# The Psalter in redemptive history



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

In some of the recent EP threads, one of the most common (and noteworthy, in my opinion) objections to EP has been the pointing out of both the sung praise before the Psalter's completion as well as the singing in the eschaton. Several non-EPers have noted the possible scenarious before the Psalter's completion (such as there not being sung praise before then, or God approved of other songs before the Psalter's completion, but forbade them after its completion), adding that none of them seem biblically viable, and seem to even have a Dispensational element.

I was thinking about that observation, wondering how the EPers would answer it. I don't think anything ever really got settled on that particular matter, but I later thought of it in a new light, and this is a question for non-EPers: What if the Psalter as God's book of praise has the same nature as the Bible as God's book of revelation? In other words, some of you have criticized the EP notion that God allowed other songs (inspired or uninspired) prior to the Psalter's completion, but disapproved of them after that completion. But is that notion not the same as the concept on which we all agree of God using revelatory prophecy prior to Scripture's completion, but never used it after that completion. Likewise, some of the non-EPers have criticized the notion that we are to only sing Psalms now even though there might be evidence to suggest singing otherwise in the eschaton. But is that concept not the same as the fact that we all agree that direct revelation is not for use in the present Church era, but that it will return in the eschaton?

Overall, I would summarize my thoughts on this at this point by saying that it is not enough for the non-EPer to simply point out that the worship through song was different prior to the Psalter's completion, and that it may be in the eschaton as well. In defending EP, its adherants do not try and pretend that the Psalter has a "uniform" history - and that is because they do not really need to, because they fully agree with the non-EPers that the Psalter of course has a place in redemptive history, and that that place developed in stages, and in the middle of that history. Likewise, advocates of inerrancy and the authority of Scripture, we do not try and pretend that the Bible has a uniform history, because we do not need to, since we fully agree with our critics that Scripture has a place in redemptive history, and that it developed in stages, and in the middle of that history.

P. S. I have not yet studied the issue in-depth enough to be able to offer a contribution on just how the Psalter biblically developed throughout redemptive history, or even which side that development supports. I am simply noting that, just as with the canon, the mere existence of that split-up history does not automatically render the EP position on the Psalter's nature far-fetched and Dispensational, as some seem to have made it out to be.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 29, 2005)

Very interesting thoughts! Thanks for the post. I've told you this before, but I'll say it is again: It's so refreshing to see someone who is open to really working out the issues and changing his opinion, if necessary. (Not that I mean that as a slight on anyone else here.) It's a blessing to me to see your attitude.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

Thanks for the encouragement, Evie. I always enjoy working through issues like this here, and getting and giving input from everyone. I can see your lack of fear to honestly push through such issues as well, as illustrated in such examples as your "middle interpretation" of "hymns and spiritual songs" in a recent thread.

I'm looking forward to hearing people's thoughts on this matter in relation to the topic as a whole.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Thanks for the encouragement, Evie. I always enjoy working through issues like this here, and getting and giving input from everyone. I can see your lack of fear to honestly push through such issues as well, as illustrated in such examples as your "middle interpretation" of "hymns and spiritual songs" in a recent thread.
> 
> I'm looking forward to hearing people's thoughts on this matter in relation to the topic as a whole.



To tell you the truth, it's very difficult for me to let go of my biases and explore the issues honestly, which is precisely why it helps me so much to see someone else do it.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

Any thoughts?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 29, 2005)

I think your points are well taken, Chris.

From a chapter entitled _The Suitableness and Sufficiency of the Psalter for Christian Worship_ by the Rev. John A. Henderson in _The Psalms in Christian Worship_ ed. by John McNaughter, pp. 189-190:



> Let me urge attention to the former fact, namely, that God gave the Psalter for use in Christian worship...When God gave the Psalter, He did so in order to meet the needs of His worshipping people. Evidently, the Psalter came to be what it is by a process of gradual growth, by the compilation, finally, out of the material at hand, of a collection for permanent employment by the Church as its matter of praise. It is not our contention that this Book contains all the songs that God ever gave for His people's use in their approach to Him. It is quite possible, as alleged by some, that in the earlier history of divine worship by men there were songs given by God for temporary use, which, for good reasons, were not preserved in the collection we call the Psalter. This collection, which is the Hymnary of the Church Universal, is what it is, therefore, by the "survival of the fittest," determined, not through natural, but supernatural, selection. The Psalter is therefore a development under divine supervision, as is the entire Bible, and at all stages in its development its full adaption to the end designed must be taken for granted. The Psalter was completed several centuries before Christ. No change, to make it suitable and sufficient, was deemed necessary in the time of Christ and His Apostles. When God finished making the Bible itself, which was not till near the close of the first century after Christ, it was without doubt designed to meet the demands for a divine revelation for all time. In completing this written revelation to the world and the Church, there were added, after Christ, sections of history, biography, epistolary instruction and exhortation, and even prophecy; but it will be observed that there is not to be found in any book of New Testament lyrics in order to complete the divine provision for the matter of praise. No more "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." Was it an oversight on God's part, to make amends for which modern hymn-writers are to be invoked? By no means. God knew what He was about when He completed the Psalter. When it was finished, compiled in its present form, it was just as He wanted it; and so it needed no amendments or addenda to fit it for permanent use by the Church of Christ. There are the wholly suitable, all-sufficient "spiritual songs," -- the songs that the Spirit has edited, and so must be possessed of infinite adaption.


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

Chris: I am not going to present any arguments for or against but would recommend that you consider the consequences of embracing EP by going through the psalter and identifying which psalms directly (non-typologically) refer to Jesus. I think you will find many respected commentators teaching that most psalms apply initially to David or others, even Psalm 2. And of the ones that refer directly to Jesus often do so in veiled prophecies that many ordinary people in the pew would not even recognize as Jesus. In contrast, many post-NT songs clearly and directly refer to Jesus. 

I think the PCA position paper is the most balanced. It is not a call to EP (or argument about why it is wrong) but is a call to substantial use of psalms in worship. It is here. 

Scott


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

Chris: You also understand that _right now_ there are songs in God's heavenly court that are not contained in the Book of Psalms. See Rev. 5:9, 11, and 13 (note also the presence of instruments in 5:8). Note with respect to the song (which is not in the psalter) in rev. 5:13 that worshipers are not only in heaven. The worshipers include "every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them. . ."

Also see Rev. 15:2-4, in which worshipers are singing two songs not in the Psalter, the Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb. Note also the presence of harps (attacks on instrument will come naturally with EP, so I just raise this for observation).

If public worship is ascending to God's heavenly throne and entering His presence, shouldn't our worship reflect this heavenly reality?

Sorry - I guess this is getting into something of an argument, which I did not want to do!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

Thanks for that Henderson quotation, Andrew. The first half of the quotation definitely makes the point at which I was getting.

Though it is not addressing the EP issue, I agree Scott that the PCA paper is indeed a well-balanced look at the singing of Psalms in general.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Chris: You also understand that _right now_ there are songs in God's heavenly court that are not contained in the Book of Psalms. See Rev. 5:9, 11, and 13 (note also the presence of instruments in 5:8). Note with respect to the song (which is not in the psalter) in rev. 5:13 that worshipers are not only in heaven. The worshipers include "every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them. . ."
> 
> Also see Rev. 15:2-4, in which worshipers are singing two songs not in the Psalter, the Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb. Note also the presence of harps (attacks on instrument will come naturally with EP, so I just raise this for observation).
> ...



How do those passages necessarily show that such songs are being sung in the _present_? Furthermore, as I noted in another thread, a lot hinges on one's interpretation of Revelation as a whole (e.g. historicist, preterist, idealist, futurist). As I see it, the futurist interpretation (and possibly the partial-preterist interpretation as well, as I am not very familiar with which specific prophecies they hold as fulfilled) is largely the only one that could make that passage potentially relevant to the EP issue. And in light of that, even if one _does_ hold that interpretation, does it not hold those things to be occurring in the time of the eschaton, rather than now?

Even more important, however, is the point that even if those songs _are_ being sung in the heavenlies at the present time, that does not necessarily have any bearing on EP for the reason I noted in creating this thread, which is the parallel between the Psalter and the canon in redemptive history; for we hold that special revelation is not for the Church in this era, and yet special revelation and the seeing of God's face is surely going on in the heavenlies at the present time. So it may likewise be with the Psalter as well, in that it could still be intended as the sole book of praise for the Church today even if other songs are currently being sung in the heavenlies, just as cessationism and Sola Scriptura hold true on earth today though not in the heavenlies today.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 29, 2005)

I wonder if Paul and Silas and Jesus and the disciples when they sang various Psalms in the Bible, if they sang them in Greek or Hebrew? Did the disciples speak Hebrew and Greek? Did they sing the Septuagint version and if so did they have different tunes also as we do because the others were lost by that point? 

Anyone know?


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

Augusta: I am sure they sang Scottish metrical psalms. 

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

Chris: Revelation presents a picture of worship as it continually goes on. For example, see 4:10. 

I don't see why any school of interpretation would not see Revelation as relevant. Broadly speaking, there is often allot of agreement on the early chapters and the big breaks start with the seals in Rev. 6.

At the least Revelation is a snapshot of heavenly worship at the time of St. John. The worshipers of God in Revelation at the time of John were not singing any psalms (and they were singing other songs). 

As to the PCA position paper, it is unfortunate that it has not had wide acceptance.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Chris: Revelation presents a picture of worship as it continually goes on. For example, see 4:10.



OK, I can agree with that. 



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I don't see why any school of interpretation would not see Revelation as relevant. Broadly speaking, there is often allot of agreement on the early chapters and the big breaks start with the seals in Rev. 6.



The reason I mentioned that is because most of the schools see much or most of the prophecies as metaphorical. That is especially true with the Idealist position, and the partial-Preterist and Historicist positions interpret many of the prophecies metaphorically as well.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> At the least Revelation is a snapshot of heavenly worship at the time of St. John. The worshipers of God in Revelation at the time of John were not singing any psalms (and they were singing other songs).



Here is where I think my main point at the beginning of this thread applies, which is that even if the song is literally sung, and even if that is done in the present Church age, it is still _heavenly_ worship, as you noted. And EP relates to the worship of the _visible_ Church, just as the completed canon does. The people in Heaven now literally see and hear God apart from Scripture, but our sole way of doing such in the visible New Testament Church is through the Scriptures. Likewise, even if the people in Heaven now literally sing songs from outside the Psalter to God, that would not necessarily nullify the possibility that our sole way of doing such in the visible New Testament Church is through the Psalter.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> As to the PCA position paper, it is unfortunate that it has not had wide acceptance.



Indeed. Fortunately, my home church and the PCA church I attend in Cincinnati both sing Psalms on a regular basis.


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

"Even more important, however, is the point that even if those songs are being sung in the heavenlies at the present time, that does not necessarily have any bearing on EP for the reason I noted in creating this thread, which is the parallel between the Psalter and the canon in redemptive history. . ."

Well, Revelation is special revelation and it contains a few new songs. Revelation is the clearest and most extensive text we have on the worship of God, not only in the hevenly realm, but also on earth and the sea. Shouldn't we use this as a model? It would make sense, given that we are presently seated in the heavenlies, Eph. 2:6, and have come to the heavenly Jerusalem and the thousands of angels in joyful assembly, Heb. 12:22. Revelation gives us a picture of what these thousands upon thousands of angels are doing.


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

"even if the song is literally sung, and even if that is done in the present Church age, it is still heavenly worship, as you noted. And EP relates to the worship of the visible Church, just as the completed canon does."

Let's deal with this. My point is that our worship merges with heavenly worship.

The PCA Book of Church Order describes public worship:

47-2. A service of public worship is not merely a gathering of God's children with each other, but before all else, a meeting of the triune God with His chosen people. God is present in public worship not only by virtue of the Divine omnipresence but, much more intimately, as the faithful covenant Savior. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name there I am in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).

Public worship differs from any other kind of worship that we do, such as individual devotions and family worship. Gathering together on the Lord´s Day under men God has appointed as officers in his kingdom (elders) brings us into the very presence of God unlike any other time. Notice in the passages below how the assembling of the church (for worship or some other ecclesiastical duty, such as exercising discipline) brings her into God´s presence. Consider Revelation 1-3, in which lampstands symbolize churches.

I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. . . the seven lampstands are the seven churches. . . To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. . . Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
See also 1 Cor. 5 and Matthew 18. 

After Christ was raised from the dead He ascended into heaven to conduct priestly work in the heavenly temple. Chapters 6 through 10 of the Book of Hebrews are an extended discussion of the priestly work of Jesus. Hebrews discusses the inferiority of the priesthood of Aaron (the Levitical priesthood). Hebrews disparages the inferiority of the earthly tabernacle because it is a mere copy of the heavenly reality (as mentioned earlier). Further, the earthly priests are deficient because they have to endlessly repeat their sacrifices. We learn that we need a priest who can make a sacrifice for once and all. Further, He must do it in the true sanctuary in heaven, not in the copy on earth. Hebrews summarizes the point of this discussion.

