# Modern Worship?



## Shaffer

What is your opinion about much of the "new worship" found in most evangelical and charismatic churches? I must admit that I do enjoy listening to a lot of modern Christian music, but it seems to me like a lot of the worship services seem to get people into some sort of a trance. For example, I notice that in some worship services I've been to there is very little Biblical content to any of the songs and many of the lyrics seem to be very mystical. Is this really worshipping God in spirit and truth, with our minds hypnotised by some rhythmic song? It also seems to me that there is a real lack of outward reverance to God. Do you think that this is the case?

Lastly, if there is something unbiblical about this, what can be done to return to a Biblical and Christ-centered corporate worship?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Return to the regulative principle of worship (RPW). If you do a search on the phrase or on RPW you should turn up a lot of prior board discussion.


----------



## Shaffer

I'll have to check that out. Thanks!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

It is an abomination to the Lord.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> in some worship services I've been to there is very little Biblical content to any of the songs and many of the lyrics seem to be very mystical.



WFU: "abomination"

In this we can be agreed...but probably vary our degrees of definition.

-JD


----------



## BobVigneault

A lot has been said about this on the board Brady. Some of the questions that need to be answered are:

- What in a service is entertainment and marketing and what is worship?

- Is God the center of the worship or is man the focus of the entertainment? Who are we trying to please?

- Are there guidelines in scripture that help us to order corporate worship?

- Can we decide how we will worship God or has he given us biblical directives?

- Should worship be governed by a normative principle - that all things are allowed unless scripture says otherwise? or,

- Should worship be governed by a regulative principle - that only those things prescribed by scripture should make up our worship service.

You will keep hearing of the regulative principle but agreement on what elements make up the RP is impossible. A regulative principle must be driven by a true devotion to worship God and the resulting attempt to achieve a purity in our worship practice. Don't be confused by the lack of agreement. We all agree that modern worship is an abomination and that there must be a biblical and prayerful attempt to seek a purity in worship practice.

By the way Brady, I missed the opportunity to welcome you sir. Welcome!

[Edited on 6-9-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Great and graceful answer, Bob.

-JD


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Or as William Cunningham wrote:


> "œThe Reformers and the Regulative Principle," _The Reformation of the Church. A collection of Reformed and Puritan documents on Church issues_ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965; rpt. 1987) 38-39.
> The principle is in a sense a very wide and sweeping one. But it is purely prohibitory or exclusive; and the practical effect of it, if it were fully carried out, would just be to leave the Church in the condition in which it was left by the apostles, in so far as we have any means of information "“ a result, surely, which need not be very alarming, except to those who think that they themselves have very superior powers fro improving and adorning the Church by their inventions. The principle ought to be understood in a common-sense way, and we ought to be satisfied with reasonable evidence of its truth. Those who dislike this principle, from whatever cause, usually try to run us into difficulties by putting a very stringent construction upon it, and thereby giving it an appearance of absurdity, or by demanding an unreasonable amount of evidence to establish it. The principle must be interpreted and explained in the exercise of common sense. One obvious modification of it is suggested in the first chapter of the _Westminster Confession of Faith_ where it is acknowledged "˜that there are some circumstances, concerning the worship of God and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed´. But even this distinction between things and circumstances cannot always be applied very certainly; that is, cases have occurred in which there might be room for a difference of opinion, whether a proposed regulation or arrangement was _a distinct thing_ in the way of innovation, or merely a _circumstance_ attaching to an authorized thing and requiring to be regulated. Difficulties and differences of opinions may arise about details, even when sound judgment and good sense are brought to bear upon the interpretation and application of the principle; but this affords no ground for denying or doubting the truth or soundness of the principle itself.


----------



## Shaffer

I agree with you completely Bob. I used to attend a seeker sensitive church a couple years back and I was very concerned to see almost no reverance for God. After that I started to attend a local Reformed Baptist Church. I know about the regulative principle but like you said I am sometimes confused by all the disagreement with how it is defined. If anyone wants to read an EXCELLENT article on the biblical problems with "new worship" check out Worship in the Melting Pot by Dr. Peter Masters from Metropolitain Tabernacle in London.


----------



## Bladestunner316

I've never really cared for Christian music all sounded the same.


----------



## JonathanHunt

> _Originally posted by Shaffer_
> I agree with you completely Bob. I used to attend a seeker sensitive church a couple years back and I was very concerned to see almost no reverance for God. After that I started to attend a local Reformed Baptist Church. I know about the regulative principle but like you said I am sometimes confused by all the disagreement with how it is defined. If anyone wants to read an EXCELLENT article on the biblical problems with "new worship" check out Worship in the Melting Pot by Dr. Peter Masters from Metropolitain Tabernacle in London.



I second that!

JH


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gods people perish for lack of knowledge; shame on the shepherds who lead the flock astray by assaulting Gods principle for worship. These men should step down as God has not sent them; if He had, they would know the truth about how God is to be worshipped.

Two things one needs to keep in mind;
1) all music does not meet this criteria, and 
2) some music does.

Since there is a question as to what is to be used, the safest bet is to sing Gods word, i.e. the Psalms, as one cannot make a mistake singing Gods words.

Gods words can be sung from an unregenerate, making the song, blasphemos, and some people sing from a bad heart, making the words illicit. However, those that approach God with the correct disposition, are less likely to assault the rpw in my opinion.

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Shaffer

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gods people perish for lack of knowledge; shame on the shepherds who lead the flock astray by assaulting Gods principle for worship. These men should step down as God has not sent them; if He had, they would know the truth about how God is to be worshipped.
> 
> Two things one needs to keep in mind;
> 1) all music does not meet this criteria, and
> 2) some music does.
> 
> Since there is a question as to what is to be used, the safest bet is to sing Gods word, i.e. the Psalms, as one cannot make a mistake singing Gods words.



