as being a Southern Baptist. Listen to the debate. You might learn that you are even more convinced, but at least listen and learn why. Don't just chaulk it up to emotionalism.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

I will listen to the debate if it will make you happy. I do not hold to EP because of preconceived notions.

I spent 10 years in the SBC playing guitar, leading "worship," writing "worship songs," singing songs of human composition and strongly defending and propogating this practice against any opposition. I am EP because it is a necessary consequence from Scripture, not because of preference, presuppositions, or traditions. Everything related to who I am, what I grew up believing, and what is around me on a constant basis, contradicts and opposes strongly EP. I would never hold to a doctrine unless I was thoroughly convinced by God's Word (and I studied EP for almost a year before coming to a conclusion), and EP certainly takes no exception.

FYI.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

Been there and done that also. I am not trying to respond emotionally either. I want God to be glorified the way he tells me to glorify him. Anything else is rubbish. I think Psalm singing is the best way to stay sure. I am prejudiced in that way. I have problems with the modern day stuff. Mainly because it lacks theological understanding. It isn't proven either. Just listen to the debate. It is intelligent and easy to listen to. Both guys are Reformed in the true sense. Plus their accents are cool.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

I think the second guy's arguments are terrible (but so are the first guy's arguments). He asserts that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" means X, but then does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to prove this. Nothing. No Scripture comparison, no exegesis. Nothing.

Then, he commits the word root fallacy in appealing that "psalmos" HAS to mean "to pluck with an instrument." His definition-exegesis of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is embarrasing. We interpret Scripture with Scripture, not a dictionary or lexicon. The Psalms of the Old Testament are called hymns (with the same Greek word in the LXX) in the Old Testament. They are also called, simply, songs. I'm surprised this guy isn't a baptist, since he exegetes Scripture based on chosen definitions for Greek words. 

Then, he agrees that "spiritual" shows the TYPE of songs that ought to be sung, but then does nothing to define what that word means (pneumataikis, I believe). This word is only used in cases of the Spirit of God being involved (or the Spirit of Satan) in the New Testament. I don't think anyone would argue we should sing by the Spirit of Satan. 

Finally, his appeal that Calvin allegedly didn't support EP neither proves nor disproves the doctrine. He says he agrees with Calvin in his exegesis of Eph 5:19/Col 3:16, asserting that psalmos means to play with an instrument ... too bad Calvin was vehemently AGAINST the use of instruments in worship, as Judaizing.

Inconsistency, logical and exegetical fallacies, and appeals to authority (logical fallacy) are not arguments against EP. Just my humble opinion and thoughts.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> The Scottish metrical psalters are a literal translation of the Hebrew. Hence their reputation for being harder to sing  The Dutch, Swiss, and English psalters tend to paraphrase more, and on those, I would agree with you, they more resemble uninspired hymns.


_The Comprehensive Psalter_ is an edition of the 1650 Scottish Psalter, and this is why we chose to go with that as the elders believed overall it was still the best translation.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 26, 2005)

Are there notes that can be played on the guitar? Or the lyre (Ps. 43:4)?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Are there notes that can be played on the guitar? Or the lyre (Ps. 43:4)?



If you're going to apostatize to the Old Covenant (Cf. Heb 7-10) and make a sacrificial offering to the Lord on the altar (Ps. 43:4), I'm sure you can figure out how to play the notes on a guitar.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> EP is simple. People make it so complicated and argue from emotion more than Scripture, in my opinion.
> 
> The simplicity of it rests on the fact that Paul commands us to sing something in Eph 5:19/Col 3:16 ... all we have to do is step back from our 21st century, biased interpretation, and think "What would a first century person have interpreted or understood this as?"



In light of that question, what do you make of the fact that Ephesians and Colossians were written to primarily newly-converted Gentile and Greek audiences? Fred elaborated on that point here much better than I could hope to, and so far I have yet to see a good EP response on that particular issue. Again, however, I could go either way at this point, and this particular issue is simply one of the points that seems to me to support hymnody at his point.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

Do you think Paul would command new converts, ignorant of a great deal of theological implications related to Christianity, to write their own songs for worship? Knowing that they could write heresy so easily (as heretics did in the first few centuries, writing hymns to promote their doctrine)? Think especially of Corinth.

The fact of the matter is, if these people in Ephesus and Colossae had "bibles", it WAS the Septuagint. That is a FACT, indisputible. In GREEK, the Septuagint refers to the Psalms, OUTSIDE OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS, as both "hymns" and "songs."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 26, 2005)

From a previous thread on inspired Scripture:



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



[Edited on 7-26-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## kceaster (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Kevin,
> You write:
> 
> ...



Take the theological content of this song:

Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near;
Praise Him in glad adoration.

Praise to the Lord, Who over all things so wondrously reigneth,
Shelters thee under His wings, yea, so gently sustaineth!
Hast thou not seen how thy desires ever have been
Granted in what He ordaineth?

Praise to the Lord, Who hath fearfully, wondrously, made thee;
Health hath vouchsafed and, when heedlessly falling, hath stayed thee.
What need or grief ever hath failed of relief?
Wings of His mercy did shade thee.

Praise to the Lord, Who doth prosper thy work and defend thee;
Surely His goodness and mercy here daily attend thee.
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do,
If with His love He befriend thee.

Praise to the Lord, Who, when tempests their warfare are waging,
Who, when the elements madly around thee are raging,
Biddeth them cease, turneth their fury to peace,
Whirlwinds and waters assuaging.

Praise to the Lord, Who, when darkness of sin is abounding,
Who, when the godless do triumph, all virtue confounding,
Sheddeth His light, chaseth the horrors of night,
Saints with His mercy surrounding.

Praise to the Lord, O let all that is in me adore Him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him.
Let the Amen sound from His people again,
Gladly for aye we adore Him.

All of this is content paraphrased from the Psalms. Why does this commend us to God less than singing an English paraphrase of the Psalms? Does God forbid the quoting of Scripture from memory, out of order? Does God forbid the dynamic equivalent if it aids in understanding and pedagogy?

It really is straining at a gnat if we think that hymns with rich doctrinal content are not appropriate in the worship of God, especially when we have to do the same with the Psalms to make them singable.

If one is to be EP and the RPW is immovable on this, then one must sing in Hebrew. That is the only way I can understand it. Anything short of this is getting close but not close enough. Then you have whole denominations who claim that they're closer than you are. But in the end, what does God prescribe? If He prescribes the singing of the 150 Psalms only, then we had better sing them as they are written. Because anything other than this is innovation and uninspiration.

WCF 1:8 says that only the Hebrew and Greek texts are authentical and carry the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That means that a vulgar tongue is not inspired on issues of complete understanding. We are to search the original text to see the inspired Scriptures, though the English translations are quite accurate and translated with care.

So, most accurately, if we are going to sing the inspired Word of God, then we must, of necessity, sing the Psalms in Hebrew.

But why must we go to such extremes? Why be so dogmatic? Why do we hold over our brothers our own practice against theirs? Are we more holy? More righteous?

The EP congregations are no more holy, nor do they uphold more fully the RPW than other reformed denominations. Why? Because we're all fallen sinners who worship God imperfectly. Why squabble over this? It is distinction without difference. Psalm 103 can be sung from the English Bible, it can be sung from the Psalter, it can be sung to another tune. The concepts can be put into slightly different words.

Did the divines have in mind that we would use a particular Psalter? Did they prescribe one? No. Because of this, we should see that there is latitude.

Unfortunately, we as fallen sinners, hang ourselves with latitude.

That means that we do not go willy-nilly whereever we want to on this one, but sing songs to the Lord that are from His Word that align with the truths of Scripture. Not all hymns are good. But not all are bad either.

To me, this issue is rather like saying, "Do you tithe your mint." "I sure do. But do you tithe your cummin." "No." "Well, I would never think of not tithing my cummin." Who can be the most accurate? Who can be the model church? Who looks and sounds the best to God?

We are all ushered into the throne room of God through the blood veil of Jesus Christ our Lord. The Holy Spirit takes us there and translates our stuttering speech into the words pleasing to God's ears. God is not looking for true worship. He's looking for true worshipers. If we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and we look unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, then EP is not a hill to die on. And it certainly shouldn't be something that divides us.