Hebrews 8:1-2. Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

Notice that the Christ performs His priestly work in heaven in the "œtrue tabernacle" "“ not the copy on earth. He is a Minister there. Hebrews makes this point again.

Hebrews 9:11-12. But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Christ is ministering in heaven. He entered the Most Holy Place "“ that is God´s throne room and throne. 

The result of Christ´s priestly work should lead us to do many things. We should draw near to the heavenly Christ and with boldness enter the heavenly Holy of Holies. We do this by assembling together. The corporate worship of the organized church is entering the Holy of Holies.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Revelation is the clearest and most extensive text we have on the worship of God, not only in the hevenly realm, but also on earth and the sea. Shouldn't we use this as a model? It would make sense, given that we are presently seated in the heavenlies, Eph. 2:6, and have come to the heavenly Jerusalem and the thousands of angels in joyful assembly, Heb. 12:22. Revelation gives us a picture of what these thousands upon thousands of angels are doing.



Indeed, it does speak of worship both in the heavenly realm and the earthly realm.

As I explained in my previous post, the present worship in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel how we are to worship here and now, just as the present existence of special, extrabiblical revelation in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel its existence here and now.

As far as the earthly realm is concerned, every eschatological school of interpretation, as far as I know, interprets the activities described in Revelation on the earth and in the sea to be either metaphorical or else futuristic. If the former, then there is no literal song sung. If the latter, then it is not sung on earth until the eschaton, in which case the Psalter-canon parallel applies again, since special, extrabiblical revelation will return on earth in the eschaton as well, even though it has no place on earth during the present era.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...



Chris,

Unless the Regulative Principle of Worship is ceremonial, it is impossible for something that is _sinful_ (i.e. singing worthy is the Lamb in worship) to be conducted in the heavenlies - where there is no sin. That is why why looking at the Revelation passages, you either have to conclude that the Bible does not say what it says, or be dispensational, or forsake EP.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> I wonder if Paul and Silas and Jesus and the disciples when they sang various Psalms in the Bible, if they sang them in Greek or Hebrew? Did the disciples speak Hebrew and Greek? Did they sing the Septuagint version and if so did they have different tunes also as we do because the others were lost by that point?
> 
> Anyone know?



There's an interesting question... from a very quick glance the Septuagint doesn't seem to be metered (but i am just about to leave work, so I have had time to read exactly 2 lines of Psalm 1). The
Hebrew, of course, is intended for singing, so there's no issue there (and some of them certainly spoke Hebrew, but some probably did not). 
Did they chant it? Dunno. Are there any extant metered Greek renditions? Dunno...

this is where a good RP music historian would be helpful. Is there anyone there on the air?

Todd


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

Okay I'm dusting off my  board membership card. Chris, in your initial argument you attempt to draw a parallel between extant prophecy and current "prophecy" and extant songs and non-Psalmic songs. This is an inadequate argument I believe because current prophecy is, from a Cessationist perspective, no prophecy at all, while the non-Psalmic songs are in fact inspired works produced by the Holy Spirit. And they were it seems used in worship (I am referring to songs which are indisputably outside the Psalm as canon, not the admittedly suspicious NT "hymn-fragments"), if these songs were used in worship and God has given no explicit command against their commited use then the Covenantal principle of continuity-unless-God-says-otherwise comes into play. So the prophecy of today which is not prophecy at all, cannot be compared to formerly legitimate songs of the OT which are fully within the realm of revelation.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

The EP position has nothing to do with the worship of people in Adam's day, or Abraham's day, or any other day. It is dealing with the worship of Israel (the Church) in the New Covenant. Christ has fulfilled the feasts, ceremonies, sacrifices, etc. of the Temple worship, and we, the Church, are the Temple of God today. Paul and the apostles, on Christ's authority, were the new worship leaders, as David was in his day. And, on Paul's clear authority (along with the testimony of James and Christ), we are to sing the various songs contained in God's Book of Praise in the Old Testament as Christians.

This is not a dispensational distinction, it is a Biblical one, according to the author of Hebrews.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> Chris,
> ...



Fred,

To be fair, we cannot use the revelation pictures of heavenly worship as a picture of what is to be sought after necessarily in earthly worship, because as we Amill/Postmillers know all to well Revelation is a picture book not a historical narrative _per se_. This picture book shows worship with a glassy sea, incense, and a Temple of all things this I think is best kept in the realm of prophetic imagery and not liturgical instruction. That said I am no longer EP because I do not find the position convincing textually, but at the same time I do not find this particular commandment convincing either against it.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

Ok Gabi,

Let's take your principle as is, and we now have no positive command specifying that we should ever sing in the context of formal worship. And we have no positive command that children should be baptized. And we have no positive command that women should participate in the Lord's Supper. This NT only format, as you have strictly described it, fails to do anything but leave the Covenantal perspective and to the Baptistic form of things.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

If our worship is to have nothing to do with OT worship then "Lucy you've got lots of 'splaining to do!!!"


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Ok Gabi,
> 
> Let's take your principle as is, and we now have no positive command specifying that we should ever sing in the context of formal worship. And we have no positive command that children should be baptized. And we have no positive command that women should participate in the Lord's Supper. This NT only format, as you have strictly described it, fails to do anything but leave the Covenantal perspective and to the Baptistic form of things.



We do have positive commands specifying that we should sing in the context of worship, in both the OT and NT, in places where sacrificial and ceremonial functions were not being conducted.

Children being baptized is not part of the ceremonial or Levitical law.

You're not arguing against anything I just said. Do you disagree that Christ nailed the ceremonial/Levitical law to the Cross (Eph 2)? Do you disagree that when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law (Heb 7)? If not, then you have no reason to argue against my post. Simply put, baptism and plain singing are not part of the ceremonial law. The singing of psalms in Temple context performed by the congregation of Israel occurred AFTER sacrifice, not during it.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

Oh to be clear, I no longer hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship, for those involved in this discussion. Consequently I don't hold to the Exclusive Psalmody principle of worship either.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> If our worship is to have nothing to do with OT worship then "Lucy you've got lots of 'splaining to do!!!"



Again, not what I said. Our worship has nothing to do with worship practices that were nailed to the Cross by Jesus Christ. To worship in such a way is apostasy against the New Covenant, according to the author of Hebrews.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

Gabe,

You said that EP worship has nothing to do with the worship of any day other than ours. That's what I was responding to, as you're qualifying that statement now, then prima facie we agree. However are you asserting that the Song of Moses is ceremonial? Interesting.

Secondly, there are no passages in the New Testament that firmly describe singing as taking place in the context of "formal worship" as the RPWist and the Westminster confession typically describes it. If you can produce a text that says that, then I'll retract my statement. 

Further EPers and RPWists do plenty of uncommanded things in their services as defined strictly as a worship service to God. Baptism for example is never defined as something to be done in worship services, not that I'm objecting to its presence. Anyway this particular thought is really a discussion for another thread.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Ianterrell]


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> ...



Not to be nitpicky but you didn't say exactly though that may have been what you intended.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. Singing in a "formal worship setting" is taught clearly by Scripture.



> 1 Cor 14:26 What then, brothers? *When you come together*, each one has a *hymn*, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. *Let all things be done for building up*.
> 
> 1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge *that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord*.




Paul has been ordained by God to explain His commandments for His people, even/especially on worship. Even something as simple as headcoverings for women was regulated by God:



> 1 Cor 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, *we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God*.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

In this text you reference 1 Cor 14:26 there is no command that one should have a hymn, a lesson, or a revelation, but rather that whatever they do they should aim for edification. Now I grant that this demonstrates that singing was done, but there is no command here to interpret, speak in tongues, or anything per se, but rather it only teaches that we ought to do all the things that we do for the high purpose of building each other up.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

I would also like to add that this text is debateable as a sign that we should sing anything at all, as it may in fact be dealing with inspired song given the context of the revelations, prophecy, tongues, interpretation and so on. If we are to find a certain text as a proof I think that it is best to look elsewhere. The Corinthians lived in a weird age.


Repositing:

...are you asserting that the Song of Moses is ceremonial?...

...Further EPers and RPWists do plenty of uncommanded things in their services as defined strictly as a worship service to God. Baptism for example is never defined as something to be done in worship services, not that I'm objecting to its presence...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Repositing:
> 
> ...are you asserting that the Song of Moses is ceremonial?...
> ...



You're applying the regulative principle of worship to circumstances.

The Song of Moses is not "ceremonial," no ... I don't think anyone would argue that any song is "ceremonial." There are acts of worship in the OT that are, but the singing of the Psalms _a cappella_ by the congregation of Israel, separate from the sacrificial part of worship in the Temple context, is not ceremonial. It is a basic format of worship carried over into the New Testament and encouraged for us to continue in by the apostles.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

*"You're applying the regulative principle of worship to circumstances."*

How?

*The Song of Moses is not "ceremonial," no ... I don't think anyone would argue that any song is "ceremonial." There are acts of worship in the OT that are, but the singing of the Psalms a cappella by the congregation of Israel, separate from the sacrificial part of worship in the Temple context, is not ceremonial. It is a basic format of worship carried over into the New Testament and encouraged for us to continue in by the apostles*

So the singing of non-Psalms in the OT constitutes a ceremonial act? You didn't answer my question directly, so I'm trying to rephrase it.

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Ianterrell]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

I said "no." How much more direct do I have to be?

You're applying the rpw wrongly to circumstances, such as singing during a particular service or having baptism at a particular time. Both singing of praise and baptism are elements of worship, so naturally they occur during a worship time. This is simple logic, not a burden of proof placed upon the rpw.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The EP position has nothing to do with the worship of people in Adam's day, or Abraham's day, or any other day. It is dealing with the worship of Israel (the Church) in the New Covenant. Christ has fulfilled the feasts, ceremonies, sacrifices, etc. of the Temple worship, and we, the Church, are the Temple of God today. Paul and the apostles, on Christ's authority, were the new worship leaders, as David was in his day. And, on Paul's clear authority (along with the testimony of James and Christ), we are to sing the various songs contained in God's Book of Praise in the Old Testament as Christians.
> 
> This is not a dispensational distinction, it is a Biblical one, according to the author of Hebrews.



That's funny. I thought Covenant Theology was about continuity. I thought the EP argument was that the Psalter was the only songbook to be used in _both_ the Old and New Covenants. So far, the only response that I have gotten to song before the completion of the Psalter is that somehow the worship of God did not involve singing.


----------



## Scott (Jul 29, 2005)

"As I explained in my previous post, the present worship in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel how we are to worship here and now, just as the present existence of special, extrabiblical revelation in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel its existence here and now."

Chris: I don't know if you missed my other post. You may have been posting when it went up. Anyway, one point I am trying to make (and I make at length in that post) is that our "here and now" worship on Sundays involves us presently participating in the heavenly realm. What's going on in heaven involves us.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



I am not saying it is sinful in both places "“ in fact, I am saying that it is possible for it to be sinful here but not sinful in the heavenlies. The parallel example I am using that makes that seem like a possibly legitimate position is the fact that for someone here on earth at this time, to claim that he or she hears or sees God apart from Scripture is a sinful act (Deut. 18:20), for it is a lie. For someone in the heavenlies at this time, however, to claim that he or she hears or sees God apart from Scripture is not a sinful act, for it is not a lie. In light of that, the point I was attempting to make in the beginning of this thread is that the singing of songs with regard to the Psalter could possibly be seen as paralleling the claim of revelation with regard to Scripture. In other words, just as God ordained Scripture to be the sole means of seeing or hearing Him for us in this age, but not for those in the heavenlies in this age (since they see and hear Him apart from Scripture), so he might have ordained the Psalter to be the sole means of worshipping Him through song for us in this age, but not for those in the heavenlies in this age (since they worship Him through song apart from the Psalter.



> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Okay I'm dusting off my  board membership card. Chris, in your initial argument you attempt to draw a parallel between extant prophecy and current "prophecy" and extant songs and non-Psalmic songs. This is an inadequate argument I believe because current prophecy is, from a Cessationist perspective, no prophecy at all, while the non-Psalmic songs are in fact inspired works produced by the Holy Spirit. And they were it seems used in worship (I am referring to songs which are indisputably outside the Psalm as canon, not the admittedly suspicious NT "hymn-fragments"), if these songs were used in worship and God has given no explicit command against their commited use then the Covenantal principle of continuity-unless-God-says-otherwise comes into play. So the prophecy of today which is not prophecy at all, cannot be compared to formerly legitimate songs of the OT which are fully within the realm of revelation.