What would you say about modern artists such as Chris Tomlin? Most of his lyrics are strait out of scripture and though his music would be considered modern, it clearly sounds nothing like the music of the world (at least I don't think so). Is it okay if we worship God for who has revealed Himself to be in scripture accompanied by modern music (though NOT worldly music)?


----------



## panta dokimazete

yes


Ephesians 5:19
addressing one another in *psalms* and *hymns* and *spiritual songs*, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 


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

-pax-

-JD

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Shaffer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gods people perish for lack of knowledge; shame on the shepherds who lead the flock astray by assaulting Gods principle for worship. These men should step down as God has not sent them; if He had, they would know the truth about how God is to be worshipped.
> 
> Two things one needs to keep in mind;
> 1) all music does not meet this criteria, and
> 2) some music does.
> 
> Since there is a question as to what is to be used, the safest bet is to sing Gods word, i.e. the Psalms, as one cannot make a mistake singing Gods words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would you say about modern artists such as Chris Tomlin? Most of his lyrics are strait out of scripture and though his music would be considered modern, it clearly sounds nothing like the music of the world (at least I don't think so). Is it okay if we worship God for who has revealed Himself to be in scripture accompanied by modern music (though NOT worldly music)?
Click to expand...


I do love the song "Indescribable" by Tomlin! 

Indescribable, uncontainable,
You put the stars in the sky and you know them by name.
You are amazing God!
All powerful, unchangeable,
Awestruck we fall to our knees and we humbly proclaim
You are amazing God, you are amazing God.
Indescribable, uncontainable,
You see the depths of my heart and you love me the same
You are amazing God

Is there a chance he is erring? As well, worship is made for church services. Private worship is entirely different. Are you speaking of private or public? The elder/pastor is worship leader. Is Chris T. a pastor of a church? Is he playing his music for the visible/local or invisible/universal church? 

My suggestion, keep contemporary worship out of the church, sing the psalms (as it is the safest) and enjoyy what people like Tomlin bring to the table otherwise.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> yes



JD,
Is there some CCM tjhat you would say is illicit?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Yes - thinking along the lines of Phillips, Craig and Dean - proponents of heresy (Oneness Pentacostalism)- yet very popular CC Musicians.

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> yes
> 
> 
> Ephesians 5:19
> addressing one another in *psalms* and *hymns* and *spiritual songs*, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,
> 
> 
> Colossians 3:16
> Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing *psalms* and *hymns* and *spiritual songs*, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
> 
> -pax-
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]



JD,
Not wanting to turn this into a EP debate, but I know you have no idea what the Apostle meant when he said hymms and spiritual songs. No one knows. Having said this, you are left with only one clear cut choice on what is NOT assaulting Gods RPW, the psalms.


----------



## Shaffer

Thank you for clarifying sir. I have a lot to learn about what the Bible defines as acceptable public worship. I would stand in agreement with you; in public, even Tomlin can become more of a concert than a God-honoring time of genuine worship. I know because I have seen it. Thanks for the input!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Yes - thinking along the lines of Phillips, Craig and Dean - proponents of heresy (Oneness Pentacostalism)- yet very popular CC Musicians.
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]



So, some stuff assaults the RPW. If some stuff assaults it, who makes the decisions as to what is approvable? God? Since the question is unanswerable, is it not clear that the safest way to eliminate any possible reproach, to sing the Psalms?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Shaffer_
> Thank you for clarifying sir. I have a lot to learn about what the Bible defines as acceptable public worship. I would stand in agreement with you; in public, even Tomlin can become more of a concert than a God-honoring time of genuine worship. I know because I have seen it. Thanks for the input!



Brady,
Again, keep in mind, the disticnction needs to be made in regards to private worship and church setting. Not that I would change anything on my end in that regard. The psalms are the safest.

One might say, you then need to sing it in Koine, or Hebrew, or something like that then. My reply would be, the bible is written in english; I will sing it in english safely.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> JD,
> Not wanting to turn this into a EP debate, but I know you have no idea what the Apostle meant when he said hymms and spiritual songs. No one knows. Having said this, you are left with only one clear cut choice on what is NOT assaulting Gods RPW, the psalms.




You are so! 

And you have no way to know specifically what or if liberty was given by Christ when he said in Matthew 6:9 "Pray then like this: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name..."so you should not wound the Spirit by your prayers from your imagination and just pray the Lord's prayer in worship.

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> You are so!
> 
> And you have no way to know specifically what or if liberty was given by Christ when he said in Matthew 6:9 "Pray then like this: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name..."so you should not wound the Spirit by your prayers from your imagination and just pray the Lord's prayer in worship.



Not following you........please elaborate.


----------



## panta dokimazete

P1 no modern person truly knows what hymns and spriritual songs are
P2 Psalms (at least the words) are known and acceptable
C1 It is *safest* to only sing Psalms to avoid reproach

and likewise...

P1 no modern person truly knows if Christ was or was not setting a commandment for prayer
P2 The Lord's Prayer is known and acceptable
C1 It is *safest* to only pray the Lord's Prayer to avoid reproach

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

I reread your post on the Lords prayer. WRONG! The rest of scripture reveals the concept of prayer............do you want me to post all the scriptures? Bad reference or analogy, JD.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Shaffer_
> Thank you for clarifying sir. I have a lot to learn about what the Bible defines as acceptable public worship. I would stand in agreement with you; in public, even Tomlin can become more of a concert than a God-honoring time of genuine worship. I know because I have seen it. Thanks for the input!



In public the Psalms are often sung as a concert, in concert style or with concert intent. Even in worship.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I reread your post on the Lords prayer. WRONG! The rest of scripture reveals the concept of prayer............do you want me to post all the scriptures? Bad reference or analogy, JD.



Scott, you are just looking to hammer home your hermeneutic. The point is - if you are looking for the *safest* format for worship and wrap it in in legalism - you will certainly start to strain the gnat and swallow the camel.