As I said, I am perfectly fine singing only Psalms with my EP brothers. But what is it that holds them back from singing hymns with me? Identify that attitude and you have my problem with EP in a nutshell.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Did the divines have in mind that we would use a particular Psalter? Did they prescribe one? No. Because of this, we should see that there is latitude.



Consistent with the Westminster Directory of Publick Worship, 



> Of Singing of Psalms.
> 
> IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.
> 
> ...



the Assembly indeed did intend for a particular Psalter to be used in the churches under its jurisdiction, ie., that which became known as the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter. 

William Symington, _The Westminster Assembly of Divines_:



> On November 20, 1643, the Parliament sent down an order to the Westminster Assembly to take under their consideration Rous' metrical version of the Psalms, with a view to its use in public singing, instead of that hitherto employed, by Sternholds and Hopkins. The Independents were opposed to the use of any one Psalter, but the Presbyterians were in favor of such a measure, and the Scots commissioners appear to have entered warmly into the matter. Many alterations and amendments were suggested by the Assembly from time to time on the version of Rous. Baillie remarks in one place, "*The Psalter is a great part of our uniformity*, which we can not let pass till our Church be well advised with it." In another, "The Psalms are perfyted; the best without all doubt that ever yet were extant." Again, in urging attention to the revision on his friend Douglas: "These lines are likely to go up to God from many millions of tongues for many generations; it were a pity but all possible diligence were used to have them framed so well as might be." The version on which all this labor was bestowed both by the Westminster Assembly and by the Church in Scotland, is that which is still in use in Scotland, having been authorized by an act of the commission of the General Assembly, November 23, 1649, and confirmed by an order of the Committee of Estates, January 8, 1650.



See also the 1673 Puritan Preface to the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think the second guy's arguments are terrible (but so are the first guy's arguments). He asserts that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" means X, but then does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to prove this. Nothing. No Scripture comparison, no exegesis. Nothing.
> 
> Then, he commits the word root fallacy in appealing that "psalmos" HAS to mean "to pluck with an instrument." His definition-exegesis of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is embarrasing. We interpret Scripture with Scripture, not a dictionary or lexicon. The Psalms of the Old Testament are called hymns (with the same Greek word in the LXX) in the Old Testament. They are also called, simply, songs. I'm surprised this guy isn't a baptist, since he exegetes Scripture based on chosen definitions for Greek words.



Here's a common weakness with EP arguments. Greek words have a common meaning to themselves outside NT Scripture. It's not just a matter of "comparing Scripture with Scripture" but comparing the Hebrew cultural usage with Greek cultural usage. When the Ephesian or Colossian Greeks heard "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" what did they first think? They didn't have any Hebrew reference point like Jewish converts did. Paul would have had to explain himself further at some point. James simply states "psalms" addressing his Hebrew audience, which if we had that alone we could certainly derive an EP position. But Paul uses more broad terms with a Gentile population. You have to assume a couple things in order to properly understand the phrase "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs". And these assumptions will have to be somehow contructed from the early Christian worldview, and especially account for the Gentile inclusion and adoption of Christian worship. 
1) If your EP, you have to assume that Paul explained this phrase previously to the Gentile Christians, and simply reasserts that teaching, and give a sound argument for that assumption. 
2) If you're non-EP, you have to assume that Paul previously taught that it was ok to compose new hymns, which this phrase simply reasserts, and give a sound argument for that. 

I have yet to see a good argument thus far for either case. 

Hence why I am EP by default, since it is the Confessional position, and in my view "safer."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> If one is to be EP and the RPW is immovable on this, then one must sing in Hebrew. That is the only way I can understand it. Anything short of this is getting close but not close enough. Then you have whole denominations who claim that they're closer than you are. But in the end, what does God prescribe? If He prescribes the singing of the 150 Psalms only, then we had better sing them as they are written. Because anything other than this is innovation and uninspiration.
> 
> WCF 1:8 says that only the Hebrew and Greek texts are authentical and carry the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That means that a vulgar tongue is not inspired on issues of complete understanding. We are to search the original text to see the inspired Scriptures, though the English translations are quite accurate and translated with care.
> ...


You seem to forget that 1 Cor. 14 is also part of the RPW, that we are to sing with understanding, in a language everyone can understand. If we were to rest with your argument of singing only in Hebrew, then we have no warrant to translate the Bible into the vulgar language either. Do you think the early greek Christians sang the songs in Hebrew? Or in Greek? 



> But why must we go to such extremes? Why be so dogmatic? Why do we hold over our brothers our own practice against theirs? Are we more holy? More righteous?


Some do go too extreme in their rhetoric. But EP is the position of the WCF whether you like it or not, whether the denomination enforces it or not. 



> As I said, I am perfectly fine singing only Psalms with my EP brothers. But what is it that holds them back from singing hymns with me? Identify that attitude and you have my problem with EP in a nutshell.


No one would object to singing psalms in either camp. For the rigid EP though, to sing uninpsired hymns is to betray the RPW. It's not an "I'm better than you" attitude, but rather an "I'm trying to worship God as he commands" attitude. Some can be gracious, and leave room for Christian liberty and ecclestiastical submission on this point, which is the point I'm at now. But that doesn't change the fact that only one position is correct, and since it is tied to worship, it does become more important since it affects how we worship every Sunday.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> EP is simple. People make it so complicated and argue from emotion more than Scripture, in my opinion.
> 
> The simplicity of it rests on the fact that Paul commands us to sing something in Eph 5:19/Col 3:16 ... all we have to do is step back from our 21st century, biased interpretation, and think "What would a first century person have interpreted or understood this as?"



As I have sad before, the only way that you camn interpret this is to be completely ignorant of Greco-Roman civilization and culture for the 1000 years before Christ.

I assure you, no pagan Greek would have EVER heard "hymn" and thought, "one of the 150 Psalms in a book I have never heard of by a backwater people that I did not even know existed."


----------



## Beloved (Jul 26, 2005)

Thank you so much for this discussion! My husband would prefer exclusive psalmody, but I'm in the camp with BrianBowman, and thankfully he attends my church, maybe we can work on locating some ways to work in more exclusive psalmody at Peace with some updated scoring. (Brian - Might be a good hobby for Richard to take up in all that spare time he has  )

This sort of discussion is what Ive been looking for online for years. I will probably lurk way way more than I have the courage to post on the theology and doctrine subjects, but I am so eager to learn from what everyone else discusses on the heavier subjects!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> I assure you, no pagan Greek would have EVER heard "hymn" and thought, "one of the 150 Psalms in a book I have never heard of by a backwater people that I did not even know existed."



Are we talking about pagan Greeks, here, Fred? Or saints? Did they have no access to the Scriptures? Did they not have elders or apostles teaching them doctrine? Were they simply converted and then left to go wild? Is it not true that, according to Church history, the apostle John was the bishop over Ephesus for a long period of time? Either these churches in Ephesus and Colossae were started by Jew converts to Christianity from Pentecost (in which case, knowledge of the LXX would be vast) or by apostles and disciples spreading the gospel. Either way, they weren't ignorant of Scripture and doctrine as a whole. Babes in Christ, they likely were for a time, but not pagan Greeks.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



Just for information sake:

A Puritan Preface to the Scottish Metrical Psalter

Below is the text (with some modernisation of spelling and punctuation etc.) of a letter to the reader affixed to an edition of the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter printed for the Company of Stationers at London in 1673. The title page bears the words: "œThe Psalms of David In Meeter. Newly Translated and diligently compared with the Original Text, and former Translations: More plain, smooth and agreeable to the Text, than any heretofore."