My reply to Fred above may clarify what I mean somewhat. As you correctly noted, the reason someone today is sinning by claiming to receive a prophecy is because the prophecy is not actually a prophecy at all, hence the claim is a lie. The thing is, _if_ the RPW and the doctrine of EP are true, and non-Psalter songs are in fact violations of the RPW, _then_ they are not really worship at all, even if they are Scripture. In other words, someone claiming to be truly worshipping God through non-Psalter Scriptures is lying _if_ EP is true for the very same reason that someone claiming to be truly seeing or hearing God apart from Scripture is lying _if_ cessationism is true.



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The EP position has nothing to do with the worship of people in Adam's day, or Abraham's day, or any other day. It is dealing with the worship of Israel (the Church) in the New Covenant. Christ has fulfilled the feasts, ceremonies, sacrifices, etc. of the Temple worship, and we, the Church, are the Temple of God today. Paul and the apostles, on Christ's authority, were the new worship leaders, as David was in his day. And, on Paul's clear authority (along with the testimony of James and Christ), we are to sing the various songs contained in God's Book of Praise in the Old Testament as Christians.
> 
> This is not a dispensational distinction, it is a Biblical one, according to the author of Hebrews.



I´m somewhat confused by your statement that EP is only dealing with the worship of the Church in the New Covenant. I understand fully that it is not dealing with pre-Psalter worship or post-New Testament Church (eschaton) worship "“ but would you not say that in addition to applying to New Testament Church worship, EP is also dealing with Old Testament worship _after_ the completion of the Psalter?



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



The impression I have is that EP adherents are only claiming the Psalter to be the only songbook in the era of the Church when the Psalter was complete, which of course includes the New Covenant and _part_ of the Old Covenant (I asked Gabriel to clarify that point above). In light of that, I don´t see that view of the Psalter as _necessarily_ Dispensational, for the same reason I don´t see the cessation of prophecy (which was in operation for the Old Covenant and _part_ of the New Covenant) as Dispensational. To elaborate on that point, Covenant Theology is about continuity, as you said, and of course it is not "œcontinuity on every point," but rather "œcontinuity until God says otherwise," and we of course know that there are several cases of changes being made due to God saying otherwise (such as the cessation of prophecy and of the ceremonial laws).

In light of that, the reason cessationism is not Dispensational is because we see instructions from God for the discontinuation of prophecy after the completion of Scripture. So in the same way, I fully understand that in order for EP to not be Dispensational, it is necessary for its adherents to produce instructions (explicit or through good and necessary consequence) from God for the discontinuation of songs such as the Song of Moses after the completion of the Psalter. In fact, that is one objection I presently have to EP. Would any of the EP adherents care to explain why you see songs such as the song of Moses to be discontinued at the Psalter´s completion, either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence? In other words, show me some passages that say the same things about songs like the Song of Moses in light of the Psalter´s completion as 1 Corinthians 13 and Hebrews 1 say about prophecy in light of the canon´s completion.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "As I explained in my previous post, the present worship in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel how we are to worship here and now, just as the present existence of special, extrabiblical revelation in the heavenly realm does not necessarily parallel its existence here and now."
> 
> Chris: I don't know if you missed my other post. You may have been posting when it went up. Anyway, one point I am trying to make (and I make at length in that post) is that our "here and now" worship on Sundays involves us presently participating in the heavenly realm. What's going on in heaven involves us.



Sorry, I just now read that post. You make a good point in that God has promised to truly be in our midst when we lawfully assemble together and worship, and thus that our worship is of course far more than us simply saying and doing things God can hear and see. Even so, granting that we are _spiritually_ with God, does that necessarily mean there can be _no_ differences between the elements in _our_ worship and those of the saints who are _physically_ with God now? Take the claims to see and hear God apart from Scripture, for example: The saints who are now _physically_ with God can and do make that claim in their worship without lying, but we cannot make that claim in our worship without lying, even though we are _spiritually_ with Him. I am simply trying to illustrate that even though the saints who are physically with God and those who are not physically with God are both _spiritually_ with Him, that does not necessarily mean _all_ the elements of their worship will be the same.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

Apparently some on this board disagree that the Levitical order, the Temple, and other such shadows of the Law have been abrogated by the death and resurrection of my God, Jesus Christ the Lord and King? How is that dispensational? How is that non-Covenantal? That is a Biblical distinction. I'm extremely confused.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Apparently some on this board disagree that the Levitical order, the Temple, and other such shadows of the Law have been abrogated by the death and resurrection of my God, Jesus Christ the Lord and King? How is that dispensational? How is that non-Covenantal? That is a Biblical distinction. I'm extremely confused.



Could you elaborate? Did any of my questions to you give you that impression?


----------



## Augusta (Jul 30, 2005)

I think Ian misunderstood Gabe and was trying Bahnsenesque tactics on him. I don't think it was you Chris.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Oh to be clear, I no longer hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship, for those involved in this discussion. Consequently I don't hold to the Exclusive Psalmody principle of worship either.



Ian, I'm curious what led to your switch. As I recall, you were attending an RPCNA church not that long ago. Now you are attending Steve Schlissel's church, I think, is that right?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> ...



That is what led to his abandonment of it. He attended Messiah's, got to know Steve, read his articles and discussed the issues with him, and changed his position on it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



That makes sense. I was just curious why the departure from the RPCNA.


----------



## Scott (Aug 1, 2005)

> Even so, granting that we are spiritually with God, does that necessarily mean there can be no differences between the elements in our worship and those of the saints who are physically with God now? Take the claims to see and hear God apart from Scripture, for example: The saints who are now physically with God can and do make that claim in their worship without lying, but we cannot make that claim in our worship without lying, even though we are spiritually with Him. I am simply trying to illustrate that even though the saints who are physically with God and those who are not physically with God are both spiritually with Him, that does not necessarily mean all the elements of their worship will be the same.



I am not sure what you mean that the saints are physically with God. As the Resurrection has not occurred, only their spirits are present with God. I will grant that it is in a much more direct way than us, and I think that is what you are driving at. 

Anyway, I would not say that our worship must be indentical. I would say that the Book of Revelation should inform and instruct our worship. We learn many things about reverence, order, adoration, etc. We also learnt that God like his worshipers to sing songs outside of the psalter. In fact, none of the worshipers sing psalms in Revelation. The only OT song is the Song of Moses, which is from outside the psalter. Now, I don't think the snapshot we see in Revelation is a comprehensive view of the worship in heaven, but we can learn allot from it. And, as I mentioned, I favor a healthy amount of psalmody in worship. 

For what it's worth, I would be comfortable in an EP church. This would not be out of conviction of EP, but of appreciation of the value of the psalms. You are blessed to have a church that sings psalms, even though it is not EP. One downside of being not EP is that somehow manmade songs tends to drive out the psalms. That is unfortunate and could even be a prudential (not exegetical) argument for EP.

BTW, D.G. Hart has an interesting history of how psalmody was lost as an essay in his Recovering Mother Kirk.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I am not sure what you mean that the saints are physically with God. As the Resurrection has not occurred, only their spirits are present with God. I will grant that it is in a much more direct way than us, and I think that is what you are driving at.



My main point is that they are already in the presence of extrabiblical special revelation, which the saints on earth have not had since the closing of the canon.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Anyway, I would not say that our worship must be indentical. I would say that the Book of Revelation should inform and instruct our worship. We learn many things about reverence, order, adoration, etc. We also learnt that God like his worshipers to sing songs outside of the psalter. In fact, none of the worshipers sing psalms in Revelation. The only OT song is the Song of Moses, which is from outside the psalter. Now, I don't think the snapshot we see in Revelation is a comprehensive view of the worship in heaven, but we can learn allot from it. And, as I mentioned, I favor a healthy amount of psalmody in worship.



I think I'm getting more of what you're saying here. We all hold that while our current worship can and does differ in _some_ respects with that of the saints currently in heaven, at the same time the former should be quite significantly informed by the latter. Furthermore, the current singing of non-Psalter songs in the heavenlies is not just a circumstance of their worship, but an entire element, and thus more than just a minor difference from what the EP claims our worship on earth should currently look like. I agree with that.

But notice that the extrabiblical special revelation the saints in the heavenlies currently have is likewise more than just a minor difference from our current worship on earth. That revelation is certainly at least as significant an element in their worship as is their non-Psalter songs, and thus it is as significant a difference between their worship and ours as are their non-Psalter songs from the worship of our churches that practice EP. So the fact that that revelation is there even though it is not here seems to show that while our worship should certainly be modeled after theirs in many ways, the differences can and do include even entire elements of that worship, elements as significant as extrabiblical special revelation, and possibly non-Psalter songs in the same way.

Now, that in no way proves EP, and I am not convinced of EP either - but what I think it does prove, and what I have yet to be persuaded against, is the fact that the presence of non-Psalter songs in the heavenlies is not a good argument against EP.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 1, 2005)

From _The Songs of Zion_ by Michael Bushell, pp. 94-97:



> It ought to be apparent with a little reflection that the presence of these songs and intimations at songs in the canon of Scripture does not have direct bearing on the question of worship song in our present circumstances. The songs of Revelation cannot be abstracted from their apocalyptic context. They are an integral part of a very complex prophetic vision, not instances of apostolic worship. The songs are in all but one instance sung by angels and glorified saints. In the excepted verse (5:13ff), literal song is apparently not in view, as even the inanimate objects of creation are said to lift up their voices in praise to God...In our opinion, the only way to make sense of of the song in Revelation 5:13 is to see song generally in Revelation as essentially a complex literary device adapted to express poetically the substance of a vision that is ultimately inexpressible. If the song in 5:13 is not to be taken as a song actually sung or "vocalized" by the inanimate objects mentioned there, we see no reason to take any of the other songs of Revelation as anything more than poetic or literary devices.
> 
> As we have tried to show, the requirement to sing the Psalms exclusively is intimately bound up with the close of the Old Testament canon and the consequent closing of the psalter. The situation represented by the Book of Revelation goes far beyond the restrictions imposed by a closed canon. Songs sung by angels and glorified saints are in the nature of the case inspired compositions, proceeding as they do from heaven itself and the very throne and presence of God. But the restrictions imposed by a closed canon still apply in our own dispensation and earthly habitation, and our psalmody is limited accordingly. To argue that we may do what angels and glorified saints sitting in heaven before God's throne may do, is manifestly false. ...
> 
> The Old Testament Psalms may therefore in a particular sense be seen as "new songs" because they have all taken on new significance in the light of their fulfillment in Christ and in the interpretive light that the New Testament sheds upon them. Seen in this way, the Psalms serve quite sufficiently as a propleptic realization of the need for "new songs" in the worship of God. Because of their divine origin, they serve this purpose in a way not to be matched, much less excelled, by the compositions of uninspired men.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > As we have tried to show, the requirement to sing the Psalms exclusively is intimately bound up with the close of the Old Testament canon and the consequent closing of the psalter. The situation represented by the Book of Revelation goes far beyond the restrictions imposed by a closed canon...But the restrictions imposed by a closed canon still apply in our own dispensation and earthly habitation, and our psalmody is limited accordingly. To argue that we may do what angels and glorified saints sitting in heaven before God's throne may do, is manifestly false.



Exactly.


----------



## Scott (Aug 1, 2005)

> In the excepted verse (5:13ff), literal song is apparently not in view, as even the inanimate objects of creation are said to lift up their voices in praise to God...In our opinion, the only way to make sense of of the song in Revelation 5:13 is to see song generally in Revelation as essentially a complex literary device adapted to express poetically the substance of a vision that is ultimately inexpressible. If the song in 5:13 is not to be taken as a song actually sung or "vocalized" by the inanimate objects mentioned there, we see no reason to take any of the other songs of Revelation as anything more than poetic or literary devices.



This is a rather odd view. The singing (and clapping, and other things) of inanimate objects is common to the psalms, and includes things like the trees clapping, animals and hills singing, etc. I don't think the presence of worship by inanimate objects means that the this portion of Revelation has no literal dimension. If anything, it is simply an argument that these portions of Revelation are _very much_ like the Psalms. So, far from detracting from their use of worship, Bushell's observations should be evidence that we should embrace Revelation's worship.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Aug 1, 2005)

Chris: It is likely that we have fundamentally different views of what is actually happening in worship. As you note, worship is at least a meeting with God. I see it as more, though. My understanding is that we participate in a heavenly reality. In corporate worship we ascend into the heavenly Holy of Holies and join with the very angels worshipping before God. If this fundamental perspective is right, then Revelation is important for understanding what is going on, in content as well as style. 



> But notice that the extrabiblical special revelation the saints in the heavenlies currently have is likewise more than just a minor difference from our current worship on earth.