In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I reread your post on the Lords prayer. WRONG! The rest of scripture reveals the concept of prayer............do you want me to post all the scriptures? Bad reference or analogy, JD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, you are just looking to hammer home your hermeneutic. The point is - if you are looking for the *safest* format for worship and wrap it in in legalism - you will certainly start to strain the gnat and swallow the camel.
> 
> In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


I don't quite get your point. Is your hermeneutic any different in regards to your previous statement on prayer? Legalism? Is not God _legalism_ in it's truest form? Are we not commanded to be perfect? Is that legalism or Gods legality?

You may see worship as a 'non-essentail'. Tell that to Nadab and Abihu.

Leviticus 10:1-2 NAS Leviticus 10:1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.

I'd rather be safe than sorry.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Shaffer_
> Thank you for clarifying sir. I have a lot to learn about what the Bible defines as acceptable public worship. I would stand in agreement with you; in public, even Tomlin can become more of a concert than a God-honoring time of genuine worship. I know because I have seen it. Thanks for the input!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In public the Psalms are often sung as a concert, in concert style or with concert intent. Even in worship.
Click to expand...


We sing accapelo. In a church setting. Gods word is not meant to entertain; it is a refining fire, meant to bring the hearer into closer harmony with the creator.


----------



## panta dokimazete

...to be safest - you should sing them acapella in the original language and with the original tunes...and if you don't know that - you should only utter them.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> I don't quite get your point. Is your hermeneutic any different in regards to your previous statement on prayer?



The point is my hermeneutic on prayer is not different in it's origination than my hermeneutic on Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. I have liberty in Christ and guidance through Scripture and the Holy Spirit. And the knowledge that even my *safest* worship is the stench of death without God making it holy.



> Legalism? Is not God _legalism_ in it's truest form?



Absolutely, but He is love, mercy and forgiveness in it's truest form, too. 



> Are we not commanded to be perfect? Is that legalism or Gods legality?



Well, Scott, have you measured your perfection on the perfection meter, lately?

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

"His yoke is easy and His burden is light..."




> You may see worship as a 'non-essentail'.



Who said worship was non-essential? Worship is essential - the elements are essential - the content is essential - the style? malleable...otherwise you are forced to capitulate that the Psalms should only be done in their original style...and no one knows it.




> Tell that to Nadab and Abihu.
> 
> Leviticus 10:1-2 NAS Leviticus 10:1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.



You have no idea what strange fire is, so how can you de-contextualize this to include music?

Should ignorance and legalism prevent us from worshipping God with all of our talents?

Tell that to the Master.

Matthew 25:27-29 

27Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.



> I'd rather be safe than sorry.



Me, too.

-JD


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Can we be civil? How 'bout letting this thread NOT be about EP. Please?


Oh, For what it's worth, "strange fire" (Lev. 10:1) is not really a mystery. Because the immediately preceding verse (Lev. 9:24) tells us what the "not-strange" fire was. God kindled the perpetual Temple fire himself, straight out of the Shekinah.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Shaffer_
> What is your opinion about much of the "new worship" found in most evangelical and charismatic churches? I must admit that I do enjoy listening to a lot of modern Christian music, but it seems to me like a lot of the worship services seem to get people into some sort of a trance. For example, I notice that in some worship services I've been to there is very little Biblical content to any of the songs and many of the lyrics seem to be very mystical. Is this really worshipping God in spirit and truth, with our minds hypnotised by some rhythmic song? It also seems to me that there is a real lack of outward reverance to God. Do you think that this is the case?
> 
> Lastly, if there is something unbiblical about this, what can be done to return to a Biblical and Christ-centered corporate worship?



Sounds like you're talkin bout them 7-11 songs. You know, 7 words repeated 11 times? 

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Can we be civil? How 'bout letting this thread NOT be about EP. Please?



I thought BobV had a great post...very balanced and wise.



> Oh, For what it's worth, "strange fire" (Lev. 10:1) is not really a mystery. Because the immediately preceding verse (Lev. 9:24) tells us what the "not-strange" fire was. God kindled the perpetual Temple fire himself, straight out of the Shekinah.



You understand that in the spirit of your request I will refrain from responding in context to EP and the RPW...but why open the door when you want to close it?

Anyway - off to bed.

God's richest blessings to you all.

-JD


----------



## Kaalvenist

I think that, in the context of this topic's beginnings, it makes sense as to why it has become a discussion of EP. If anyone posts on the shallowness and general un-Reformed-ness of modern worship songs, you can almost put money on it that someone on the board will give the (in my opinion) biblical alternative of EP. But again, not discussing EP...

I would ask why a post entitled "Modern Worship?" is taken up almost entirely with the content of songs in worship. Is it not true that the rest of worship has also degenerated into non-Reformed modes in many "Reformed" churches? How seriously are the sacraments considered by churches -- espeically the Lord's Supper? How seriously do we take the command to keep the entire day holy unto the Lord? How frequently is family worship practiced in our homes? etc. etc.

Although I understand why the discussion led into a discussion of EP, I think I agree with Bruce in saying that such discussions frequently become uncivil, and occur with a frequency which overshadows any other or deeper discussion. (And I myself have been guilty of intemperate posts on EP, and discussing EP far too frequently; so I should know.) Why is it that Andrew posts on *how* the Psalms should be sung, and that suddenly turns into a back-and-forth on EP? No one even commented on the quotes he gave us, each of which evidenced the considerable wisdom of our fathers in the faith; we became concerned with whether we can "sing the name of Jesus."

So try this: Worship *as a whole* and *in all of its elements,* has been corrupted and is being corrupted in Reformed churches -- not just the content of our songs. Can we manage to discuss some element of our worship other than song? And I also ask this of myself -- over 50% of my posts on this board are in the Worship section, and most of those are probably concerned with EP. But I'm willing if everybody else is.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> ...to be safest - you should sing them acapella in the original language and with the original tunes...and if you don't know that - you should only utter them.