Good Reader,

´Tis evident by the common experience of mankind, that love cannot lie idle in the soul. For every one hath his oblectation [way of enjoyment] and delight, his tastes and relishes are suitable to his constitution, and a man´s temper is more discovered by his solaces than by any thing else: carnal men delight in what is suited to the gust [taste] of the flesh, and spiritual men in the things of the Spirit. The promises of God's holy covenant, which are to others as stale news or withered flowers, feed the pleasure of their minds; and the mysteries of our redemption by Christ are their hearts´ delight and comfort. But as joy must have a proper object so also a vent: for this is an affection that cannot be penned up: the usual issue and out-going of it is by singing. Profane spirits must have songs suitable to their mirth; as their mirth is carnal so their songs are vain and frothy, if not filthy and obscene; but they that rejoice in the Lord, their mirth runneth in a spiritual channel: "œIs any merry? let him sing psalms," saith the apostle (James 5:13). And, "œThy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage," saith holy David (Ps. 119:54).

Surely singing, ´tis a delectable way of instruction, as common prudence will teach us. Aelian (Natural History, book 2, chapter 39) telleth us that the Cretans enjoined their children to learn their laws by singing them in verse. And surely singing of Psalms is a duty of such comfort and profit, that it needeth not our recommendation: The new nature is instead of all arguments, which cannot be without thy spiritual solace. Now though spiritual songs of mere human composure may have their use, yet our devotion is best secured, where the matter and words are of immediately divine inspiration; and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of "œpsalms and hymns and spiritual songs," which the apostle useth (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). But then ´tis meet that these divine composures should be represented to us in a fit translation, lest we want David, in David; while his holy ecstasies are delivered in a flat and bald expression. The translation which is now put into thy hands cometh nearest to the original of any that we have seen, and runneth with such a fluent sweetness, that we thought fit to recommend it to thy Christian acceptance; some of us having used it already, with great comfort and satisfaction.

Thomas Manton D.D Henry Langley D.D. John Owen D.D.

William Jenkyn James Innes Thomas Watson

Thomas Lye Matthew Poole John Milward

John Chester George Cokayn Matthew Meade

Robert Francklin Thomas Dooelittle Thomas Vincent

Nathanael Vincent John Ryther William Tomson

Nicolas Blaikie Charles Morton Edmund Calamy

William Carslake James Janeway John Hickes

John Baker


----------



## Augusta (Jul 26, 2005)

What convinces me is the fact that the Israelites were GIVEN everything for the worship of God. Nothing was man-made and you did NOT approach Him any way you pleased. 

The Levites were a type of the visible church. They alone were allowed to enter into the temples holiest areas. They were not given land because they were consecrated to God as His special people. They had very specific instructions for everything and deviated from those instructions at their own peril.

There are many examples of people bringing what was NOT what God had commanded or profaned God's worship by doing their own thing and they met God's wrath and or punishment when they did. Cain, Nadab, Abihu, Uzzah, and Zimri who brought Cozbi a midianite woman just to the door of the tent of meeting and Phinehas spears them both through and God was pleased.

Numbers 25:
10 The LORD said to Moses, 
11 "Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them. 
12 Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. 
13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites." 

Yes the veil was ripped in two. That was because the Temple is obsolete now. We no longer need it because we have a heavenly temple now. We worship here but we worship "in Christ" in the heavenly temple which is HOLY. Even the Seraphim cover their eyes and feet there. We should all be as zealous as Zimri was for God's honor. We should not even think of profaning God's presence by bringing man-made things to the worship of God. 

Uzzah was killed because he touched the ark. He himself was the profane in that instance even though he was consecrated by God as a special class of people for the purpose of carrying the ark, even though he was sincere in trying to keep it from falling to the ground. Sincerity means nothing. The worship is for God not man. What we like doesn't matter. What's funner for us does not matter. Pleasing God is what matters. We should not do what is not commanded. 

Just read Malachi 1 and 2 to see what God thinks of people profaning His worship. Then read Isaiah 56:1-8 to see the blessings the gentiles will receive when they keep from "defiling the Sabbath."


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> What convinces me is the fact that the Israelites were GIVEN everything for the worship of God. Nothing was man-made and you did NOT approach Him any way you pleased.
> 
> The Levites were a type of the visible church. They alone were allowed to enter into the temples holiest areas. They were not given land because they were consecrated to God as His special people. They had very specific instructions for everything and deviated from those instructions at their own peril.



Traci,

This is interesting, since the Biblical historical fact is that the Israelites you specifically mention did not have any (or nearly any) of the Psalter. Did God fail to provide for them? Did they sing from another (unpreserved) Psalter? If so, where did it go? Why did God let it go?

If not, did they sing uninspired songs? If so, were they less under the RPW than we are? Did the RPW "not count" for Moses and the Levites? Are we to surmise that worship under the strictest of ceremonial conditions (the tabercnacle) was somehow wider in scope (freer) than under the New Covenant?


----------



## Augusta (Jul 26, 2005)

Fred, they sang only as the Spirit moved as in the case of them singing after crossing the Red sea. Once they had the "sweet Psalmist" he organized the singers and players and he wrote most of the Psalms. 

He was none other than David a prophet, priest, and King and the type of Christ. Combine this with the the levitical priesthood being the type of the visible church and you have a pretty darn good guide for how to run church and the worship of God. 

Here we are eschatologically "in Christ" before the throne of David in the heavenly temple not made with hands. I just can't see singing anything else before God in the presence of God but the inspired Psalms of David.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Fred, they sang only as the Spirit moved as in the case of them singing after crossing the Red sea. Once they had the "sweet Psalmist" he organized the singers and players and he wrote most of the Psalms.
> 
> He was none other than David a prophet, priest, and King and the type of Christ. Combine this with the the levitical priesthood being the type of the visible church and you have a pretty darn good guide for how to run church and the worship of God.




So you are saying that all singing before David was divinely inspired? I'd like to see any evidence for that.

You still have't answered my question. You are only left with 

1. The saints did not sing at all before David

2. They sang only directly inspired songs, in which case those songs themselves becames somehow "no good anymore" after David (in fact, to sing the very song you mention, Exodus 15, would be to give false worship God according EP)

3. They sang uninspired songs, which were ok, but then God changed his mind.

Sorry, I don't see how any of those are possible.



> Here we are eschatologically "in Christ" before the throne of David in the heavenly temple not made with hands. I just can't see singing anything else before God in the presence of God but the inspired Psalms of David.



So you couldn't see singing the inspired words the Scripture itself says that are sung before the throne of God (Revelation), or the words sung in Exodus? Is some Scripture better than others?

[Edited on 7/26/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Augusta (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...



As I said above they sang ONLY when moved by the Holy Spirit that I know of. Moses in Deut. was told by God to teach Israel that song to be a witness of Him telling them what He would do WHEN they turned yet again to idolatry. 

Deborah the prophetess prophesied in the form of a song. 

The song sung after crossing the Red Sea was said to be sung by Moses and the people and one can only deduce that he taught them that one too or they were all supernaturally singing the same words.

Other than that I see only plain old ordinary singing not in worship to God until David in 1 Chron. 15 when he brought the ark to Jerusalem. He is called the "sweet psalmist" and also in 2 Samuel 23 it says:

1 These are the last words of David: 
"The oracle of David son of Jesse, 
the oracle of the man exalted by the Most High, 
the man anointed by the God of Jacob, 
Israel's singer of songs: 

So as I said there was no singing in scripture that was in the worship of God that was not inspired. And I think it is no mistake that David, who was a huge figure in the OT and the type of Christ, wrote songs for the worship of God and that they were included in the canon of scripture. Why were the other songs not included? I do not know. I think if God wanted them to be sung they would have been included in the canon.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

This is an even more interesting take. So now worship did not involve singing at all before David? That would be the only element of worship that would be new and added that I am aware of.

Forgive me if I am not ready to jettison my understanding of the RPW solely because David is called the "sweet psalmist." That really has absolutely no theological import.


----------



## Peter (Jul 26, 2005)

1st remember the question is what they sung in *worship*. And to answer the question they sung only inspired songs. 

Nobody denies that not all of God's revelations have been inscripturated. Its probable that there was an environment rich with Spirit inspired songs pre-David. Also, yes, EPists believe to sing scripture songs other than the Psalms is sin. The reason is, we believe, as you know, that these songs were particular to a bygone period in redemptive history. It would be like following the Levitical instructions, though once prescribed their usage has been annulled. Anyway, the issue is irrelevant unless you're going to argue for an exclusive use of all scripture songs position Fred.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Peter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> We interpret Scripture with Scripture, not a dictionary or lexicon..... I'm surprised this guy isn't a baptist, since he exegetes Scripture based on chosen definitions for Greek words.