Note the similarities too, though. The saints in heaven and on earth are part of a single Church, the Body of Christ. We are at the same stage of redemptive history as they are (after the incarnation and before the second coming - i.e. both deceased and dead are living in the last days). As Fred has noted, Covenant theology tends to affirm continuity. It would seem discontinuous for one segment of the present Church (the one Church, or Body of Christ, extends to both heaven and earth) to be limited to singing only psalms and yet another to be given new songs.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 1, 2005)

I actually don't think the issue of whether the worship in Revelation is literal or allegorical even has much (if any) relevance to the issue of EP in particular. I think the real issue determining Revelation's doctrinal effect on EP is what I discuss below, which was described well by Bushell in the part of Andrew's quotation that I quoted above.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Chris: It is likely that we have fundamentally different views of what is actually happening in worship. As you note, worship is at least a meeting with God. I see it as more, though. My understanding is that we participate in a heavenly reality. In corporate worship we ascend into the heavenly Holy of Holies and join with the very angels worshipping before God. If this fundamental perspective is right, then Revelation is important for understanding what is going on, in content as well as style.



I fully agree with your desciption of worship, for the veil has been torn because of Christ. I also agree that because of that nature of our corporate worship, Revelation is indeed important for such understanding. But that of course does not make _all_ of its recorded elements directly applicable to our worship and to be modeled in it, as illustrated by the special revelation example if nothing else; more on that below.



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > But notice that the extrabiblical special revelation the saints in the heavenlies currently have is likewise more than just a minor difference from our current worship on earth.
> ...



But I'm sure you agree that Covenant Theology of course does not automatically teach full continuity on every point, not the least of which is the presence of special revelation. We know there are _some_ very significant differences, and belief in that fact is not in itself Dispensational, else we should all be charismatics. So that is why it really seems completely arbitrary to me to call EP Dispensational, but embrace cessationism as consistent with Covenant Theology.

As you rightly point out, there are significant differences _and_ significant similarities in the worship of earthly and heavenly saints during this time, and both categories need to be constantly noted. *My chief question is, given that we all agree that special revelation is part of the "differences" category, what necessarily makes non-Psalter songs part of the "similarities" category?* If other arguments are needed from the charismatic than "they're doing it in the heavenlies" to discredit cessationism in any way, then other arguments are likewise needed from the hymnist to discredit EP in any way.

I am not saying that those other arguments are not there, and in fact I believe they may be. And if they are, _that_ is where the biblical refutation of EP lies, rather than in the association with heavenly worship. It is just like cessationism: If the charismatic is going to discredit it, he needs to do so by an exegetical theology of revelation as it relates to redemptive history and Scripture, rather than making non-sequitor arguments about the presence of special revelation in heaven. Likewise, if the hymnist is going to discredit EP, he needs to do so by an exegetical theology of worship as it relates to redemptive history, progressive revelation, the commands in the New Testament, and the completion of the canon and the Psalter.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> This is a rather odd view. The singing (and clapping, and other things) of inanimate objects is common to the psalms, and includes things like the trees clapping, animals and hills singing, etc. I don't think the presence of worship by inanimate objects means that the this portion of Revelation has no literal dimension. If anything, it is simply an argument that these portions of Revelation are _very much_ like the Psalms. So, far from detracting from their use of worship, Bushell's observations should be evidence that we should embrace Revelation's worship.
> 
> [Edited on 8-1-2005 by Scott]



Your point about the continuity between the psalms and the new song of Revelation regarding all of creation singing God's praises is well taken, as is your other point about the connection between the angels and corporate public worship (cf. I Cor. 11.10). But I personally still fail to see this "window into the heavenlies" as an apostolic example (because, as Bushell noted, this can't be a literal temporal worship service that is described here) or command for us to sing the words given here but rather as an indication that God gives us the appropriate words to sing in the appropriate time and place. I grant them to be inspired words, which if your view is correct, would open the door to inspired songs outside the Psalter, a position that is not necessarily outside the limitations prescribed by the 1947 OPC minority report on the singing of God's praise. However, it certainly does not open the door to singing the compositions of uninspired men. In any case, I personally believe that the Psalter alone is given by God for us to use in his earthly worship in accord with the principle of sola scriptura, vis-a-vis, the teaching and practice of Jesus and the Apostles, which I consider to be normative for us on earth.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

Andrew,

What do we do with the Psalm of Moses? It is a part of the psalter, but it was not always so. Must we assume that it was inappropriate (i.e. sinful) to sing at one point in the same epoch of redemptive history (i.e. under the Old Covenant) and somehow became appropriate by being inserted into a formal organization?

Or was there a period in time when non-psalter songs were permissible for tabernacle/temple worship at one time, and then at another time were impermissible?

What also of David? Because there were psalms composed after his, are we to assume that at one time in temple worship there were songs permitted that were not a part of God's hymnbook?


----------



## Scott (Aug 1, 2005)

Chris:

As I understand your position, it is that Revelation is not sufficient precedent for singing songs outside the Psalms b/c (1) it is in heaven where special revelation exists and (2) Revelation is highly symbolic. Let's address Rev. 5:13. The song here is sung by all of creation, not just heaven. So, the worshipers include the church militant, the living apostles, and earthly saints - not just the church triumphant. Bushell pinpoints this provision, arguing that it is basically symbolic. You seem to agree on that point. From this, there is basically, without further explanation, a dismissal of the text as precedent for songs outside the psalter (Andrew does offer another alternative, but you have not advanced that, so I will leave that aside for now). 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Rev. 5:13 is symbolic. This symbol is, in part, a symbol of the earthly church (which would include the apostles of the day along with all congregations and saints) worshipping God by singing a song outside the psalter. I imagine that you agree that Rev. 5:13 is symbolic of a good thing (all creation praising God or something else that is good). If having the earthly church sing a song outside the psalter is per se wrong, then Rev. 5:13 would not effectively symbolize anything good. So, it would seem that Rev. 5:13 is at least a symbol of something good that symbolizes something else good. And if the symbol (which includes the earthly church singing a song outside the psalter) is good then it would seem that we should be able to imitate the symbol. 

Hope that makes sense. 

Scott


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

Actually, in Rev. 5:13 they are _saying_ not singing. legovtes

In Rev. 5:9 it is said that "they" sing, but many don't know who the elders are or the living creatures who sing. It seems that they may be suited as angles from the context. Its not until after they and the living creatures sing that the last group "says."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Andrew,
> 
> What do we do with the Psalm of Moses? It is a part of the psalter, but it was not always so. Must we assume that it was inappropriate (i.e. sinful) to sing at one point in the same epoch of redemptive history (i.e. under the Old Covenant) and somehow became appropriate by being inserted into a formal organization?
> ...



Fred,

I think the answer to your question which emphasizes the "unsettled" state of divinely authorized praise music prior to or during the completion of the canon of the Psalter -- and addresses the heavenly new songs found at the end of the Scriptural canon, ie., Revelation -- is found in understanding that the canon of the Psalter, much like the canon of Scripture was something that occured over time, developmentally, and was, in the words of one author, "survival of the fittest," achieved not through natural selection, but divine providential selection. For example, the Song of Moses was not included in the Psalter but, as you mentioned, Psalm 90 was.

Michael Bushell, _The Songs of Zion_, pp. 58



> We freely grant that some songs were sung in Old Testament worship which were not finally included in the psalter, just as we grant that Paul wrote letters that functioned authoritatively in the Church but which were not finally included in the canon of Scripture as we now have it. The real question in both instances is on what authority these literary pieces were used in worship. Consequently, two fundamental questions concern us: first, the principles that were used to determine the songs to be sung in the temple worship before the completion of the psalter; and, second, the use of the psalter after it reached its final and authoritative form. Answers to these questions will tell us what the Old Testament has to say about the content of song in worship.



The key thing is that when God settled the canon of the Psalter, it was settled. Other divinely inspired songs have been and will be appropriate for other times and places, but they are not normative for us in public worship today. 

I'll follow up on this thought later, dv....stay tuned!


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

Andrew,

As you would have expected, I find Bushell's analogy lacking. There is a serious flaw. Here is what he posits:

A1. corpus of song prior to psalter --> A2. Psalter

B1. corpus of all Pauline letters --> B2. canonical Pauline epistles

The problem is that A1 and B1 are not analogous. The sum of B1 did not have the same authority as B2. Some of B1 were not inspired. But A1 were (at least as we speak of Exodus 15, for example). The reason that we do not have Paul's second letter to the Church at Rome (as a hypothetical for instance) is because it was not inspired and not included in the canon. But Moses' Song at the Sea _was_ inspired.

So what is the "defect" of Exodus 15 (why it is sinful to sing it in worship) ? You see what you have argued, and every EP advocate has argued, is that EP is necessary to give God His proper praise (see Matt's quote). How the EP does that is by "singing God's word back to Him." But somehow, that Word is uneffectual, in fact it is a sin. So I am in the position of in the same worship service - if I stand in the pulipt and lead God's peple in a corporate reading of God's word (Exodus 15) I am edifying God's people and worshipping Him properly. But as soon as I begin to bring forth that Word in what appears to be a musical quality, I am anathama and blashpheming. That sounds Dispensational to me.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

Fred,

Was Noah responsible to circumcise Ham, Shem and Japeth, and why not?

Was Abraham responsible to circumcise Isaac?

Are we responsible for circumcising our children not not? 

Answer those non-dispensationally and you have your answer.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Fred,
> 
> Was Noah responsible to circumcise Ham, Shem and Japeth, and why not?
> ...



The answer lies in the covenants.

Noah did not, because he was not under the Abraham or Old covenants, but the Noahic.

Abraham did, as a sign of the covenant God made with him.

I do not have to, because when God made another (new) covenant, he changed the sign.

Now please give me another example where God changes administrations _within_ a covenant, and then changes covenants and does not change.

That is what EP asserts. It says that while the covenant does not change, and worship does not change, the content of song does. Moses and David's successors were under the same covenant. Tabernacle and temple worship were virtually identical, and as a point of fact, there were (apparently) two types of required content during temple worship itself - one with no regulation before the completion of the Psalter, one with a strict and limited content (i.e. not even the inspired, enscripturated Words of God were good enough") after the completion of the Psalter. We have no idea when the Psalter was completed, and we have no testimony as to when this new regulation was laid down. So much so, even the LXX is unable to be clear - since it "includes" a 151st psalm. So how would the Israelite, who sought to follow the command of God, know that on one Sabbath it was perfectly glorifing to God to sing Exodus 15, or Deuteronomy 32, and on the next Sabbath it was a blasphemy that could even be worthy of death (Lev. 10!)

There is no such "problem" with circumcision/baptism; God announces it clearly through His Word, by example (Matt 4), by Christ's command (Matt 28) and by the uniform example of the early Church. Sounds mighty different to me.

On the other hand, we have a situation where the entire worship of God changes - it is no longer tied to a place, there are new revelations that are binding and applicable, it is no longer ceremonial at all, and the central focus of the worship of God is no longer the sacrifice but the preaching of the Word. (Remember, lest the "synagogue argument come up, that EP relies on the link between temple and NT worship to id us of the blasphemy of instruments). But now, even though prayer changes (now in the name of Christ), the reading of the Word changes (to include the NT), preaching replaces sacrifices, the sacraments are completely changed, and even the nature of giving changes - that is EVERY element of worship changes to reflect the new reality of the New Covenant, the ONLY thing that does not change is the content of the song.

Yep, sounds mighty dispensational to me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> Yep, sounds mighty dispensational to me.



At least it isn't me being called dispensational now.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 1, 2005)

to Fred as usual.


----------



## Scott (Aug 1, 2005)

"Actually, in Rev. 5:13 they are saying not singing. legovtes. In Rev. 5:9 it is said that "they" sing, but many don't know who the elders are or the living creatures who sing."

From the context it appears to be singing to me. 5:9 uses the term "say" as a form of singing: "And they sang a new song, saying . . ." (ESV). They "sang" a song by "saying" it. At least one translation translates 5:13 as "singing" (not that "saying" is incorrect - the word alone is just ambiguous about whether it means singing).

Scott


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 1, 2005)

[qutoe]the uniform example of the early Church[/quote]

The uniform example of the early Church is psalmody without instruments. By early Church, I mean the first 6 centuries, at a minimum (heretics excluded).

God's revelation of the promise was gradual. He didn't start with the New Covenant.

God's desire to be worshipped also was revealed gradually. In the same way it would be inadequate for us to merely circumcise our sons and celebrate Passover, we should not worship God according to the Levitical system, since we are under the priesthood of the house of Judah and Christ is our High Priest. The Book of Praise was not developed over night, but over hundreds of years by many different people. Once completed, it was the songbook of the Church, both Old and New Covenants. I don't see the problem, nor do I find the attack of calling it dispensationalism valid or warranted. That's just name calling.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



{Putting on best _Goodfellas_ voice}

"You want I should call ya dispensational? Do ya?"


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> [qutoe]the uniform example of the early Church



The uniform example of the early Church is psalmody without instruments. By early Church, I mean the first 6 centuries, at a minimum (heretics excluded).

God's revelation of the promise was gradual. He didn't start with the New Covenant.