The bible is written in english, hence I will sing the psalms in english. I agree that it would even be more prudent to sing them in the original language; I don't know Hebrew. Keep in mind, my rationale is what is more _prudent_, ccm or singing Gods words. 

JD, I am not being dogmatic with my proposition; if you disagree that it is not more prudent and more beneficial to sing and memorize Gods word, thats fine. Have at CCM. 

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> The point is my hermeneutic on prayer is not different in it's origination than my hermeneutic on Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. I have liberty in Christ and guidance through Scripture and the Holy Spirit. And the knowledge that even my *safest* worship is the stench of death without God making it holy.



Thats not true and I can prove it; Do you want me to list all the scriptures on prayer and show you the words of all the saints in scripture and what they say in those prayers? You will clearly see that what Christ was referrincing to was not the words per se, but how to pray. If your hermeneutic leads you to understand prayer in any other way I would suggest retooling it as no one in history has come to this conclusion!




> Legalism? Is not God _legalism_ in it's truest form?
> 
> Absolutely, but He is love, mercy and forgiveness in it's truest form, too.



Who is arguing with that. Is God less loving to the saints he takes out of this world for sinning? 

1 Corinthians 11:27-30 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 

Or those he chastens? No! So, His legalism/law is righteous, Holy and loving as well.



> Are we not commanded to be perfect? Is that legalism or Gods legality?
> 
> Well, Scott, have you measured your perfection on the perfection meter, lately?
> 
> "...one person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him."
> 
> "His yoke is easy and His burden is light..."



I have. When God looks to me, He see's His son Christ Jesus, praise God! Christ is my perfectness! But Nadab and Abihu had Christ as well. So does the saint that _sleeps_. This does not negate our responsibility to be proactive in our sanctification and be perfect.



> You may see worship as a 'non-essentail'.
> 
> Who said worship was non-essential? Worship is essential - the elements are essential - the content is essential - the style? malleable...otherwise you are forced to capitulate that the Psalms should only be done in their original style...and no one knows it.



Based upon this mentality, everytime we read the word of God we are sinning as well then........




> Tell that to Nadab and Abihu.
> 
> Leviticus 10:1-2 NAS Leviticus 10:1 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.
> 
> 
> You have no idea what strange fire is, so how can you de-contextualize this to include music



Worship is worship. This is exactly what the brothers were doing; going into the prescence of God and offering illicit worship.




> Should ignorance and legalism prevent us from worshipping God with all of our talents



No, Gods word should prevent us from conjuring up worship that is not prescribed. It is prideful to believe we can know God outside of His word.



> Tell that to the Master.
> 
> Matthew 25:27-29
> 
> 27Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.



This passage has nothing to do with worship or the RPW.

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Can we be civil? How 'bout letting this thread NOT be about EP. Please?
> 
> 
> Oh, For what it's worth, "strange fire" (Lev. 10:1) is not really a mystery. Because the immediately preceding verse (Lev. 9:24) tells us what the "not-strange" fire was. God kindled the perpetual Temple fire himself, straight out of the Shekinah.



Bruce,
For the record, I am not an exclusive Psalmodist. You may call me prudent if you like. I am not arguing for the EP position only conveying my preference and the benefit thereof.

I will not allow the thread to morph into an EP thing.

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Keep in mind, my rationale is what is more prudent, ccm or singing Gods words.





> Have at CCM.



Keep in mind that some CCM has Psalm texts and Scripture and you'll understand why it is not a black or white option.

-pax-

-JD


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, my rationale is what is more prudent, ccm or singing Gods words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have at CCM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that some CCM has Psalm texts and Scripture and you'll understand why it is not a black or white option.
> 
> -pax-
> 
> -JD
Click to expand...


JD,
This is not mysterious or philisophical. If the devil sings Gods word is it Holy or is it blasphemous?


----------



## panta dokimazete

This isn't either...

Romans 8:28
And we know that for *those who love God* *all things* work together for *good*, for those who are called according to his purpose. 

-pax-

-JD

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> This isn't either...
> 
> Romans 8:28
> And we know that for *those who love God* *all things* work together for *good*, for those who are called according to his purpose.
> 
> -pax-
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]



First of all, would you mind interacting with my previous propositions? You mention Rom 8:28; I agree with the Apostle. What does that have to do with what we are talking specifically about?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Does the Devil love the Lord?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Oh, For what it's worth, "strange fire" (Lev. 10:1) is not really a mystery. Because the immediately preceding verse (Lev. 9:24) tells us what the "not-strange" fire was. God kindled the perpetual Temple fire himself, straight out of the Shekinah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that in the spirit of your request I will refrain from responding in context to EP and the RPW...but why open the door when you want to close it?-JD
Click to expand...

Because one can be committed to the RPW and not be EP. Me, for example.

All I was replying to was the statement (to Scott) "You have no idea what strange fire is." Was this really meant merely as a statement about Scott's knowledge? And did Scott ever say, "I don't know what 'strange fire' is" ? Is it a general claim that _no one_ knows what 'strange fire' is? Is it a claim that we can't *apply* the text of Lev. to other situations because we don't know what else fits into the same category as the strange fire occupied?

Forgetting about application for the moment, from the text of Leviticus itself, it is not too hard to determine what 'strange fire' was in that particular circumstance.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Thanks Bruce for clarifying!