GABE, You can't mean what you said above. So Greek definitions don't mean anything and they aren't involved with interpreting what someone writes? I understand your plite and am not arguing against your findings. But statements like these will make you seem uncredible.

I agree we interpret scripture with scripture but we also do it by definition and context. I am not arguing against EP. I am trying to get you to discuss this more intelligently. Just say you disagree with his definitions and go find the correct definitions and context so that you can rebut. Logos is important. Definitions are important by nature. Context also helps us with defining words and doing exegesis. If words don't have definitions we only have isogesis and our own imaginations to rest upon. And I agree, we interpret Scripture with Scripture. That means taking the clearer passages to understand the difficult passages.
So tighten up your argument without being a loose canon. Not all Baptists are unsound theologians. You are capable. Do a better job.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 1st remember the question is what they sung in *worship*. And to answer the question they sung only inspired songs.



And the evidence for that would be?



> Nobody denies that not all of God's revelations have been inscripturated. Its probable that there was an environment rich with Spirit inspired songs pre-David. Also, yes, EPists believe to sing scripture songs other than the Psalms is sin. The reason is, we believe, as you know, that these songs were particular to a bygone period in redemptive history. It would be like following the Levitical instructions, though once prescribed their usage has been annulled. Anyway, the issue is irrelevant unless you're going to argue for an exclusive use of all scripture songs position Fred.



Actually, it is not irrelevant at all. It shows that the EP position is so extreme that it makes the singing of God's inspired word a sin. I can't imagine why it would be perfectly proper for me to corporately _read_ Exodus 15, but as soon as I set it to music, it is a grievous and high sin. Something is wrong here.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

Fred,

Your mood is singing: summertime and livin is easy...might want to change that. (so as not to offend of course...)

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## Augusta (Jul 26, 2005)

We haven't even started on the filthyness of the human mouth. What was it that Isaiah said when he saw the unveiled glory of God. 

"œ Woe is me, for I am undone! 
Because I am a man of unclean lips, 
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; 
For my eyes have seen the King, 
The LORD of hosts." 

Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

You cannot enter the temple if you are unclean. When you cannot know the heart of a person, how can you know if the person who wrote a song you are singing was regenerate? If they were not then you are profaning God's worship on the Sabbath when you are commanded by the 4th commandment to keep it Holy. The only way to be sure it is kept holy is to sing the inspired psalms.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 26, 2005)

to Fred's last post.

Think about it. To embrace EP is to embrace EXTREME DISCONTIUNUITY between the Old and New Covenants specifically in the area of worship. The only other option is to add to the Biblical record by arguing from silence.

Phillip

[Edited on 7-26-05 by pastorway]


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> You cannot enter the temple if you are unclean. When you cannot know the heart of a person, how can you know if the person who wrote a song you are singing was regenerate? If they were not then you are profaning God's worship on the Sabbath when you are commanded by the 4th commandment to keep it Holy. The only way to be sure it is kept holy is to sing the inspired psalms.



We enter the "temple" not on our own cleanness but with Christ's righteousness anyhow...singing psalms alone will not ensure that I am coming with the right heart. I'm sure there are people every Sunday somewhere singing a psalm and sinning at the same time.

As far as unregenerate people penning a hymn...I don't see the weight of that argument. Are the words true to God's Word?

Again, not arguing for or against EP just saying that these 2 arguments are non-arguments. I'm sure there are more convincing ones out there.


----------



## Peter (Jul 26, 2005)

> Actually, it is not irrelevant at all. It shows that the EP position is so extreme that it makes the singing of God's inspired word a sin. I can't imagine why it would be perfectly proper for me to corporately _read_ Exodus 15, but as soon as I set it to music, it is a grievous and high sin. Something is wrong here.



I'm sorry you feel that's extreme Fred but I dont see what reason there is to reject one thing God had previously given for worship but insist on the perpetuity of another. I think the problem must be your imagination then, because the confession and the puritans clearly could imagine song and prayer as two seperate elements of worship


----------



## kceaster (Jul 26, 2005)

*Patrick....*



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> You seem to forget that 1 Cor. 14 is also part of the RPW, that we are to sing with understanding, in a language everyone can understand. If we were to rest with your argument of singing only in Hebrew, then we have no warrant to translate the Bible into the vulgar language either. Do you think the early greek Christians sang the songs in Hebrew? Or in Greek?



But where are we told to translate the Psalms into a different language so that they can be sung? If God commanded that we sing the psalms, why would it be left up to us to interpret whether or not we should sing them in Hebrew? Remember if the RPW restricts to psalms only in worship of God, then we must also have a positive command to sing psalms in a translated tongue, mustn't we? Otherwise we have competing logic. We must do only what is commanded, and if there is no command inferred or otherwise, then we must only sing psalms in Hebrew.

However, if the same is true for psalm singing as is for the translation of God's Word, then we must apply a looser interpretation of the RPW when it comes to singing psalms. We must be able to paraphrase and essentially make hymns and spiritual songs from the words of Scripture. Just like "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty."



> Some do go too extreme in their rhetoric. But EP is the position of the WCF whether you like it or not, whether the denomination enforces it or not.



I know EP was the position of the WCF. But whether it should be lasting or whether other things can be done, I think is clearly spelled out in the words, "Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." WCF 1:6.

Why would they include the worship of God if there was not a bit of latitude in the RPW?



> No one would object to singing psalms in either camp. For the rigid EP though, to sing uninpsired hymns is to betray the RPW. It's not an "I'm better than you" attitude, but rather an "I'm trying to worship God as he commands" attitude. Some can be gracious, and leave room for Christian liberty and ecclestiastical submission on this point, which is the point I'm at now. But that doesn't change the fact that only one position is correct, and since it is tied to worship, it does become more important since it affects how we worship every Sunday.



Again, God is not looking for true worship, but true worshipers. The moment that we say that we worship more true than someone else, we have elevated our own actions and glorified ourselves. We can hold fast to the RPW and still have latitude between ourselves. It should not preclude our worshipping together, yet it does.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> As I have sad before, the only way that you can interpret this is to be completely ignorant of Greco-Roman civilization and culture for the 1000 years before Christ.
> 
> I assure you, no pagan Greek would have EVER heard "hymn" and thought, "one of the 150 Psalms in a book I have never heard of by a backwater people that I did not even know existed."



So what do you think Paul was telling them with "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs"? And how would the Jewish believers among them have understood Paul too? 

Also, perhaps you could provide some insight why the septuagint writers used the Greek words they did to label the psalms as "psalm, hymns, and songs" rather than just "psalms"?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Question:
> 
> Does the RPW not imply that in order for worship to be valid, it should be positively shown in Scripture, whether explicitly or by necessary deduction?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

Calvin on Colossians 3:16



> Psalms, hymns. He does not restrict the word of Christ to these particular
> departments, but rather intimates that all our communications should be
> adapted to edification, that even those which tend to hilarity may have no
> empty savor. "œLeave to unbelievers that foolish delight which they take
> ...



Calvin on Ephesians 5:19


> 19. To psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. These are truly pleasant
> and delightful fruits. The Spirit means "œjoy in the Holy Ghost,"
> (<451417>Romans 14:17 and the exhortation, be ye filled, (Ephesians 5.18,)
> alludes to deep drinking, with which it is indirectly contrasted. Speaking to
> ...



This doesn't sound like accapella EP.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Augusta (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Augusta_
> ...




Yes, and what do we do once we get there. Right now we are only there "in Christ" but are also still here in time and we still war with the flesh. We are prone, as the OT and modern day Christians show us, to idolatry. What better way is there for us to keep idolatry out of the worship of God than with the psalms that He gave us and commands us to sing. I see the wisdom of God in EP.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



Again, not taking a pro/con stance but with that logic, pastors are prone to sin so why not just read scripture aloud and not preach?

I see wisdom in EP as well in other matters...don't get me wrong. Just trying to see which arguments hold up to reductios and which ones don't. I may be completely off here. I'm actually really interested in seeing Matt's articles that are forthcoming...