God's desire to be worshipped also was revealed gradually. In the same way it would be inadequate for us to merely circumcise our sons and celebrate Passover, we should not worship God according to the Levitical system, since we are under the priesthood of the house of Judah and Christ is our High Priest. The Book of Praise was not developed over night, but over hundreds of years by many different people. Once completed, it was the songbook of the Church, both Old and New Covenants. I don't see the problem, nor do I find the attack of calling it dispensationalism valid or warranted. That's just name calling. [/quote]

Every example of change you gave was accompanied by a mighty revelatory act of God. No one would have had trouble figuring out the theology of the abandonment of the sacrificial system after the cross. There is no "guess work" involved in understanding the change in the High Priesthood.

One needs to understand the theology - i.e. who Christ was/is, but there are explicit commands and instructions. With EP, it is one day - God honoring praise; next day - deadly blasphemy. No warning. No instruction.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

A great part of the "switch" under the Davidi covenant would also be linked to David as the "sweet psalmist of Isreal" who did quite a bit, as we know, in ordering worship in a very specific way.

"So how would the Israelite, who sought to follow the command of God, know that on one Sabbath it was perfectly glorifing to God to sing Exodus 15, or Deuteronomy 32, and on the next Sabbath it was a blasphemy that could even be worthy of death (Lev. 10!)"

How did Nadab and Abihu know? Lev. 10 is a good instacne for the radicalness of change.

Could it be done through the Directives of David and the ordering of worship for Israel?

Circumcision for Abraham and us hold the same importance throughout each of those administrations of the one Covenant of grace. But, revelation progresses as we go. The same is said of worship. Under David it conclusively reached its epitome.

"There is no such "problem" with circumcision/baptism; God announces it clearly through His Word, by example (Matt 4), by Christ's command (Matt 28) and by the uniform example of the early Church. Sounds mighty different to me."

Not true - see Acts 21 and the problem with James and Paul OVER circumcision and the Jews.

"On the other hand, we have a situation where the entire worship of God changes - it is no longer tied to a place, there are new revelations that are binding and applicable, it is no longer ceremonial at all, and the central focus of the worship of God is no longer the sacrifice but the preaching of the Word."

Not true again - it is refined by David, not overthrown.

"the ONLY thing that does not change is the content of the song."

Why would the content change? The Psalter speaks in the "now." Its does not speak in the "not yet." Its interesting to me in that regard alone. We sing it even as it seems it is fulfilled already. But, the dispensationall argument goes, that since the "name" Jesus is not there, it must be OT worship.



[Edited on 8-2-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway (Aug 1, 2005)

but are those directives and orders given in Scripture? if not, they cannot be binding on the church.

PW


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



{putting on wimpy voice}

No, I will just go crawl back into my credo hole in this paedo pond.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

Like the RPW?


----------



## pastorway (Aug 1, 2005)

the rpw is only binding as long as it is a solid representation of what the Word of God teaches.

If David gave the order to make a change and we are expected to obey it, then it should be in the Word, and it isn't.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> How did Nadab and Abihu know? Lev. 10 is a good instacne for the radicalness of change.



By direct revelatory command of God:

Exodus 30:9 You shall not offer unauthorized incense on it, or a burnt offering, or a grain offering, and you shall not pour a drink offering on it.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.




> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> A great part of the "switch" under the Davidi covenant would also be linked to David as the "sweet psalmist of Isreal" who did quite a bit, as we know, in ordering worship in a very specific way.
> 
> 
> Could it be done through the Directives of David and the ordering of worship for Israel?



No. Because the argument of EP is that the "switch" happened at the completion of the Psalter. And that would not happen for some time after David's death. So there would be no way to know.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

David would not have known that holding the office of the "psalmist?" That's like saying you don't know if you shoudl preach or not, as a preacher.

Why is the switch _after_ the Psalter is completed. Wouldn't David, as noted, incorporate the songs as they came? Why would this not be "progressive revelation" and thus not, in any way, dispensational?

"No. Because the argument of EP is that the "switch" happened at the completion of the Psalter. "

I wouldn't argue that, and have nott seen some fo the best works argue int hat way. They are argue that for US now, but not for them then.

Fred, nowhere did God not tell Nadab and Abihu they could not offer strange fire. (Not strange incense). Burrough speaks long about this in Gospel Worship.


[Edited on 8-2-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 1, 2005)

> Jeremiah Burroughs, in his treatise Gospel Worship (1647), gives the following account of the strange fire offered by Nadab and Abihu: "But had God ever forbidden it? Where do we find that ever God had forbidden them to offer strange fire, or appointed that they should offer only one kind of fire? There is no text of Scripture, that you can find from the beginning of Genesis to this place, where God hath said in terminis, in so many words expressly, You shall offer no fire but one kind of fire. And yet here they are consumed by fire from God, for offering strange fire. I find in the thirtieth of Exodus, verse 9, that there they were forbidden offering strange incense, but I do not find that they were forbidden offering strange fire. In Lev. 6:13 and diverse verses in that chapter, we find that God had appointed that they should keep constantly the fire on the altar burning, and never to let it go out: Now that was it seems God's intention that therefore they should make use of that fire, and that fire only. God would have them to pick out his meaning: God sent fire down from heaven upon the altar, so in the latter end of the ninth chapter God sent down fire from heaven, and gave them a charge to keep that fire on the altar constantly, and never to let it go out: so that it seems God would have them pick out his meaning, that because he had sent down fire from heaven upon the altar, and gave them power to keep that constantly, God would have them to understand, that what incense or sacrifice he would have the use of fire in, it should be only that fire and no other, though God did never say to them directly in these words, You shall make use of this fire and no other, but God would have them to understand this. That's their sin therefore in offering of strange fire."(57)
> 
> Burroughs proceeds to formulate the regulative principle of worship as follows: "That in God's worship there must be nothing tendered up to God but what he hath commanded; whatsoever we meddle with in the worship of God, it must be what we have a warrant for out of the Word of God."(58) And further: "For this speech of Moses is upon occasion of the judgment of God upon Aaron's sons for offering strange fire: They offered fire that God had not commanded. Hence I say that all things in God's worship must have a warrant out of God's Word, must be commanded. It is not enough that it is not forbidden. I beseech you observe it: it is not enough that a thing is not forbidden, and what hurt is there in it? But it must be commanded. I confess in matters that are civil and natural, there this may be enough: If it be but according to the rules of prudence, and not forbidden in the Word; we may make use of this in civil and natural things. But now when we come to matters of religion, and the worship of God; we must either have a command, or somewhat out of God's Word by some consequence drawn from some command wherein God manifests his will; either a direct command, or by comparing one thing with another, or drawing consequences plainly from the words. We must have a warrant for the worship of God. One would have thought that these priests offering incense to the true God, what hurt was there in taking other fire? But there was no command for it, and therefore it was not accepted."(59)


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 1, 2005)

> Fred, nowhere did God not tell Nadab and Abihu they could not offer strange fire. (Not strange incense). Burrough speaks long about this in Gospel Worship.



Interesting distinction... never thought of that before. Who is Burrough?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

Jeremiah Burroughs (Puritan) "Gospel Worship." One of the best books on the RPW and worship in general that you will ever read.

I read sermon one 50 times (150 times!) and would never get tired of it.



[Edited on 8-2-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > Jeremiah Burroughs, in his treatise Gospel Worship (1647), gives the following account of the strange fire offered by Nadab and Abihu: "But had God ever forbidden it? Where do we find that ever God had forbidden them to offer strange fire, or appointed that they should offer only one kind of fire? There is no text of Scripture, that you can find from the beginning of Genesis to this place, where God hath said in terminis, in so many words expressly, You shall offer no fire but one kind of fire. And yet here they are consumed by fire from God, for offering strange fire. I find in the thirtieth of Exodus, verse 9, that there they were forbidden offering strange incense, but I do not find that they were forbidden offering strange fire. In Lev. 6:13 and diverse verses in that chapter, we find that God had appointed that they should keep constantly the fire on the altar burning, and never to let it go out: Now that was it seems God's intention that therefore they should make use of that fire, and that fire only. God would have them to pick out his meaning: God sent fire down from heaven upon the altar, so in the latter end of the ninth chapter God sent down fire from heaven, and gave them a charge to keep that fire on the altar constantly, and never to let it go out: so that it seems God would have them pick out his meaning, that because he had sent down fire from heaven upon the altar, and gave them power to keep that constantly, God would have them to understand, that what incense or sacrifice he would have the use of fire in, it should be only that fire and no other, though God did never say to them directly in these words, You shall make use of this fire and no other, but God would have them to understand this. That's their sin therefore in offering of strange fire."(57)
> ...



Andrew,

Even if we grant that there is a difference between the offering of incense on the fire and the fire (which not all grant), God had given command about the fire. To pull from your quote:



> In Lev. 6:13 and diverse verses in that chapter, we find that God had appointed that they should keep constantly the fire on the altar burning, and never to let it go out: Now that was it seems God's intention that therefore they should make use of that fire, and that fire only



Nadab and Abihu knew therefore what was to be offered. The analgous situation would be if God said: "this kind of fire is OK" and then said (without revelation or redemptive event) "no that kind is no longer OK"


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

Fred, they would have known what to do, and would have to know what not to do by deduction from what they should do. For example:

There are a TON of passages int he Psalms (81:2; 95:1; 98:5; 105:2) that tell us to sing the psalms. God tells us what to do. We know (or should conclude) that these passages cannot be "the book of Psalms" as the "book of praise." The book of Psalms was not completed yet. It had not been set in its present form by progressive revelation. Certainly in a certain sense its anticipatory. But the command to sing Psalms as they are commanded in the passages quoted (and others) refer to extent collections of Psalms with the same character as the ones listed above. They would be the same kind as the ones in which the commands themselves are found. Thus, I can't see how these would not be collections of inspired psalms that were preliminary among progressive revelation of the ultimate collection of Psalms to date.

The "they didn't have the whole book" theory falls apart once one stops thinking dispensational (something you are trying to reverse based on the opposite argument) and starts thinking progressively.

The basic command stays the same, but the content changed until it was completed. The very nature of the whole Psalter itself should demonstrate that. it would be stupid for God to say "sing psalms", give us a complete book of Psalms, and not want us to sing them as the inspired hymnal. He must of wanted us to sing songs written by Quakers, Unitarians and Fanny Crosby too? That makes no sense.

Just at the very least, the pslams shoudl be sung more than anything else the church has in its posession from the nature of the book. Something I think you are overlooking.

We don't have a Scripture that says "stop circumcising your children" in Acts (or anywhere else for that matter) but we have the entire structure and nature of the books of Psalms, and a ton of verses that tell us to sing them.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> The "they didn't have the whole book" theory falls apart once one stops thinking dispensational (something you are trying to reverse based on the opposite argument) and starts thinking progressively.
> 
> ...



Matt,

The argument does not fall apart if you consider the element of song _before_ the completion of the Psalter. Tell me how it is "progressive" for God to give song (inspired and uninspired) to OT believers, and hten say later it is impermissible. Then tell me how it is progressive for God to give *greater* revelation and a *greater* measure of the Spirit to the NT believer, and yet they have NO contribution to song. Again, the progressive nature of the entire Bible is that the NT is the fullness, the substance, the already. The OT is the seed, the shadow, the not yet. For some reason, the NT believer can improve (by God's grace and command) on worship, preaching, reading Scripture, giving, prayer - EVERY element of worship, EXCEPT song? The EP position can not be progressive. It is stunted.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 2, 2005)

Just another voice in the same vein:
Samuel Miller--


> Who can forbear to marvel then, when the light, the freedom, and the spirituality of prayer have received such manifest and rich improvement under the New Testament dispensation, that there would be any, who, in regard to forms of _praise,_ should insist that we are bound still to adhere to the Psalmody of the old economy? What would be thought of any one who, in preaching and in prayer, should contend that we are not warranted to advance beyond the restricted limits of the ceremonial economy? Why is it not equally wonderful that any, claiming to be eminently evangelical, should occupy this ground with regard to _praise?_


I'm not arguing from authority. Everyone likes to trot out the quotes.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Chris:
> 
> As I understand your position, it is that Revelation is not sufficient precedent for singing songs outside the Psalms b/c (1) it is in heaven where special revelation exists and (2) Revelation is highly symbolic. Let's address Rev. 5:13. The song here is sung by all of creation, not just heaven. So, the worshipers include the church militant, the living apostles, and earthly saints - not just the church triumphant. Bushell pinpoints this provision, arguing that it is basically symbolic. You seem to agree on that point. From this, there is basically, without further explanation, a dismissal of the text as precedent for songs outside the psalter (Andrew does offer another alternative, but you have not advanced that, so I will leave that aside for now).
> ...