JD,
In regards to our discussion, if you do not want to interact and this topic is a stumbling block for you, do not involve yourself. Seriously. Asking questions in response to my searching inquiries does not help. Interact; or don't. It's your freedom.........you made mention of Gods word in the original language and my response to that was that is it as well sinful to not read it or use it in the original language? You make mention of CCM. I simply asked, as a starting point, is the devil able to offer anything but blaspemies to God? Your answer would be 'NO!' The next question would be, is contemporary worship sinful. I ask, who is singing it? Is their theology correct? Are we talking about the company/organization CCM or are you referring to contemporary composers? The organization, CCM, is made up of, generally Arminian composers; this is blasphemy and Arminainism is heresy! Contemporary composers: Are they reformed? Are they using the music in worship services? Is it for entertainement? If it is for entertainment, along with you I say, there is liberty. For church worship, it would have to be looked at on a individual case to case basis by the sessions overseeing the bodies in question. Are the sessions theologically astute? Having been involved in many, they are not schooled in theologies and cannot be trusted generally for drawing any finer lines than what their presuppositions dictate. This is unfortunate; Gods people perish for lack of knowledge.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Is it a claim that we can't apply the text of Lev. to other situations because we don't know what else fits into the same category as the strange fire occupied?



Yes - strange fire = strange songs in context.

God has clearly punished folk for being disobedient in how they interact with His prescence.

Touching the ark, for instance.

Where has God punished anyone for "strange" songs?

-JD


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a claim that we can't apply the text of Lev. to other situations because we don't know what else fits into the same category as the strange fire occupied?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - strange fire = strange songs in context.
> 
> God has clearly punished folk for being disobedient in how they interact with His prescence.
> 
> Touching the ark, for instance.
> 
> Where has God punished anyone for "strange" songs?
> 
> -JD
Click to expand...


Strange fire refers to _illicit_ worship directives.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Thanks Bruce for clarifying!
> 
> JD,
> In regards to our discussion, if you do not want to interact and this topic is a stumbling block for you, do not involve yourself. Seriously. Asking questions in response to my searching inquiries does not help. Interact; or don't. It's your freedom.........you made mention of Gods word in the original language and my response to that was that is it as well sinful to not read it or use it in the original language? You make mention of CCM. I simply asked, as a starting point, is the devil able to offer anything but blaspemies to God? Your answer would be 'NO!' The next question would be, is contemporary worship sinful. I ask, who is singing it? Is their theology correct? Are we talking about the company/organization CCM or are you referring to contemporary composers? The organization, CCM, is made up of, generally Arminian composers; this is blasphemy and Arminainism is heresy! Contemporary composers: Are they reformed? Are they using the music in worship services? Is it for entertainement? If it is for entertainment, along with you I say, there is liberty. For church worship, it would have to be looked at on a individual case to case basis by the sessions overseeing the bodies in question. Are the sessions theologically astute? Having been involved in many, they are not schooled in theologies and cannot be trusted generally for drawing any finer lines than what their presuppositions dictate. This is unfortunate; Gods people perish for lack of knowledge.



Scott, let me make sure I understand - you can ask leading questions, but when I respond with applicable Scripture and you don't understand the application and I begin an interrogative style to clarify my meaning, it is a stumbling block for me?

plank, speck, my brother

-JD


----------



## panta dokimazete

Look, Scott - It is not I that base my EP position on the ignorance of the meanings of hymns and spiritual songs. I am merely taking your logic to some of its potential conclusions.

-JD


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Can we manage to discuss some element of our worship other than song?


I guess not.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Thanks Bruce for clarifying!
> 
> JD,
> In regards to our discussion, if you do not want to interact and this topic is a stumbling block for you, do not involve yourself. Seriously. Asking questions in response to my searching inquiries does not help. Interact; or don't. It's your freedom.........you made mention of Gods word in the original language and my response to that was that is it as well sinful to not read it or use it in the original language? You make mention of CCM. I simply asked, as a starting point, is the devil able to offer anything but blaspemies to God? Your answer would be 'NO!' The next question would be, is contemporary worship sinful. I ask, who is singing it? Is their theology correct? Are we talking about the company/organization CCM or are you referring to contemporary composers? The organization, CCM, is made up of, generally Arminian composers; this is blasphemy and Arminainism is heresy! Contemporary composers: Are they reformed? Are they using the music in worship services? Is it for entertainement? If it is for entertainment, along with you I say, there is liberty. For church worship, it would have to be looked at on a individual case to case basis by the sessions overseeing the bodies in question. Are the sessions theologically astute? Having been involved in many, they are not schooled in theologies and cannot be trusted generally for drawing any finer lines than what their presuppositions dictate. This is unfortunate; Gods people perish for lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, let me make sure I understand - you can ask leading questions, but when I respond with applicable Scripture and you don't understand the application and I begin an interrogative style to clarify my meaning, it is a stumbling block for me?
> 
> plank, speck, my brother
> 
> -JD
Click to expand...


What scriptures have you referenced? Romans 8:28? The Matthew passage about 'talents'? These have nothingh to do with Gods directives about worship. No one is saying that people who have musical ability should stifle their _talents_. We are however sayinf that God intends for these talenets to be used according to Gods commands and biblical applications. You are using Romans 8 as a default to say that just because someone may be wrong in there worship, God uses it for good. Sure, God will use my sin to refine me, however, I am called to resist sin, repent and be perfect. So, having said that, the Romans passage is irrelevenat to the discussion.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Can we manage to discuss some element of our worship other than song?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess not.
Click to expand...


sean,
The origianal question that opened this thread states:



> What is your opinion about much of the "new worship" found in most evangelical and charismatic churches? I must admit that I do enjoy listening to a lot of modern Christian music, but it seems to me like a lot of the worship services seem to get people into some sort of a trance.



Thats what we are responding to. You are welcome to open a thread on other forms of worship sans the musical side.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Look, Scott - It is not I that base my EP position on the ignorance of the meanings of hymns and spiritual songs. I am merely taking your logic to some of its potential conclusions.
> 
> -JD



Your conclusions are flawed and I am proving that.........


----------



## panta dokimazete

To whom? Yourself? I think you have done a great job in that respect.

Please show me one place in Scripture where songs to God of ANY sort was punished.

-JD


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> To whom? Yourself? I think you have done a great job in that respect.
> 
> Please show me one place in Scripture where songs to God of ANY sort was punished.
> 
> -JD



You have erred in seperating songs or singing from _worship_. They cannot be seperated unless of course you are not talking about corporate worship. Are you talking about corporate worship or singing in your car?