----------



## Peter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by joshua_
> ...



Yes indeed! Though, advocates for uninspired hymnody (on the PB anyway) wont try to show from scripture where hymns are commanded instead they'll critique nuances of inspired Psalmody.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Peter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Again, not taking a pro/con stance but with that logic, pastors are prone to sin so why not just read scripture aloud and not preach?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by joshua_
> ...



Go up the thread a bit and read the Calvin quotes from his commentaries on Epehsians and Colosians.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 26, 2005)

there is much too much weight given to what the readers of the New Testament might have "heard" instead of what the apostles and other "said" and "wrote."

It is clear from the Bible itself that Paul wrote multiple letters to Corinth because they did not understand what he said to them in the first letter he sent. He also had to write several letters to clarify things he had preached while in the churches that they messed up after he left.

We cannot and should not interpret a text based on what the crowd that day heard. We should interpret what the Holy Spirit was SAYING through the writer. Culture bias and preconceived notions all aside.

It is not what you hear that matters - it is what was said.

Phillip


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Again, not taking a pro/con stance but with that logic, pastors are prone to sin so why not just read scripture aloud and not preach?



Preaching of the Word is regulated differently than the singing of Praise. You cannot confuse the regulations for each specific element of worship.

For preaching, we have guidelines. For sacraments, we have guidelines. For singing, we have guidelines, etc.

You don't bake a cake using the instructions for fixing a riding lawnmower.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by joshua_
> ...



It is actually pretty simple:

Paul said sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. We are commanded to sing a "new song." We are commanded to sing in worship. No one has shown how that is possible BEFORE the psalms were written. The only thing that has been offered is that there was absolutely no singing at all before David. So for millennia, including the time when there were formal singers in the tabernacle, no one sang in worship. Apparently all the other elements of worship: prayer, reading the Scriptures, preaching, etc are perpetual and are part of worship. That is why they are _elements_. It is only song that is an optional part of worship. Apparently it was not needed before 1000 BC.

The problem comes wen the clear words of Paul need to be filtered through the uninspired superscriptions of a translation of the Bible, and taken out of the natural context in which they were heard in order to make Paul say sing "Psalms, psalms and yet more psalms" that the complication is necessary.

Let's do a "complex" test: you pick any 20 people of the street, and try and convince them of EP using Col 3:16, and I'll try and convince them of hymnody. Who wants to guess which is more complex to explain and gets more headscratching?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



This is called begging the question.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> to Fred's last post.
> 
> Think about it. To embrace EP is to embrace EXTREME DISCONTIUNUITY between the Old and New Covenants specifically in the area of worship. The only other option is to add to the Biblical record by arguing from silence.



Unsubtantiated assertion, pastorway. One could easily, in similar offensive and unsupported fashion, say the same thing about your view of the covenants and baptism.

You add to the Biblical record by arguing from silence when you admit women to the Lord's Supper.

Silence is not being argued from here, direct revelation, explicit references, and good and necessary consequence is. The Regulative Principle of Worship, as outlined in both the Continental and Scottish confessions and catechisms among Reformed people, is a result of necessary consequence and the teaching of Scripture as a whole, not singled-out prooftexts.

If it is singled-out prooftexts we desire, then the burden of proof rests on the non-RPW camp to show me the texts that command us to sing and compose songs that are NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit or NOT psalms or hymns from the Biblical text.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



I have no problem with that line of argumentation that you are now using. I understand different things are regulated differently. My response was to the line of reasoning that the human heart was sinful and that EP keeps sin out of worship. So the preaching comment was directed as a reductio to that line of reasoning. I'm just looking for good arguments on both sides and trying to weed through arguments that aren't as good. In this case, I like yours better.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 26, 2005)

I have a question:

IF we agree to sing only Psalms, then are we not disobeying the very Psalms we are singing???

Psalm 33:3 Sing to Him a new song; Play skillfully with a shout of joy. 

Psalm 96:1 Oh, sing to the LORD a new song!Sing to the LORD, all the earth.

Psalm 98:1 Oh, sing to the LORD a new song!For He has done marvelous things; His right hand and His holy arm have gained Him the victory.

Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise in the assembly of saints.

I mean it is rather obvious to me that we are told to sing NEW SONGS. Verufying this with the rest of Scripture we see that Isaiah writes: Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise from the ends of the earth, You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, You coastlands and you inhabitants of them! (Is 42:10)

And in heaven a new song is sung and it is not in the Book of Psalms anywhere! Rev 5:9 - in fact, no one could even learn the song (meaning it cannot have been written in the Book of Psalms) except the 144,000 - Rev 14:3.

So singing only Psalms puts us in the position of disobeying other portions of Scripture as well as the Psalms themselves, and since regulations for worship cannot ever lead us into sin then it cannot be a regulation to sing ONLY Psalms.

Phillip


----------



## Peter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Calvin on Colossians 3:16
> 
> 
> ...



Doesnt sound like uninspired psalmody either. I'm not sure whether in theory calvin was EP though in practice he was. Calvin introduced the singing of psalms in worship in Geneva, and personally contributed to the Genevan Psalter.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



I think that Paul was telling them to sing psalms, hymns and songs that were spiritual (i.e. biblical).

The Jewish believers would I think have understood this the same way, especially in the context of a Hellenistic culture (Homer and Hesiod were like Broadway, Steven Spielberg and Star Wars all rolled into one; everyone knew them)

I am not sure why the Septuagint writers did that. We have no way of knowing if they even did, or if they were later additions, since they are in superscriptions, and no where in the text.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> This is called begging the question.



Well this is a disappointing response ...

Okay, let me ask you this:

Would you conduct the sacraments using the guidelines as set forth explicitly in Scripture for reading the Word? How could you? It wouldnt' make any sense, would it?

If you use the regulations for baptism while preaching, then you have a wet preacher and a nonsensical sermon.

There is no logical fallacy here at all. The afore-quoted person asked why preachers can say non-inspired words in a sermon if we cannot sing non-inspired songs. That is an invalid question. It is invalid because it misunderstands the point of how the RPW is applied to the elements of worship. Scripture tells us in plain fashion how each element is to be regulated, whether it is singing, reading the Word, administering baptism, etc. They are not universal regulations, but specific to each respective element of worship.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 26, 2005)

and lets put this stupid, yes STUPID assertion about ladies and the Lord's Supper to rest once and for all (yeah, right).

EVERYONE IN THE CHURCH WAS EXPECTED AND COMMANDED TO EAT THE SUPPER (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:20ff) and this would obviously include the women present. So enough with the ignorant and blind argument that the Bible is SILENT when it SPEAKS rather plainly and LOUDLY.

Phillip


----------



## pastorway (Jul 26, 2005)

to Fred again


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
> 
> You don't bake a cake using the instructions for fixing a riding lawnmower. _


_

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha_


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I have a question:
> 
> IF we agree to sing only Psalms, then are we not disobeying the very Psalms we are singing???
> ...



For argument's sake...in the Psalms that you listed above, couldn't the new song be self-referential to the Psalm that was just penned. In other words at one time there were only 32 Psalms penned or gathered. Then the Psalmist sat down to pen the 33rd. So to sing a new song would be in fact an inspired way to say, "hey, sing this song - it's new".

Just trying to look at it at all angles. Gotta think on the Revelation and other pieces of scripture.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



The reason, Gabriel, that it is called begging the question is that you have made the assumption that in order to have any regulation of the element of song, you must have your preconceived regulation. No one (least of all me) has asserted that the element of song is unregulated. We have only asserted that it is not regulated as you have stated.

Please show me the explicit command in the Scripture where the regulation of song is dramatically changed from the time of Seth (or Abraham, or Moses) and that of David.


----------



## Peter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Yes I did but you never responded to me. *Again: Just b/c there is a dearth of inspired songs inscripturated into the canon does not mean they never existed.* "New song" refers to the present song, eg. Ps 40, not a new uninspired composition.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I have a question:
> 
> IF we agree to sing only Psalms, then are we not disobeying the very Psalms we are singing???
> ...