Actually, I still stand by my statement that I don't think the Revelation passages being literal or poetic has much bearing on the EP issue. If it could be pointed out to me if or where my central point and parallel breaks down, I would probably give more attention to the literal/poetic nature of Revelation. But right now I really don't see how _either_ interpretation can be used in itself to discredit EP, simply because even if it is literal, the singing of non-Psalter songs in the heavenlies does not in itself do anything more to EP than the presence of special revelation in the heavenlies does in itself to cessationism. _That_ is my main point, and I'll repeat it in some of the words I used above, since no one has really interacted with it:



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> As you rightly point out, there are significant differences _and_ significant similarities in the worship of earthly and heavenly saints during this time, and both categories need to be constantly noted. *My chief question is, given that we all agree that special revelation is part of the "differences" category, what necessarily makes non-Psalter songs part of the "similarities" category?* If other arguments are needed from the charismatic than "they're doing it in the heavenlies" to discredit cessationism in any way, then other arguments are likewise needed from the hymnist to discredit EP in any way.
> 
> I am not saying that those other arguments are not there, and in fact I believe they may be. And if they are, _that_ is where the biblical refutation of EP lies, rather than in the association with heavenly worship. It is just like cessationism: If the charismatic is going to discredit it, he needs to do so by an exegetical theology of revelation as it relates to redemptive history and Scripture, rather than making non-sequitor arguments about the presence of special revelation in heaven. Likewise, if the hymnist is going to discredit EP, he needs to do so by an exegetical theology of worship as it relates to redemptive history, progressive revelation, the commands in the New Testament, and the completion of the canon and the Psalter.



Scott, Fred or others: What are your thoughts on that?



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Tell me how it is "progressive" for God to give song (inspired and uninspired) to OT believers, and hten say later it is impermissible. Then tell me how it is progressive for God to give *greater* revelation and a *greater* measure of the Spirit to the NT believer, and yet they have NO contribution to song. Again, the progressive nature of the entire Bible is that the NT is the fullness, the substance, the already. The OT is the seed, the shadow, the not yet. For some reason, the NT believer can improve (by God's grace and command) on worship, preaching, reading Scripture, giving, prayer - EVERY element of worship, EXCEPT song? The EP position can not be progressive. It is stunted.



But once again, the same thing could be said for special revelation. Claims of prophecy were permissable under the Old Covenant, but because of Deuteronomy 18:20, such claims are no longer permissable, for they would be lies. Why? Because God fulfilled His purpose for special revelation in the completed Scriptures, thus causing any different use of it in the physical New Testament Church to cease, even though it is still in operation in the heavenlies, and will be in the eschaton as well. So likewise, if that is not Dispensational, then why would it be necessarily Dispensational to say the same thing about the Psalter? Namely, that God fulfilled His purpose for sung praise in the completed Psalter, thus causing any different use of it in the physical New Testament Church to cease, even though it is still in operation in the heavenlies, and will be in the eschaton as well. If EP is Dispensational, why is cessationism not? 

Again, I am not convinced of EP, but I do think that the references to other songs in the heavenlies as well as the Dispensational classifications are both weak arguments against it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 2, 2005)

Chris,

Your argument about special revelation and the canon being like the psalter falls flat at the foot of the cross. The reason that revelation is closed is not because it was a good idea that God close it, but because Christ is the final Word.

Before Christ, it was neecssary that there be more. After it was necessary that there be no more. Why should singing be different than prayer? Reading? Preaching? Giving? You see in EVERY other element of worship, the work of Christ and the giving of the Holy Spirit broing about a sea-change in worship. But for some reason, singing is immune to that. And it is actually offered as a reason to limit the Spirit and the NT believer with his greater revelation that "David was called the sweet psalmist of Israel." Come on. Moses was THE prophet of Israel. Yet Christ is the greater prophet.

It is dispensational to limit one element of worship to the OT form, while all other change. Think about that conversation with a 1st century Gentile Christian:

=========================
You mean that the old forms of worship are done away with? Yes.

So no more temple? That's right.

No more limiting to Jerusalem? Yes.

More more ceremonies? Yep.

New authoritative revelation? Yes.

Now give more than the tithe? Yes.

Now believers have to change our prayers to pray in Jesus name? Yes.

So the old is done away with and the new is come? Well... not exactly.

What do you mean? We still can only sing the 150 Psalms.

No more songs? No.

Not even if they are the very words of Christ, verbatim recorded in Scripture? No.

So if I sing something our Lord said, that would be sin? Yes.

But everything else changes? Yes.

Everything other thing about worship is now full instead of shadow? Yes.

But song is different? Yes.

Than reading? Yes. Than praying? Yes.
=========================

This is clearly dispensational thinking. It says that what was holy and what will be holy is a sin now. The clear difference from the canon is that the canon is closed for a reason. There is NO more revelation. If there were more revelation the canon would be open. But the EP says that God speaks His very words, but those words are not good enough.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

Fred,

You are a formidable opponent of Puritan worship. You condemn the theology behind the way Puritans worshipped (EP) and they could not in good conscience join in your UH worship. However, do you honestly think that the Westminster Assembly -- I know you take exception to the Confession's teaching on exclusive psalmody -- was guilty of _dispensational_ thinking? The Puritans, dispensational???? John Owen, dispensational? Thomas Watson, Thomas Manton, Matthew Poole, dispensational? Augustine, who said "The voice of Christ and his Church is well-nigh the only voice to be heard in the Psalms," dispensational? The list goes on....

Come on, Fred...


[Edited on 8-2-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Fred,
> 
> You are a formidable opponent of Puritan worship. You condemn the theology behind the way Puritans worshipped (EP) and they could not in good conscience join in your UH worship. However, do you honestly think that the Westminster Assembly -- I know you take exception to the Confession's teaching on exclusive psalmody -- was guilty of _dispensational_ thinking? The Puritans, dispensational???? John Owen, dispensational? Thomas Watson, Thomas Manton, Matthew Poole, dispensational? Augustine, who said "The voice of Christ and his Church is well-nigh the only voice to be heard in the Psalms," dispensational? The list goes on....
> ...



Actually,

We are all guilty at times of dispensational thinking. Owen is my favorite theologian, but just ask Matt if he was dispensational with respect to the Mosaic covenant.

You are just factually incorrect about the Puritans' willingness to separate over EP. Except for the Commonwealth period, virtually every English Puritan was a member of the CoE, which would not have practiced EP.

There are primary and secondary matters. Thta was my point about numbers in the other thread - not that being in the majority makes you right, but the fact is that today most (if not all) EP advocates make EP more important than the local church.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Fred,
> 
> You are a formidable opponent of Puritan worship. You condemn the theology behind the way Puritans worshipped (EP) and they could not in good conscience join in your UH worship. However, do you honestly think that the Westminster Assembly -- I know you take exception to the Confession's teaching on exclusive psalmody -- was guilty of _dispensational_ thinking? The Puritans, dispensational???? John Owen, dispensational? Thomas Watson, Thomas Manton, Matthew Poole, dispensational? Augustine, who said "The voice of Christ and his Church is well-nigh the only voice to be heard in the Psalms," dispensational? The list goes on....
> ...



Actually Andrew, the Puritans were not so monolithic on EP as you would guess. The Anglican ones in particular protested these actions of the Westminster assembly early on. They defended some of the oldest hymns. I would refer to you Davies Worship of the English Puritans for further reference. And the interpretation of Eph. and Col. on the subject also had differences. Certainly the majority opinion was EP as the Confession refelcts, and the non-EP folks, being good churchman submitted to their judgment and conformed for the sake of unity since it was a minor issue. Even in Scotland, the issue was not in complete agreement, even though it was the majority opinion. I would refer to to Nick Needham's article on "Westminster and Worship" in Vol. 2 of The Westminster Confession into the First Century. I think we hav eto take into consideration the spirit of the times too. The Puritans and Presbyterians were trying to reform the corruptions of Anglicanism. I think often, the EP views for them, were more of an anti-Catholic view, rathe than a pro-EP view. Notice how quickly EP dropped of the seen once the Puritans obtained liberty of conscience both in England and America. They all bought into Watts and the hymnists.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Actually,
> 
> We are all guilty at times of dispensational thinking. Owen is my favorite theologian, but just ask Matt if he was dispensational with respect to the Mosaic covenant.
> ...



Separatism and EP go together like water and vinegar. Reformation and EP go together like hand and glove. In point of fact, the majority of English Puritans were ejected from their pulpits for non-conformity after Commonwealth era. The purest Reformation of worship occurred in Scotland, and there EP was incontrovertably the position and practice of the Church. Purity of worship, though, is never a "secondary" matter. It is a matter of the highest importance.


----------



## Scott (Aug 2, 2005)

> But right now I really don't see how either interpretation can be used in itself to discredit EP, simply because even if it is literal, the singing of non-Psalter songs in the heavenlies does not in itself do anything more to EP than the presence of special revelation in the heavenlies does in itself to cessationism.



Chris: Rev. 5:13 involves earthly worship. That is why I chose that passage. rev. 5:13 is not exclusively heavenly. The worshipers singing a song outside the psalms necessarily include the earthly apostles, earthly Christians, and earthly congregations. So this issue of special revelation should not intrude.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 2, 2005)

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



One question then (considering that my experience is completely different with EP separation): what do you advise a person living in Jackson to do, considering that the nearest EP church is likely 3+ hours away?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Actually Andrew, the Puritans were not so monolithic on EP as you would guess. The Anglican ones in particular protested these actions of the Westminster assembly early on. They defended some of the oldest hymns. I would refer to you Davies Worship of the English Puritans for further reference. And the interpretation of Eph. and Col. on the subject also had differences. Certainly the majority opinion was EP as the Confession refelcts, and the non-EP folks, being good churchman submitted to their judgment and conformed for the sake of unity since it was a minor issue. Even in Scotland, the issue was not in complete agreement, even though it was the majority opinion. I would refer to to Nick Needham's article on "Westminster and Worship" in Vol. 2 of The Westminster Confession into the First Century. I think we hav eto take into consideration the spirit of the times too. The Puritans and Presbyterians were trying to reform the corruptions of Anglicanism. I think often, the EP views for them, were more of an anti-Catholic view, rathe than a pro-EP view. Notice how quickly EP dropped of the seen once the Puritans obtained liberty of conscience both in England and America. They all bought into Watts and the hymnists.



Patrick,

I'll be glad to review those sources you mentioned. I'm interested in learning about Puritans who may have dissented from EP. From a former thread on this subject, I don't really think that there was any serious controversy over this in connection with the Westminster Assembly-era, though I do allow that the Assembly was not entirely monolothic in everything (witness the controversies over Erastianism and Independency, among other things). Yet, the end result of the Assembly, the Confession, bound the Puritans and Presbyterians, and many others in the Reformed world for quite a long time, excepting special circumstances like the Restoration of the monarchy. I think the Puritan spirit of the age was indeed pro-EP, as evidenced in the 1673 preface to the Scottish metrical psalter. But I grant that Isaac Watts a century later opened a floodgate of uninspired hymnody, even in Presbyterian churches, when he articulated the modern, mistaken mindset that some Psalms were not fit for Christian worship. But that was an era of decline in quite a few other matters as well. The highwatermark of the Second Reformation, as found in the Westminster Standards and Church of Scotland, was definitely EP.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> One question then (considering that my experience is completely different with EP separation): what do you advise a person living in Jackson to do, considering that the nearest EP church is likely 3+ hours away?



I don't advise separating rashly from a church unless one is forced to sin. If a person can stand silently while uninspired hymns are sung and join in when (hopefully) the occasional psalm is sung, that person ought to do so. I have been in that situation before myself. It's not ideal, but rashly leaving the church is indeed a grievous thing. By staying, there may be opportunity to witness and reform, and honor the peace of the church. Discussions should be held with the session, possibly appeal may be made to higher courts (or maybe not). Meanwhile, I have, however, been witness to situations where anti-EP TE's are so hostile to EP'ers (who are just standing silently during the singing of hymns and not causing trouble) that they have been removed from the rolls and told to get out and stay out. Talk about disrupting the unity of the church! The peace of Zion is a precious thing; so is the conscience of an individual who wishes to adhere to the Bible and the Westminster Confession. Circumstances can be complicated and rarely is there a single issue which necessitates leaving. But separation should be a last resort, handled with great care and due process, to avoid sinning, rather than up and leaving rashly. I would also consult a map of EP churches to see if 3+ hours is correct. There are more EP churches around than you might think. However, again, I emphasize the peace of the church in matters of separation unless one is forced to sin, and I emphasize Matt. 18.


----------



## Scott (Aug 2, 2005)

> Augustine, who said "The voice of Christ and his Church is well-nigh the only voice to be heard in the Psalms,"



Andrew: This sounds good (and I think it is right) but is very hard to put into practice for the average person in the pews. Augustine relied on a form of hermeneutics that very few apply or understand today (I do tend to agree with him, but most do not). It relies heavily on typology and allegory that moderns schooled to use only the historical-grammatical method have a hard time seeing (if they don't mistakenly deny typlogy outright altogether). Certainly it is beyond the the reach of the average person in the pew who has not immersed himself in typology and older ways of thinking. 