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

I'm still waiting on your response about singing in the original language. Is it sinful to not recite scripture in the original language?

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## beej6

'CCM' were referred to above as if it were an organization. I thought 'CCM' was simply an abbreviation for 'Contemporary Christian Music.' That is not to be confused with 'CCLI,' or 'Christian Copyright Licensing International,' which is the main US clearinghouse for permission to use copyrighted songs in worship.

Now allow me to go off on tangents - I believe that since the vast majority of songs under CCLI are inappropriate for corporate worship, one should not support CCLI. The practice when I was a music director was to obtain permission directly from a particular song's publisher, often at a nominal cost for "lifetime" permission.

The idea of copyrighted songs for corporate worship is even dicey. Do musicians and songwriters have a right to make a living? Certainly. But as most if not all CCM are written outside the purview of the church, it is essentially as a parachurch ministry. For a counter-example, see http://www.tenth.org/music/Hymns_for_a_Modern_Reformation/hymns_for_a_modern_reformation.html

I agree with Scott above, though I would be careful at falling into a genetic fallacy w/r/t the composer or writer of hymns. Whether a hymn writer is Reformed or not makes it easier or harder to evaluate their soundness for corporate worship, but it is not an absolute. (Else, cut about 2/3 of the red Trinity Hymnal out.) Each hymn needs to be evaluated on its own merits preferably by the Session or its designee.


----------



## panta dokimazete

"You are using Romans 8 as a default to say that just because someone may be wrong in there worship, God uses it for good."

"Sure, God will use my sin to refine me, however, I am called to resist sin, repent and be perfect."

Again - where is singing a song to God specifically identified as a sin?

Are you incapable of learning Hebrew? - wouldn't that be a further sign and seal that you are striving for perfection to learn the language of the Psalms to insure that you are TRULY worshipping God as He intended?

My contention is that for those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose - all things (good things, bad things) work for good - ultimately it is in God's hands - and I have the LIBERTY to worship God within His ordained elements where there is no explicit command and where I am guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit. He has refined my worship through Christ, so that it can be acceptable to Him.

For you to call my Liberty in Christ a sin is unbiblical.

-JD

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Can we manage to discuss some element of our worship other than song?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sean,
> The origianal question that opened this thread states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion about much of the "new worship" found in most evangelical and charismatic churches? I must admit that I do enjoy listening to a lot of modern Christian music, but it seems to me like a lot of the worship services seem to get people into some sort of a trance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats what we are responding to. You are welcome to open a thread on other forms of worship sans the musical side.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Scott,

I disagree with you oft-repeated "Psalms are safest" argument. That would apply if we are *permitted* to sing all manner of songs. But if we are *commanded* to sing uninspired hymns, then we who sing only Psalms are acting in disobedience; and that is not safe.

JD,

1. Why do you have an identical hermeneutic on prayer and singing praise, when these are two distinct elements of worship, introduced into the worship of the Temple at different times in Israel's history?

2. How do you maintain an identical hermeneutic on prayer and singing praise? Do you sing your own songs (i.e. songs you wrote, not songs that others have written), just as you pray your own prayers? If not, how are you treating these two things as identical?

3. You frequently mention your "liberty" in this matter. Are you here defining "liberty" as a freedom to do what is commanded, or as a freedom to do what is permitted? In this instance, I understand my Christian liberty to be kept when I obey God's command to sing Psalms. I do not understand that Christ has granted me liberty to go beyond that, and to sing uninspired hymns; or that the liberty of the Christian (as contrasted with the OT believer) involves an expanded songbook. None of us believe that we have liberty to do what is unlawful in worship, or that Christ makes such unlawful worship lawful by His mediation.

4. Your question about God punishing people for singing unauthorized songs in His praise seems to reflect an implicit rejection of the RPW -- you are asking for a particular enumeration of sins in worship which are condemned (in this case implicitly or by good and necessary consequence) in Scripture. But if we begin with the regulative principle, it is not necessary to determine if God explicitly condemned the singing of uninspired hymns. It is necessary to determine if His regulation extends to which particular songs are sung, and from thence determine if uninspired hymns are commanded or not commanded.

5. The constant mantra of "If we sing only Psalms, we should sing them in Hebrew" to me smacks of Mahometanism. I am a Protestant; I hold to Sola Scriptura ("Scripture Only"). That does _not_ mean that, in order to read the Bible, I have to read it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Likewise, I hold to exclusive psalmody ("Psalms Only"). That does _not_ mean that, in order to sing the Psalms, I have to sing them in Hebrew.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> "You are using Romans 8 as a default to say that just because someone may be wrong in there worship, God uses it for good."
> 
> "Sure, God will use my sin to refine me, however, I am called to resist sin, repent and be perfect."
> 
> Again - where is singing a song to God specifically identified as a sin?
> 
> Are you incapable of learning Hebrew? - wouldn't that be a further sign and seal that you are striving for perfection to learn the language of the Psalms to insure that you are TRULY worshipping God as He intended?
> 
> My contention is that for those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose - all things (good things, bad things) work for good - ultimately it is in God's hands - and I have the LIBERTY to worship God within His ordained elements where there is no explicit command and where I am guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit. He has refined my worship through Christ, so that it can be acceptable to Him.
> 
> For you to call my Liberty in Christ a sin is unbiblical.
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]



Singing songs to God is not a sin as long as it is within the parameters God has prescribed. In regards to Nadab and Abihu, was fire a part of worship or all of it? Is singing a part or all of it? It is a part and cannot be dealt with seperatly. Again, you are erring in seperating elements of worship. The distinction must be made. Have you made this distinction? This is part of the problem. You speak of heremeneutics; your hermeneutic is flawed. 