Each of those psalms tells you the very "new song" to be singing.

"Sing to the Lord a new song ... and here is the new song to be sung ..."

Also, once again, I'm confused by the appeal to Revelation for explanations on how to worship God in the Christian Church here on earth at the current time. Do you cast crowns before the throne of the Lord (Rev 4:10) in your worship services? If so, then I think we have more problems than a disagreement over the RPW.  If not, then you refute your appeal to Revelation as a source of information on how to properly worship God today.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> and lets put this stupid, yes STUPID assertion about ladies and the Lord's Supper to rest once and for all (yeah, right).
> 
> EVERYONE IN THE CHURCH WAS EXPECTED AND COMMANDED TO EAT THE SUPPER (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:20ff) and this would obviously include the women present. So enough with the ignorant and blind argument that the Bible is SILENT when it SPEAKS rather plainly and LOUDLY.
> ...



Thank you for your kind and loving clarification, brother.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



Dang...I'm starting to think like an EP'ist...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



But you see, the problem there is that the EP position must assume a completed psalter. Until the psalter is completed, apparently there was no worship singing at all (see posts above). So the command to sing was unlawful, until the psalter was completed, and then it would no longer be a "new" song.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Peter,

I have responded. Is it not your position that an singing an inspired inscripturated song in worship that is not withing the 150 psalms is anathama to God?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



Umm,

Isaiah 42 is not a psalm. And it is not in Revelation either...


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> But you see, the problem there is that the EP position must assume a completed psalter. Until the psalter is completed, apparently there was no worship singing at all (see posts above). So the command to sing was unlawful, until the psalter was completed, and then it would no longer be a "new" song.



Let me see if I understand you.

Point in time1 or T1. There were 32 Psalms penned. There were people in the temple, let's call them exclusive psalmists  They were convinced that the only songs that should be sung were the 32 Psalms. Along comes David (or someone else) and says aha! I have penned a New Song. Let's just tuck it in behind #32 and call it the 33rd Psalm. Would not the EP of the day say, "Nay! thrice Nay! you are adding to the 32 Psalms".

Is this also where your arugment says that the Bible didn't alert the Israelites that, "By the way, we are starting up a new song book. Look for new songs from David et.al. and allow them into temple worship"...

Am I close or am I misunderstanding you...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Not me. I am seated in the heavenlies. Casting my will before him to make it his will. I am giving up my authority so that he can be glorified as the Authority. And no one is baking cake or fixing lawnmowers here. We are following the command to sing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. The guide lines are truth in Him, and order. 
Someone tell me where Church Bulletin guidelines are. Please.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Yes. And don't forget that we would need another command: _"by the way, the songs you have been singing in worship for a couple of centuries, the ones inspired by me and written in the Book of the Law -- no good anymore"_


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The reason, Gabriel, that it is called begging the question is that you have made the assumption that in order to have any regulation of the element of song, you must have your preconceived regulation. No one (least of all me) has asserted that the element of song is unregulated. We have only asserted that it is not regulated as you have stated.
> 
> Please show me the explicit command in the Scripture where the regulation of song is dramatically changed from the time of Seth (or Abraham, or Moses) and that of David.



So, to be clear, you are not rejecting the RPW outright, are you? I don't think you are, I just want to be clear so I don't jump to conclusions.

I haven't made any assumptions regarded how the singing of praise is to be regulated, either, though. I am basing this regulation on Scripture alone.

Everything involved in Temple worship has been abrogated by Christ's sacrifice. The Church of the New Testament is the anti-type of the Temple. With a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law. Therefore, it is not wrong to "throw out" the Temple system with the onset of Christ's advent and look to the New Testament for instructions on New Covenant worship. In regards to this, Paul and the apostles essentially become our David or our Moses. Paul and the apostles teach us, according to the commandments of God, how we are to worship as New Covenant believers. What we do read about worship in the New Testament is the following:

1. It is to be done in spirit and truth (John 4:23). A clear study of John's gospel and the NT defines both spirit and truth for us. The spirit is the Spirit of God that leads our hearts into worship (Phil 3:3) and the truth is God's Word (John 17:17).

2. We are to teach and admonish one another through singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual (sacred, of the Holy Spirit, if you compare usage in the NT) songs, making melody in our hearts through the Spirit of Christ; that is, regenerate hearts alone can truly worship God (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).

3. We are to edify/build up one another in worship (1 Cor 14). This means an increase in wisdom, devotion, knowledge, etc. This cannot happen through uninspired lyrics. God's Word alone is wise and capable of making us wise. The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.

4. We are to make our "sacrifice of praise" with our lips (Heb 13:15).

5. Worship is to be with reverence and awe, because God is serious about worship (Heb 12:28-29; Cf. Lev 10:1-3, "consuming fire").

This, then, leads me to conclude about worship, from the New Testament (since worshipping according to the Old Testament is Judaizing and apostasy against the New Covenant according to Hebrews), that:

- We worship God by His Spirit from a regenerate heart.

- We worship God with His Word, which is truth.

- With God's Word, we edify, teach, and admonish one another.

- We worship in this manner because God is still as serious about worship as He was in Moses' day.


I don't understand your final question. That seems more like arguing from silence on both sides of the coin to me. We know that the Levites sang songs and played instruments to them, and that, later on, they sang the Psalms and played the "instruments of David." However, before this time, they obviously had to still sing songs. There is no reason to believe and no evidence to infer that they sang uninspired songs; that is, songs of human composition, through and through. That would require some clear passages showing us that this was the case. Scripture does teach us, however, that God determined to leave us with 150 songs written by His Spirit for the purpose of worship and edification. For whatever reason, God determined that the other songs sung prior to this time were not to be included in His Word. That should end the discussion right there, in my estimation. Also, David wasn't the only author of the Psalms. They were written over a VERY long period of time, by several different people. Many of the Psalms have unknown authorship and dating, and it is not wrong to speculate that they were written during the time of Moses and the initiation of the Levitical order. In fact, one of the Psalms was written by Moses himself. Who is to say that many others weren't written during that time period as well? Not I!


----------



## pastorway (Jul 26, 2005)

If EP is true than no one could sing anything before the Book of Psalms was completed. But people did sing before that in the Bible. 

So either they sang Psalms before they were written (which we can disprove reading the recorded songs of Moses, etc). Or they sang songs that were not Psalms. 

If they sang songs that were not Psalms, then were did the regulation of singing in worship CHANGE?

Phillip


----------



## Peter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Complex question. It is PRESENTLY a sin.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Umm,
> 
> Isaiah 42 is not a psalm. And it is not in Revelation either...




Yes, but what is the context of Isaiah 42? What is the context of Isaiah as a whole? A "new song" is a theological concept, relating to "this new and great occasion, the calling and salvation of the world by Christ" (Matthew Poole's Commentary) in this context. It is not literally talking about a song to be sung, at least I don't see that at all in this passage/context. This whole argument reminds me of the meaning of "new" in regards to the New Covenant and the New Commandment that John teaches us in 1 John and 2 John. Are they really brand new things? No. Why are they new? They are made new in Christ.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

I hope everyone notices that Matt started this and is nowhere to be found...he probably is sitting back with some popcorn and a beer right now laughing at us. Matt?!? Oh, Maaaatt!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> If EP is true than no one could sing anything before the Book of Psalms was completed. But people did sing before that in the Bible.
> 
> So either they sang Psalms before they were written (which we can disprove reading the recorded songs of Moses, etc). Or they sang songs that were not Psalms.
> ...



*Screams*

The Regulative Principle of Worship applies to God's people according to the revelation of His promise and will in the time where they are, temporally speaking.

We don't worship God as Job did, as Moses did, as Abraham did, nor as David did. We are under the New Covenant, and there are new laws for the new priesthood (Heb 7). This is the only possibility, unless we say that (A) The Temple system wasn't fulfilled and abrogated by Christ and the Church, or (B) We should be dancing, clapping hands, sacrificing bulls, and using various determined instruments to worship God in our churches today.

We worship the same God through the same Mediator, but the administration has changed. The substance of our worship has remained constant, but how it is done has changed, because our Lord became a curse for us, died, and raised again. He nailed the Levitical system to the cross (Eph 2).