Consider Augustine's interpretation of Psalm 137. The literal dimension of the Psalm involve Israel in captivity to Babylon and wanting to dash Babylonian infants against rocks. The straightforward, or literal reading, is this simple: literal Israelites lamenting their capture and wanting to destroy Babylon. The literal dimension has nothing directly to say about Christ.

Augustine applies a highly figurative interpretation. The Babylonians are the devil and his demons. The infants that are dashed against the rocks are interpreted to be our nascent sins that we must crush while they are helpless and before they grow to be mature sins who, like mature soldiers, can subdue us. The willow trees on which the Israelites hung their harps are interpreted to be wicked and greedy men. Etc. Etc. Almost nobody today would read or sing Psalm 137 understanding it that way. Most would be just confused and wonder "why am I singing about being happy about dashing babies against rocks?" 

Now, I tend to agree with Augustine's approach to interpreting scriptures, at least as one dimension and not to the exclusion of the literal or historical meaning, but few do this. In other words, when most worshipers in the pews read the psalms it is not the case that they perceive "[t]he voice of Christ and his Church is well-nigh the only voice to be heard in the Psalms . . ."

Scott

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Scott]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I would refer to to Nick Needham's article on "Westminster and Worship" in Vol. 2 of The Westminster Confession into the First Century.


Patrick,
This was the work I was trying to think of in an earlier thread. Can you summarize Needham's main points worth noting? Or quote anything good? I'm particularly interested if he discusses quotes from the Westminster Divine's or deals with the "other scripture song" project that was co-ordinate with the work on the 1650 Scottish Psalter.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > Augustine, who said "The voice of Christ and his Church is well-nigh the only voice to be heard in the Psalms,"
> ...



Scott, This raises a new objection to the singing of Psalms, that is, the imprecatory nature of certain Psalms. I don't have time at the moment to engage in a thorough defense of such Psalms, nor do I perceive that you are taking the position that Christ is not be found in such Psalms. But I think the reason why the average person in the pews today may have trouble with the imprecatory Psalms is because they are not taught to see Christ therein. My own theology and _Christology_, I know, changed drastically primarily because I started singing the Psalms instead of praise choruses. This is exactly the objection that Isaac Watts had to the use of the Psalter. He assumed that such Psalms were not fit for Christian worship. _This_ sounds like dispensational thinking to me. The imprecatory Psalms have a place in the canon of Scripture and the canon of the Psalter. They represent the judgment of Christ against His enemies. They represent a truth every bit as significant, if not more so, than when uttered by the Psalmist. Much more could be said. But I believe the deficiency at work here is in the exposition of the Psalms today by those who fail to see Christ therein, rather than the idea that David and Christ were at odds with each other.


[Edited on 8-2-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Scott (Aug 2, 2005)

Andrew: I was not referring to the imprecatory aspect. I was referring to typology and allegory. I don't think that the average person would interpret the soldier of Babylon to be the devil and his minions, or babies to be nascent sins, for example. 

I do believe Christ is all throughout the Psalms and the rest of the OT. With exceptions, this is mostly through typology ala Gal. 4:19ff. Since most reject or don't understand typology, it is hard for them to find Christ in the psalms.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Scott]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Andrew: I was not referring to the imprecatory aspect. I was referring to typology and allegory. I don't think that the average person would interpret the soldier of Babylon to be the devil and his minions, or babies to be nascent sins, for example.
> 
> I do believe Christ is all throughout the Psalms and the rest of the OT. With exceptions, this is mostly through typology ala Gal. 4:19ff. Since most reject or don't understand typology, it is hard for them to find Christ in the psalms.
> ...



I see what you are getting at now better. I don't think every EP'er holds to Augustine's particular interpretation of the Psalm 137, yet every EP'er would see Christ and His Church being spoken of therein. 

John Brown gives a simple introduction to the Psalm:



> This psalm was probably composed in Chaldea, during the captivity, and contains, (1.) The Jews' grievous bewailing of their distress, contempt, and reproach, ver. 1, 4. (2.) Their tender and affectionate remembrance of, and concern for Jerusalem Â­ the church and ordinances of God, ver. 5-6. (3.) Denunciations of destruction to the Edomites, who had promoted, and the Chaldeans, who had affected their distress and captivity, ver. 7-9.
> 
> While I sing, let me bless the Lord for what mercy is my lot, above that of many others. Let the welfare of God's church lie near my heart. Let me earnestly desire, and firmly expect the ruin of all her and my spiritual foes.



[Edited on 8-2-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Scott (Aug 2, 2005)

Andrew: What is that from - is it online? Thanks


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Andrew: What is that from - is it online? Thanks



Scott, It comes from the notes to the Psalter prepared by John Brown of Haddington.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



He does quote some Divines and their non-EP positions, particularly on Eph. and Col. and he also quotes a couple guys before and after. He does essentially the same thing as Iain Murray in his pamphlet on psalmody, quoting non-EP puritans and how they viewed the RPW regarding song. Murray though doesn't evaluate the WCF and it's implication on the topic. Both articles simply illustrate that some Puritans and Presbyterians had differing views on how the RPW applied to song. Some say it allowed biblical hymns. But obviously, these non-EP guys submitted to the Church in practice in the end though still keeping their views.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> He does essentially the same thing as Iain Murray in his pamphlet on psalmody, quoting non-EP puritans and how they viewed the RPW regarding song. Murray though doesn't evaluate the WCF and it's implication on the topic.



I will add Murray's tract to my reading list. For what it's worth, Although he doesn't address Puritans who may not have been EP, a pastor in my denomination, Roy Mohon, did write a response to Murray. So did Pastor John Keddie.


----------



## Scott (Aug 2, 2005)

Andrew: Thanks. That is a useful resource that I may use in my personal devotions. I like the brief and simple introductions. 

In terms of typology, here is another example of what I am talking about. Let's use Psalm 109 as an example. I am putting aside the imprecatory nature and looking solely at typology. Brown writes (correctly, I think): "Probably David penned this psalm with a view to Doeg or Ahithophel, and hence it is much like the 41st, 52nd, 55th, 124th, and 140th. But the Holy Ghost herein hath a mediate respect to Jesus, and to Judas the traitor, Acts 1:20."

Most people in the pew will likely not even recognize this as being referenced in the NT, although some will. In any event, it will be hard for most people to move from the immediate sense of Psalm 109 (which involves David as the suffering speaker praying for the destruction of Doeg) to the "mediate," or typological, sense of Christ as a speaker (Christ praying for the destruction of Judas). Now, I think that Brown's understanding of the dual nature of Psalm 109 is solid but using a primarily typological psalm to praise Jesus can often obscure him. It will leave many people (not you, but others not so studied) not knowing that Jesus has anything at all to do with it. 

With manmade hymns about Jesus, the immediate (as opposed to the mediate) sense is about Jesus and it is easier for the guy in the pew to understand what he is saying and meaning. By singing Psalm 109, the average guy is going to be left trying to understand and piece together the relation of the immediate sense of David to a typological, or mediate, sense of Christ. 

The reformed churches has historically been about clarifying things in worship and making them easier to understand (translating the scriptures into vulgar languages, bringing the services into vulgar languages, deep concern for clear preaching of the Word, etc.). Yet, EP to me at least seems to obscure what is happening in worship, at least if the idea is that the Psalms are about Christ and not just the immediate sense (eg. the difference between an understanding of David praying for Doeg's destruction vs. Christ praying for the destruction of Judas). And remember, I agree with your view that Christ speaks in all or nearly all of the Psalms in some sense, such as the one Brown mentioned for Psalm 109.

Scott

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> Most people in the pew will likely not even recognize this as being referenced in the NT, although some will. In any event, it will be hard for most people to move from the immediate sense of Psalm 109 (which involves David as the suffering speaker praying for the destruction of Doeg) to the "mediate," or typological, sense of Christ as a speaker (Christ praying for the destruction of Judas). Now, I think that Brown's understanding of the dual nature of Psalm 109 is solid but using a primarily typological psalm to praise Jesus can often obscure him. It will leave many people (not you, but others not so studied) not knowing that Jesus has anything at all to do with it.
> 
> ...



Hopefully, Scott, the pastor and elders would be explaining these psalms to the people so they can sing with understanding.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Andrew: Thanks. That is a useful resource that I may use in my personal devotions. I like the brief and simple introductions.
> 
> In terms of typology, here is another example of what I am talking about. Let's use Psalm 109 as an example. I am putting aside the imprecatory nature and looking solely at typology. Brown writes (correctly, I think): "Probably David penned this psalm with a view to Doeg or Ahithophel, and hence it is much like the 41st, 52nd, 55th, 124th, and 140th. But the Holy Ghost herein hath a mediate respect to Jesus, and to Judas the traitor, Acts 1:20."
> ...



I'm glad you have found John Brown to be useful. I have been greatly blessed by his work. 

Regarding Psalm 109, since Luke in Acts clearly identifies this psalm prophetically with Judas, I don't see any problem at all understanding that Psalm 109 is fulfilled in Christ. Matthew Henry affirms the typological connection as well. As does John Calvin:



> This psalm consists of three parts. It begins with a complaint; next follows an enumeration of various imprecations; and then comes a prayer with an expression of true gratitude. And although David here complains of the injuries which he sustained, yet, as he was a typical character, everything that is expressed in the psalm must properly be applied to Christ, the Head of the Church, and to all the faithful, inasmuch as they are his members; so that when unjustly treated and tormented by their enemies, they may apply to God for help, to whom vengeance belongs.



I think, as I mentioned earlier, what is needed is better teaching in our modern Reformed Churches. The psalms are a deep book. Under the illumination of the Old Covenant, looking ahead to Christ, they were deep. Looking back at them through the lens of the New Covenant, we find that they are even deeper and fuller of Christ than most might imagine. Thus, the psalms, far from obscuring the gospel in Christian worship are the divinely composed telling of the gospel _by_ and _about_ Christ.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 2, 2005)

Thanks Patrick. This sounds similar to what the Rev. Dr. Rowland Ward and I have gone around on over the years many times (he had referred me to Needham's article). He and I agree that the subject of EP simply wasn't on the table for discussion as far as singing anything other than "œPsalms", but he thinks usage of "psalm" (lower case) and the differing private views before and after the Assembly mean we should not interpret the Westminster Stds as advocating EP (he holds to inspired praise (IP) but not EP). I believe, since the only thing the Assembly authorized was a Psalm book, that they were EP in practice if not addressing EP theory (the full blown EP argument as we now have it took time and various controversies to become fully articulated;"”the first time a denomination articulated pure EP officially, as opposed to IP, rejecting the possibility of singing any scripture song outside the Psalms, was in the early 19th century according to C. G. M'Crie; it seems to me, without looking closely at it, that the IP position has never been stable long enough in practice, at least not in Presbyterianism, without sliding quickly if not directly into allowing uninspired hymns as well, which may have been a factor in EP finally receiving full articulation). 

What makes the subject historically "œinteresting" is the inspired praise position, which evidently was held by enough of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to authorize a book of the "œother scripture songs" to be published along with the Scottish metrical Psalter when it was completed. While the Psalter was finally completed and published in 1650 we have at least Cromwell to blame for the other not materializing (he put the kibosh on GA meetings); and also sadly the records of the Assembly are lost so we have only later GAs to go on as to what was intended. Around 1706 or so the GA of Scotland began looking at the project again and it is obvious they believed the Assembly 50 years earlier had brought the project up with the intention for public worship. I am not yet convinced of that; or at least not convinced it would have passed ultimately into public worship by authorization of the GA (after all it still took more than 100 years and the subject coming up several times before this finally happened). The "œother songs" some of which appeared in some earlier Scottish Psalters, were not used in public worship in Scotland before the Westminster Assembly (see D. Hay Fleming´s _Hymnology of the Reformation,_ if I recall correctly), and not after until authorized in the later 18th century. Thus the whole subject coming up, even though the Westminster Assembly never mention it, make this just a little bit strange to reconcile with the uniformity aimed at by the Solemn League and Covenant. I have suspicions it was to placate a particular inspired praise party in the church, particularly Zachary Boyd. I think if the work had actually been completed, and presented to the GA, we may have seen a fight over the content of worship song a lot earlier than actually took place. This is just speculation; and not having see Needham of course my views are subject to correction by any facts I´ve not seen.

Also, for a review of Murray´s work, which was really not very good, by Rev. H. M. Cartwright, see:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/PsalmsorHymns.htm


----------



## Scott (Aug 2, 2005)

"Regarding Psalm 109, since Luke in Acts clearly identifies this psalm prophetically with Judas, I don't see any problem at all understanding that Psalm 109 is fulfilled in Christ."