Learn Hebrew? That does not answer my question. You said that, based upon my proposition, singing in the original language would be _even_safer. I agree. However, I asked, is it sinful to sing in English? 

In regards to the Rom's passage. You have misunderstood the context. The apostle was not saying that this is a license to do whatever and we assuredly should not lean into this mentality in liu of searching out perfection. You state:



> I have the LIBERTY to worship God within His ordained elements where there is no explicit command and where I am guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit. He has refined my worship through Christ, so that it can be acceptable to Him.



What are 'ordained elements'? Do you reject gods RPW? There is a principle and it is biblical. I encourage you to study that. You make mention God has "refined your worship through Christ so that it can be acceptable to Him". Does He do this with everyone and if not, whom does he not refine? In other words, who is to say then that He doesn;t refine those whom offer illicit worship. Why didn't He refine Adab and Abihu then?

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> That would apply if we are permitted to sing all manner of songs. But if we are commanded to sing uninspired hymns, then we who sing only Psalms are acting in disobedience; and that is not safe.



This is true. I am basing my position on the idea that we all know what Psalms are. The ambiguous nature to the term _hymms and spiritual songs_ are my contention.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 1. Why do you have an identical hermeneutic on prayer and singing praise, when these are two distinct elements of worship, introduced into the worship of the Temple at different times in Israel's history?



They are not the same in detail - they have the same origination points - Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.



> 2. How do you maintain an identical hermeneutic on prayer and singing praise? Do you sing your own songs (i.e. songs you wrote, not songs that others have written), just as you pray your own prayers? If not, how are you treating these two things as identical?



Not sure what you are asking here - I pray my own and other's prayers - I sing my own and other's songs. Vetted through Scripture and the Holy Spirit.



> 3. You frequently mention your "liberty" in this matter. Are you here defining "liberty" as a freedom to do what is commanded, or as a freedom to do what is permitted? In this instance, I understand my Christian liberty to be kept when I obey God's command to sing Psalms. I do not understand that Christ has granted me liberty to go beyond that, and to sing uninspired hymns; or that the liberty of the Christian (as contrasted with the OT believer) involves an expanded songbook. None of us believe that we have liberty to do what is unlawful in worship, or that Christ makes such unlawful worship lawful by His mediation.



Psalms *and* hymns *and* spiritual songs - what is unlawful? Who closed the songbook?



> 4. Your question about God punishing people for singing unauthorized songs in His praise seems to reflect an implicit rejection of the RPW -- you are asking for a particular enumeration of sins in worship which are condemned (in this case implicitly or by good and necessary consequence) in Scripture. But if we begin with the regulative principle, it is not necessary to determine if God explicitly condemned the singing of uninspired hymns. It is necessary to determine if His regulation extends to which particular songs are sung, and from thence determine if uninspired hymns are commanded or not commanded.



"Sing to the Lord a new song..." is that a rejection of the RPW?




> 5. The constant mantra of "If we sing only Psalms, we should sing them in Hebrew" to me smacks of Mahometanism. I am a Protestant; I hold to Sola Scriptura ("Scripture Only"). That does _not_ mean that, in order to read the Bible, I have to read it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Likewise, I hold to exclusive psalmody ("Psalms Only"). That does _not_ mean that, in order to sing the Psalms, I have to sing them in Hebrew.



As I am a Protestant - Sola Scriptura - the infallible guide to faith and practice - Scripture says: "Sing to the Lord a new song" and "singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God", so I do not hold to EP.

My reasoning is that for you, if you TRULY seek to be as ACCURATE and PRECISE as possible in worshipping God, why would you not go the extra step in your zeal? It seems you are creating some artificial block to attaining true worship? If you have the capability, and I am sure you do, why not? Why not return to God more than He has entrusted to you - leverage your mind to distill the PUREST form of worship possible? Why leave any room for doubt? And if you are a leader - why not encourage your flock to do the same?

-pax-

-JD

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 1. Why do you have an identical hermeneutic on prayer and singing praise, when these are two distinct elements of worship, introduced into the worship of the Temple at different times in Israel's history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not the same in detail - they have the same origination points - Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

Explain this. I understand that Scripture teaches we are to pray with the help of the Holy Spirit; but I do not see a similar statement regarding the composition of song. Rather, I see inspiration (not illumination) being given by God for the writing of a songbook.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 2. How do you maintain an identical hermeneutic on prayer and singing praise? Do you sing your own songs (i.e. songs you wrote, not songs that others have written), just as you pray your own prayers? If not, how are you treating these two things as identical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you are asking here - I pray my own and other's prayers - I sing my own and other's songs. Vetted through Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

In a way, you have answered my question. Most do not "sing their own songs," in the same way that they "pray their own prayers." You may be an exception.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 3. You frequently mention your "liberty" in this matter. Are you here defining "liberty" as a freedom to do what is commanded, or as a freedom to do what is permitted? In this instance, I understand my Christian liberty to be kept when I obey God's command to sing Psalms. I do not understand that Christ has granted me liberty to go beyond that, and to sing uninspired hymns; or that the liberty of the Christian (as contrasted with the OT believer) involves an expanded songbook. None of us believe that we have liberty to do what is unlawful in worship, or that Christ makes such unlawful worship lawful by His mediation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psalms *and* hymns *and* spiritual songs - what is unlawful? Who closed the songbook?
Click to expand...

1. You still haven't answered my question. Are uninspired songs *commanded,* or are they *permitted*?

2. "Inquity *and* transgression *and* sin" (Exod. 34:7) doesn't indicate three different things. Explain why Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 does.

3. Were first century Christians being commanded to sing songs that would not be written for another fifteen hundred years, or were they commanded to sing songs that were available to them, in their own time and place?