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

I'm sitting here eating chicken wings and stir fry just having a ball.
Playing the devils advocate.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I'm sitting here eating chicken wings and stir fry just having a ball.
> Playing the devils advocate.



Now I'm hungry! 

I need to be working on a rather large critical analysis of a novel for my Recent Writing class, so I'll probably be bowing out for a while soon.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I'm sitting here eating chicken wings and stir fry just having a ball.
> Playing the devils advocate.



You're not suggesting that we substitute the Lord's Supper with chicken wings and stir fry are you? Talk about violating the RPW!


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> Complex question. It is PRESENTLY a sin.



Thank you for being clear:

so right now, if in worship I desire to sing the very words of God, it is a sin. So it is a sin to sing the actual Hebrew or Greek *words of God*, but permissible to sing an uninspired paraphrase or translation, correct?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Who is bringing the wine! You all are invited. You gotta bring your own XBOX games and controllers though. My kids are stingy.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

All I have is half a bottle of white zinfandel, and some cheap-ish Scotch. My good Scotch is all gone.


----------



## Peter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



No not a sin if they are a psalm, yes permissable to sing an INspired translation.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> From a previous thread on inspired Scripture:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Peter (Jul 26, 2005)

BTW excellent defense of the MT in that thread Fred.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> *From Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense by Brian Schwertley:*
> When interpreting religious terminology used by Paul in his epistles, there are certain rules of interpretation which should be followed. First, the religious thinking and world view of the apostles was essentially from the Old Testament and Jesus Christ, not Greek heathenism. Therefore, when Paul discusses doctrine or worship, the first place to look for help in understanding religious terms is the Old Testament. We often find Hebrew expressions or terms expressed in koine Greek. Second, we must keep in mind that the churches that Paul founded in Asia consisted of converted Jews, Gentile proselytes to Old Testament Judaism (God-fearers), and Gentile pagans. These churches had a Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. When Paul expressed Old Testament ideas to a Greek-speaking audience, he would use the religious terminology of the Septuagint. If the terms hymns (humnois) and spiritual songs (odais pheumatikais) were defined within the New Testament, then looking to the Septuagint for the meaning of these words would be unnecessary. Given the fact, however, that these terms are rarely used in the New Testament and cannot be defined within their immediate context apart from a knowledge of the Old Testament, it would be exegetically irresponsible to ignore how these words are used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.
> 
> When we examine the Septuagint, we find that the terms psalm (psalmos), hymn (humnos), and song (odee) used by Paul clearly refer to the Old Testament book of Psalms and not to ancient or modern uninspired hymns or songs.
> ...



[ http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/psalm.htm ]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I hope everyone notices that Matt started this and is nowhere to be found...he probably is sitting back with some popcorn and a beer right now laughing at us. Matt?!? Oh, Maaaatt!



You got it brother. But its Perrier and chocolate covered pecans!
It hasn't become interesting just yet....


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> You got it brother. But its Perrier and chocolate covered pecans!
> It hasn't become interesting just yet....



Oh, well then I won't bother replying any more ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 26, 2005)

Gabe! No brother, you're doing fine. Don't give up.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



What line of argument are you waiting for, for it to become interesting? You know...to get the ball rolling in your direction.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 26, 2005)

he is looking for the inspired injunction to sing only inspired songs only recorded in the Book of Psalms.........

Phillip


----------



## pastorway (Jul 26, 2005)

he will be lookinng for a while I think...........


----------



## kceaster (Jul 26, 2005)

1 That man hath perfect blessedness,
who walketh not astray
In counsel of ungodly men,
nor stands in sinners' way,

Nor sitteth in the scorner's chair:
2 But placeth his delight
Upon God's law, and meditates
on his law day and night.

3 He shall be like a tree that grows
near planted by a river,
Which in his season yields his fruit,
and his leaf fadeth never:

And all he doth shall prosper well
4 The wicked are not so;
But like they are unto the chaff,
which wind drives to and fro.

5 In judgment therefore shall not stand
such as ungodly are;
Nor in th' assembly of the just
shall wicked men appear.

6 For why? the way of godly men
unto the Lord is known:
Whereas the way of wicked men
shall quite be overthrown.

1 Â¶ Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night.
3 He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper.
4 Â¶ The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Now, if y'all will permit me. I'll start to point out some REAL differences in how the metrical psalm is a paraphrase and why it can't be considered inspired.

Are these equivalent:

having perfect blessedness - the man is blessed?
placeth his delight UPON God's Law - delight is IN the law of the Lord?
meditates ON his law - IN his law he meditates?
near planted by a river - planted by the rivers of water?
the wicked are not so - the ungodly are not so?
chaff which the wind drives to and fro - chaff which the wind drives away?
the way of godly men - the way of the righteous?
the way of wicked men shall quite be overthrown - the way of the ungodly shall perish?

No offense to John Brown of Haddington, but there are glaring differences between these phrases. And yes, they really do matter. We don't translate the bet preposition as on or upon. It is in, at, by, with, against.

To me, I think there would be plenty of people who would decry a Bible version that had taken such liberties. I know that in my Hebrew classes we discussed some of the translations that were very far from the original language. In my estimation, this psalm takes liberties just to be metrical and singable.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this. How could I? I agree with dynamic equivalent in worship songs.

But for EP'ers to say that they're singing only inspired psalms, is at best blissfully ignorant, and at worst disingenuous.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## crhoades (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> he will be lookinng for a while I think...........



Something tells me that the can was opened quite a while ago and all of the worms escaped and are currently being stepped on and running for cover...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 26, 2005)

> he is looking for the inspired injunction to sing only inspired songs only recorded in the Book of Psalms.........
> he will be lookinng for a while I think...........



Actually, if we step aside from stupid posts, its not hard to find. 



> What line of argument are you waiting for, for it to become interesting? You know...to get the ball rolling in your direction.



Listen, I don't want to get in a shooting match, but consider this a nudge for now...

The core of the argument surrounds the duty of praise and what that means and is. No one really has touched on that or began there. (NO ONE HAS DONE THAT)

That would be a really good place to go. Its not about "should we sing psalms." That is a totally immaterial question to the primary question. Its second, third, fourth down the list really. The arguments start much further back and cover a lot of Genesis-Malachi ground. Then, as I continue to beat the drum, as Fred would say, the dispensational arguments through this thread are almost gagging. Those need to be tossed as well. 

What is happening on the thread (like the old ones) is that you are arguing about secondary issues before you set down the fundamentals. Its not strictly about RPW, perse, but the duty of praise (not the idea of worship). [Just as a side note, which I know all of you know, worship does not = singing. That's a contemporary goof up that really misses the mark overall.] 

I don't think it would be good to begin with "what is the RPW". Most on the board seem to understand its basic tenants, but thier application of it is what might be wanting. Rather, for this particualr "debate topic" the course should shift. And hosestly, after reading through ALL the posts in ALL the threads on this, I would wonder who might be able to put forth a really good argument for the topic of praise on either side as a doctrinal matter.

So I would say that the thread should start over, and that the duty of praise ("whatever that is") be expounded in its _progressive_ nature, assuming we all agree on the RPW.

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

KC, we could have the same argument about Bible translations in English. To say we must translate Hebrew literally is, in itself, a difficult thing to do ... most Hebrew words have more than one meaning, often times several meanings, and getting them into English isn't really an exact science. Still, we have God's Word and can understand it and be edified by it in English. Singing and reading from a copy we can understand in our native tongue is a commandment for New Covenant worship as well, don't forget that (1 Cor 14). This is not at enmity with the EP/RPW position.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> KC, we could have the same argument about Bible translations in English. To say we must translate Hebrew literally is, in itself, a difficult thing to do ... most Hebrew words have more than one meaning, often times several meanings, and getting them into English isn't really an exact science. Still, we have God's Word and can understand it and be edified by it in English. Singing and reading from a copy we can understand in our native tongue is a commandment for New Covenant worship as well, don't forget that (1 Cor 14). This is not at enmity with the EP/RPW position.