Andrew: I agree. My point is that the average guy in the pew won't see it. Psalm 109 is a clear picture of David and an obscure picture of Christ. Average people don't understand Christ there. You are not average, so it does not surprise me you see Christ in this Psalm.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "Regarding Psalm 109, since Luke in Acts clearly identifies this psalm prophetically with Judas, I don't see any problem at all understanding that Psalm 109 is fulfilled in Christ."
> 
> Andrew: I agree. My point is that the average guy in the pew won't see it. Psalm 109 is a clear picture of David and an obscure picture of Christ. Average people don't understand Christ there. You are not average, so it does not surprise me you see Christ in this Psalm.



 It is by the grace of God alone, brother!


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Not true at all. I've never had a serious discussion with Pastor Steve about this at all. I changed my position on the issue before I began attending, though I Schlissel's articles I found helpful I chewed on this thing for some time before setting foot in Messiah's door.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> ...



I moved to Brooklyn and the commute became really difficult so I started looking for a new congregation. Pastor Bruce and all of the session at Ridgefield Park RPCNA understood my situation.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 12, 2005)

*Chris...*

Chris you responded to my post: 
My reply to Fred above may clarify what I mean somewhat. As you correctly noted, the reason someone today is sinning by claiming to receive a prophecy is because the prophecy is not actually a prophecy at all, hence the claim is a lie. The thing is, if the RPW and the doctrine of EP are true, and non-Psalter songs are in fact violations of the RPW, then they are not really worship at all, even if they are Scripture. In other words, someone claiming to be truly worshipping God through non-Psalter Scriptures is lying if EP is true for the very same reason that someone claiming to be truly seeing or hearing God apart from Scripture is lying if cessationism is true.

Think this through: RPW says that whatever is commanded is alone forbidden. Songs were allowed or commanded during the OT to be sung by God. God has never forbidden their use. Now explain to me why the RPW now should teach us to abandon these formerly okay-ed means of worship? It formerly okay-ed them, and has not rescinded their use.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Ian:

Since you are attending Messiah I thought I would pass on this thread to you:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13176


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 12, 2005)

Thanks sir, though I've already read that thread. No desire to participate in it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Think this through: RPW says that whatever is commanded is alone forbidden. Songs were allowed or commanded during the OT to be sung by God. God has never forbidden their use. Now explain to me why the RPW now should teach us to abandon these formerly okay-ed means of worship? It formerly okay-ed them, and has not rescinded their use.



There is no proof - that is, proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, or proof that isn't speculation, inference, or assumptions based on presuppositions against the RPW - that anything in the OT was sung in Temple Worship _other than_ from the Psalter itself. None. Go ahead and cite Habakkuk 3:19 or whatever other verses you like, but they all fall well short of "proof that these songs were commanded by God to be sung." In worship, we don't operate on possibilities, we operate on certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is no directly clear text in all of Scripture commanding us to sing anything outside of God's book of praise, and even if this could be inferred or argued for from one or two verses, that is not NEARLY ENOUGH to overthrow what the entirety of Scripture and revelation clearly shows us as true - that is, that God's book of praise containing His psalms and hymns is all that is to be sung in worship.

[Edited on 9-13-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 13, 2005)

"There is no proof - that is, proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, or proof that isn't speculation, inference, or assumptions based on presuppositions against the RPW "

"Go ahead and cite Habakkuk 3:19 or whatever other verses you like"

With these kinds of ground rules who needs too spar? You've won the argument. Any proof I show is based on a bias against the RPW, and any verse I show will not be convincing for the above reasons. I'm K'Oed. 





[Edited on 9-13-2005 by Ianterrell]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 13, 2005)

You're KO'ed not because you have a bias against the RPW, but because your argument above was based on unproven assertions that required an abundant amount of proof (which wasn't given or cited) in order to overthrow clear Biblical arguments to the contrary. You have the burden of proof, not the RPW.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 13, 2005)

"The burden of proof" is always on the other side. It sounds sharp in debate, but ultimately its just another way of putting the ball in the other guys part of the court without doing much work. There's no substantial reason why we should consider Miriam's song or Habukkuk's song uninspired or unsung by the congregation of israel. Further there is a song in Revelations which is inspired. 

Your reasoning goes like so: There is a command in the new testament to sing psalms. Therefore in the new testament the only permissable form of singing is psalm singing, however this fails even to treat the RPW fairly. If God says to do one thing it does not necessarily prove that all other things are henceforth to be considered unaccepteable. The EPer says just this, that the Song of Moses and those of its ilk are now sinful to perform simply God has said to sing a particular group of songs (because if God tells us to do something we should assume doing anything else of that category is sinful). 

Further when you say that there's no proof without showing that the proofs are inadequate rather just claming them to be so, and then claiming that the burden is on your friends side (and we are friends, no?) I'm left scratching my head. And I aint got dry scalp neither. So there.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 13, 2005)

Ian, the burden of proof is on anyone who challenges the Confessions on this board. (see Board Rules for clarification) The RPW is historical, Biblical Reformed thought.

Simply saying that a portion of Scripture is a song doesn't make it such, nor does it prove it was commanded by God to be sung in corporate worship.


----------



## Ianterrell (Sep 14, 2005)

Ian, the burden of proof is on anyone who challenges the Confessions on this board. (see Board Rules for clarification).

That's an unqualified appeal to authority, and thinly veiled appeal to the stick (i.e. I'm right, because you don't belong here). When lacking evidence for one's opinion head to the nearest logical fallacy.

The the value of the RPW isn't being discussed here, rather your particular narrow application of it to exclude Habukkuk's song. Nothing but a blind commitment to the EP position could lead one to dogmatically assert that the final segment of Habakkuk which finishes with these words: To the choirmaster: with stringed instruments. doesn't indicate that this was a song to be sung by the congregation of Israel.

"Simply saying that a portion of Scripture is a song doesn't make it such"

Simply put, I made no such claim. 

"nor does it prove it was commanded by God to be sung in corporate worship. "

The EP position says rightly that all songs in the bible are inspired. Therefore if GOd inspires the lyrics to a song, according to EP arguments, they ought to be sung unless he says otherwise. EP argues often that because God gave us a Psalm book that is inspired we ought to sing from it exclusively, but this ignores and demeans the other inspired songs which apparently you are pretending don't exist. THis to me is unheard of. Its one thing to say that we should only sing the psalms because God says sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, but to say that there aren't any other inspired songs in the bible is just a joke. 

Ex 15:1ff Moses sings a song. It is an inspired song from the Holy Spirit following EP reasoning.

Ex 15:1-21 Miriam's Song.

Nu 21:17 Israeli song of triumph

Judges 5 Deborah's song

Habakkuk 3 Habakkuk's song

Rev 5:9ff A song is sang from Heaven.

Now if God has given the Israelites warrant to sing all these songs, since it is to be noted these are inspired compositions and he gave them the original liscense to sing at all during Christian worship, how could the statement "sing psalms, hymns, and inspired songs" negate these other inspired songs?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 14, 2005)

Ian, are you aware that the ending you talked about in Habakkuk 3 is not found in the Syriac, Aramaic, Septuagint, or Latin Vulgate? I know you're not a MT guy, so that should be brought into consideration.

You also misrepresented the EP position in your last post. It does not claim that all inspired songs are meant to be sung. It claims that the Psalter is the hymnal of the Church, period. Nothing else is to be sung. This is corroborated both Biblically and historically, with at least 5 early-Church ecumenical councils making decrees of such a claim. Not to mention the many early Church fathers who refer to the Psalter as "spiritual songs" and "David's hymns" and the "hymnal of the Church." I would assert they did not just come up with this idea on their own, rather it is of apostolic and Biblical origin and teaching. For example, Nehemiah 12 calls the Psalter "songs" (odee) in Greek, while it is called "hymns" (humnoi) elsewhere in the Old Testament outside of the Psalter. The Greek Christians being exhorted to sing odee and humnoi to one another did not hear this in a vacuum, they had the Scriptures, and the Scriptures was the LXX (which, as pointed out earlier, did not contain the, what I believe to be, extra biblical addition to Hab 3:19), which in numerous places refers to the Book of Praises as humnoi and odee, not just psalmos.

And, again, just because you see something in Scripture that is formatted like a song does not mean it was ever sung, meant to be sung, etc. Also, you have to prove that they've been commanded to be sung, these other songs outside the Psalter. All agree that the Psalter is commanded to be sung. There is no historical or Biblical record showing us that any of those 'songs' you mentioned were ever sung in the Temple. Finally, Revelation is not a pattern of worship, it is typological and symbolic in nature. Otherwise, there is a huge inconsistency to appeal to Revelation for this supposed 'new song' but then to not include the rest of what Revelation prescribes for 'worship' as well.

You are arguing from possibilities, not certainties. That has no place in a doctrine of worship. Just because it is _possible_ the prayer in Habakkuk 3 was sung, that is not sufficient for us to be dogmatic and certain that God has _commanded us_ to sing it in corporate worship. There is no Biblical or extra-Biblical record it was ever used as such.

I don't have the time or desire to get into a detailed discussion over this, because it would require me doing a lot of research and citations (since my hard drive crashed recently) in order to refute all of those "songs" you listed as being meant for corporate worship. I'm sure you can find such information on your own. John Murray, John Owen, etc. etc. have much to say about these things if you care to investigate further.

[Edited on 9-14-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 14, 2005)

Just as one quick example, it is clear Chrysostom did not see "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" as referring to anything but the Psalter:



> Homily on Colossians 3:16-17
> By John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (A.D. 347 - 407)
> 
> "Teaching," he saith, "and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." Mark also the considerateness of Paul. Seeing that reading is toilsome, and its irksomeness great, he led them not to histories, but to psalms, that thou mightest at once delight thy soul with singing, and gently beguile thy labors. "Hymns," he saith, "and spiritual songs." But now your children will utter songs and dances of Satan, like cooks, and caterers, and musicians; no one knoweth any psalm, but it seems a thing to be ashamed of even, and a mockery, and a joke. There is the treasury house of all these evils. For whatsoever soil the plant stands in, such is the fruit it bears; if in a sandy and salty soil, of like nature is its fruit; if in a sweet and rich one, it is again similar. So the matter of instruction is a sort of fountain. Teach him to sing those psalms which are so full of the love of wisdom; as at once concerning chastity, or rather, before all, of not companying with the wicked, immediately with the very beginning of the book; (for therefore also it was that the prophet began on this wise, "Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly"; (Ps. i. 1), and again, "I have not sat in the council of vanity"; (Ps. xxvi. 4, Sept., and again, "in his sight a wicked doer is contemned, but he honoreth those that fear the Lord," (Ps. xv. 4, Sept.,) of companying with the good, (and these subjects thou wilt find there in abundance,) of restraining the belly, of restraining the hand, of refraining from excess, of not overreaching; that money is nothing, nor glory, and other things such like.
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 14, 2005)

This site has a lot of good resources: http://members.aol.com/rsichurch/worship.html


----------



## Augusta (Sep 14, 2005)

*Direct command from God*



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




2 Chronicles 29:
25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, *according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king´s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the LORD by His prophets.* 
26 The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. 
27 Then Hezekiah commanded them to offer the burnt offering on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, *the song of the LORD also began, with the trumpets and with the instruments of David king of Israel. * 28 So all the assembly worshiped, the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded; all this continued until the burnt offering was finished. 
29 And when they had finished offering, the king and all who were present with him bowed and worshiped. 
30 Moreover King Hezekiah and the leaders commanded the Levites to *sing praise to the LORD with the words of David and of Asaph the seer*. So they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshiped. 

1 Chronicles 25
1 Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals: and the number of the workmen according to their service was: 
2 Of the sons of Asaph; Zaccur, and Joseph, and Nethaniah, and Asarelah, the sons of Asaph under the hands of Asaph, which prophesied according to the order of the king. 

3 Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six, under the hands of their father Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the LORD.


2 Chronicles 35:15
15 And the singers, the sons of Asaph, were in their places, according to the command of David, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun the king´s seer. 

Ezra 3:10-11
10 When the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests stood[d] in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites, *the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the ordinance of David king of Israel. * 
11 And they sang responsively, praising and giving thanks to the LORD: 

"œFor He is good, 
For His mercy endures forever toward Israel."[e]


Nehemiah 12:
8 Moreover the Levites were Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah who led the thanksgiving psalms, he and his brethren. 
9 Also Bakbukiah and Unni, their brethren, stood across from them in their duties.....

44 And at the same time some were appointed over the rooms of the storehouse for the offerings, the firstfruits, and the tithes, to gather into them from the fields of the cities the portions specified by the Law for the priests and Levites; for Judah rejoiced over the priests and Levites who ministered. 
45 Both the singers and the gatekeepers kept the charge of their God and the charge of the purification, according to the command of David and Solomon his son. 
46 For in the days of David and Asaph of old there were chiefs of the singers, and songs of praise and thanksgiving to God. 
47 In the days of Zerubbabel and in the days of Nehemiah all Israel gave the portions for the singers and the gatekeepers, a portion for each day. They also consecrated holy things for the Levites, and the Levites consecrated them for the children of Aaron.


----------