My question then Gabe, is just as it was before. What makes a metrical version of a psalm different than "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty"? How far should we go in making it metrical? How far is too far?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

How far is too far? When the meaning is radically changed, lost, and twisted beyond the clear intention of God's Word.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2005)

*The DUTY of Praise!*

Okay, I am going to bite. 

What is the duty of praise in light of the RPW?

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. 


Is all Psalm singing Praise? 

What is the idea of worship in light of this question?


*New Thread Started with Matt's Question.*

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

Then say, "Save us, O God of our salvation, And gather us and deliver us from the nations, To give thanks to Thy holy name, And glory in Thy praise." (1 Chr 16:35)

"He is your praise and He is your God, who has done these great and awesome things for you which your eyes have seen. (Deut 10:21)

"The people whom I formed for Myself, Will declare My praise. (Isa 43:21)

There are several OT verses (and various Hebrew words) that describe praise as giving thanks to the Lord, confessing the name of the Lord, rejoicing in the Lord, exalting or extolling the glory of the Lord, adoring the Lord for His attributes and deeds, etc.

I'm not exactly sure what you're thinking of Matt.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 26, 2005)

Matt, good points.

I was writing this a while ago, but I decided not to post it. But now that you mention it.....

It seems as though the why of worship is getting lost on this topic to me, as well. It almost becomes the how, to where, if we're not careful, we end up doing the same thing pagans do. We're not trying to appease God. We should know that this kind of thing is not possible.

Rather, the Spirit is the operative of our worship and He sees to it that our worship is acceptable to God. It is always in concert with the Word of God as well. So, isn't it a bit nitpicky to say that we are not worshipping God correctly if we sing hymns? God is looking for true worshipers not true worship. I already said that.

It may seem then, that EP is looking to fulfill true worship. And that is something only the Spirit can do.

GRANTED, the Spirit's job is much easier when we are in concert with the Word of God. And I've already said that the psalter is perfectly fine in the way it is presented. But the way it's being billed is that we are singing the psalms because they're inspired. To what end, well, we would say that we are doing our duty in praise to God. However, as confused as we get about these things, I think it is easy to lose sight of what we're doing so that we concentrate on how we're doing it. If how comes into the picture, we've just crossed over to paganism and we're trying to appease God.

I want to be careful because I'm not saying that there is no manner to what we do. There most certainly is manner. But manner is not always how, but the proper attitude, reverence, and respect. This is not how, per se, but lends itself to the requirement that God is looking for. He's looking for true worshipers, In other words,, he's looking for people with the manner by which to praise Him. But this does not include the mechanics of the praise, but the attitude of the praise. The focus is not on the instrument of praise, but the one being praised.

EP may be getting the focus wrong. Just by drawing a line in the sand, they may be concentrating too much on their own performance of God's worship and how they worship, instead of on the who of worship and the manner by which it occurs.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh"” (Phil 3:3)

Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. (Heb 13:15)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

> *Brian Schwertley on the "translation" argument:*
> IV. The Metrical Psalms Argument
> A rather common argument against exclusive psalmody is based on the assumption that metrical versions of the Psalms for singing (i.e., the Psalms are translated in a manner so they can be set to music and thus are made to rhyme, etc) are really not translations of the Psalms but are at best gross paraphrases of the original Hebrew. Thus, it is argued that the singing of metrical Psalms is little or no different than singing uninspired hymns which are based on Scripture or which teach redemptive history. In other words, both are human compositions and if one is permissible then so is the other.
> While this argument is common, it is refuted in a number of ways. First, note that the whole argument is based on an unbiblical, immoral analogy. The argument assumes that if a group of people distort the original meaning of the Psalms with a bad or faulty translation this somehow permits other people to use man-made hymns. In other words, if group A does something wrong, group B can also do something wrong. If it is indeed true that some Reformed believers are using sloppy, poorly translated metrical versions of the psalms, then our response as Christians should never be "œLet us do likewise" or even worse "œLet us go a step further by ignoring the inspired psalms altogether." Rather it must be, "œBrother, repent! There are excellent, faithful Psalters available. You do not need to use a defective translation!" To those brothers who use this argument we ask one simple question, "œDoes the fact that some churches use terrible paraphrases of the Bible for the Scripture reading in public worship justify the use of non-inspired Christian writings instead of the Scripture?" No, of course not. Then, poor translations of the Psalms do not justify man-made hymns.
> ...


----------



## kceaster (Jul 26, 2005)

Gabe,

I can see his points, but he's still coming from a certain presupposition that I do not share. I do not believe that God has only commanded that psalms be sung.

Additionally, I am not arguing that we should not use the psalter. I use it regularly in both public and private worship.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)




----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> The core of the argument surrounds the duty of praise and what that means and is. No one really has touched on that or began there. (NO ONE HAS DONE THAT)
> 
> That would be a really good place to go. Its not about "should we sing psalms." That is a totally immaterial question to the primary question. Its second, third, fourth down the list really. The arguments start much further back and cover a lot of Genesis-Malachi ground. Then, as I continue to beat the drum, as Fred would say, the dispensational arguments through this thread are almost gagging. Those need to be tossed as well.



You mean like the dispensational argument that there was NO duty of praise before David?

Or the dispensational argument that what occurs in the eschaton has no relevance for today?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> BTW excellent defense of the MT in that thread Fred.



Thanks. I appreciate the kind words.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 26, 2005)

Paper: 
submitted for requirements of completing the course:
Reformed Worship
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Spring 2000
Instructor, Dr. J.A.Pipa
Title: A Fresh Look at the Debate on the Content of Song in New Testament Worship
Major heads:
I) Main question--Scripture imposes what extent of liberty on the form of singing praise?
II) Foundational Premise--The Psalms are the foundation of all singing in worship
III) Both non-extreme EPs and non-EPs have the responsibility of showing that the non-EP position is biblically defiensible (because both must use the same arguments)
IV) What does it mean to sing the Book of Psalms in a New Testament context?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Nope.


This thread should be closed, and everyone jump to the new one on praise. It would be much more helpful for everyone to dig into demonstrating a basic hermeneutic of _progressive revelation_ in the duty of praise.

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Peter (Jul 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Its an important doctrine (PP), rivaling even EP.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 26, 2005)

> As to public prayers, there are two kinds: the one consists of words alone; the other includes music. And this is no recent invention. For since the very beginning of the church it has been this way, as we may learn from history books. Nor does St. Paul himself speak only of prayer by word of mouth, but also of singing. And in truth, we know from experience that song has a great power and strength to move and inflame the hearts of men to invoke and praise God with a heart more vehement and ardent. One must always watch lest the song be light and frivolous; rather, it should have weight and majesty, as St. Augustine says. And thus there is a great difference between the music that is made to entertain people at home and at table, and the Psalms which are sung in church, in the presence of God and His angels. Therefore, if any wish rightly to judge the kind of music presented here, we hope he will find it to be holy and pure, seeing that it is simply made in keeping with the edification of which we have spoken, whatever further use it may be put to. For even in our homes and out of doors let it be a spur to us and a means of praising God and lifting up our hearts to Him, so that we may be consoled by meditating on His virtue, His bounty, His wisdom, and His justice. For this is more necessary than one can ever tell.
> 
> Among all the other things that are proper for the recreation of man and for giving him pleasure, music, if not the first, is among the most important; and we must consider it a gift from God expressly made for that purpose. And for this reason we must be all the more careful not to abuse it, for fear of defiling or contaminating it, converting to our damnation what is intended for our profit and salvation. If even for this reason alone, we might well be moved to restrict the use of music to make it serve only what is respectable and never use it for unbridled dissipations or for emasculating ourselves with immoderate pleasure. Nor should it lead us to lasciviousness or shamelessness.
> 
> ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 26, 2005)

> For what St. Augustine said is true, that one can sing nothing worthy of God save what one has received from Him. Wherefore though we look far and wide we will find no better songs nor songs more suitable to that purpose than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit made and imparted to him. Thus, singing them we may be sure that our words come from God *just as if He were to sing in us for His own exaltation.*



Could this be a referecne to the duty of praise? 

I love that quote.

Okay, nuff said. You guys keep on it. Its a great read.


----------