4. "The Songbook" (i.e. the Psalter, _Sepher Tehillim_) was closed by God in the Old Testament. We are not to add Psalms to the Psalter, any more than we are to add chapters to Ephesians.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Your question about God punishing people for singing unauthorized songs in His praise seems to reflect an implicit rejection of the RPW -- you are asking for a particular enumeration of sins in worship which are condemned (in this case implicitly or by good and necessary consequence) in Scripture. But if we begin with the regulative principle, it is not necessary to determine if God explicitly condemned the singing of uninspired hymns. It is necessary to determine if His regulation extends to which particular songs are sung, and from thence determine if uninspired hymns are commanded or not commanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Sing to the Lord a new song..." is that a rejection of the RPW?
Click to expand...

Again, you fail to actually interact with my comments, and bring in another question altogether. I have stated, repeatedly on this board, that God's command to sing particular songs indicates that the RPW applies to which particular songs will be sung. I have not yet seen one person interact with that position. If that position is true, that means that for us to sing songs other than Psalms, each particular song (or songbook) must be particularly authorized. Commands to "sing a new song" or to "sing hymns and spiritual songs" would therefore not indicate a blanket approval of any and every song that is theologically accurate -- they would indicate the authorization of particular songs, unless that regulation is relaxed. But no one has yet shown that such regulation has been relaxed.

To summarize, "singing a new song," if by that is understood the singing of Psalms with the new light and revelation afforded to us in the New Testament, is not a violation of the RPW. But "singing the new songs" of Isaac Watts and Fanny Crosby is a violation of the RPW.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The constant mantra of "If we sing only Psalms, we should sing them in Hebrew" to me smacks of Mahometanism. I am a Protestant; I hold to Sola Scriptura ("Scripture Only"). That does _not_ mean that, in order to read the Bible, I have to read it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Likewise, I hold to exclusive psalmody ("Psalms Only"). That does _not_ mean that, in order to sing the Psalms, I have to sing them in Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I am a Protestant - Sola Scriptura - the infallible guide to faith and practice - Scripture says: "Sing to the Lord a new song" and "singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God", so I do not hold to EP.
> 
> My reasoning is that for you, if you TRULY seek to be as ACCURATE and PRECISE as possible in worshipping God, why would you not go the extra step in your zeal? It seems you are creating some artificial block to attaining true worship? If you have the capability, and I am sure you do, why not? Why not return to God more than He has entrusted to you - leverage your mind to distill the PUREST form of worship possible? Why leave any room for doubt? And if you are a leader - why not encourage your flock to do the same?
Click to expand...

1. Your first paragraph has nothing to do with my comment.

2. My whole point is that we, as Protestants, believe that Scripture Alone is our rule. So why do those who put forth this ridiculous argument not likewise say that we should only read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Your comment ignores the entire force of my argument, that it is inconsistent for a Protestant to use this argument against exclusive psalmody.

3. Pure worship means obeying God's commands. And God has forbidden the use of unknown, untranslated tongues in worship (1 Cor. 14). Therefore, it would not be an extra mark of safety or purity to sing the Psalms in Hebrew, in an English-speaking congregation.

4. In obeying the commands of God, there is no "returning of more than He has entrusted." There is only doing of our duty.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Singing songs to God is not a sin as long as it is within the parameters God has prescribed.



God has prescribed new songs. Check the Psalms - check Revelation.



> In regards to Nadab and Abihu, was fire a part of worship or all of it?



Do you still use fire in worship?



> Is singing a part or all of it? It is a part and cannot be dealt with seperatly.



In what context? Where is the Biblical mandate on singing styles? If there is none - no singing style should be used?



> Again, you are erring in seperating elements of worship. The distinction must be made. Have you made this distinction? This is part of the problem. You speak of heremeneutics; your hermeneutic is flawed.



Again you assert error - again I will assert your lack of zeal for your hermeneutic - you are content to distill and refine to a point but shrink away from anything that causes you to really strech yourself. According to your own standard it is sinful if you have the capability and do not at least attempt it. 



> In regards to the Rom's passage. You have misunderstood the context.



In what part?

26Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,

If I love God and my hermeneutic is based on Scripture and the Holy Spirit, how can I go wrong? What part of all things should I count out? Worship?

This is not about anti-nomianism - it is about the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit to guide us into Spirit and Truth. This is about Liberty vs. dogmatism.




> What are 'ordained elements'? Do you reject gods RPW? There is a principle and it is biblical. I encourage you to study that.



Thanks, I have - at First Pres. Jackson, MS where I was introduced to the concept. 



> You make mention God has "refined your worship through Christ so that it can be acceptable to Him". Does He do this with everyone and if not, whom does he not refine?



The unregenerate's.



> In other words, who is to say then that He doesn;t refine those whom offer illicit worship. Why didn't He refine Adab and Abihu then?



Who is to say Adab and Abihu were regenerate? The signs point to "Not".

Just as with Ananias and his wife Sapphira - the intent of the heart was the true discriminator.

-JD

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 2. "Inquity and transgression and sin" (Exod. 34:7) doesn't indicate three different things. Explain why Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 does.



................................................

Ephesians 5:19 Speaking (5723) to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing (5723) and making melody (5723) in your heart to the Lord;

lalountev (5723) eautoiv [en] yalmoiv *kai* umnoiv *kai* wdaiv pneumatikaiv, adontev (5723) kai yallontev (5723) th kardia umwn tw kuriw,

Exodus 34:7
who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." 

ncr xsd l(lpye n&( )wa wp$) wxV(h wnQh l( ynQh Pqd )wa (bt )l-Bnye w)l-Bny bnye )l-$L$ye w)l-rB)ye 

............................................................

Because the greek has "and" (kai) as a discriminator between the terms and the Hebrew does not.

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 2. My whole point is that we, as Protestants, believe that Scripture Alone is our rule. So why do those who put forth this ridiculous argument not likewise say that we should only read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Your comment ignores the entire force of my argument, that it is inconsistent for a Protestant to use this argument against exclusive psalmody.



No - it is inconsistent for the strict EP RPW types to not use the ridiculous arguement and require the Bible be read only in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

One could see the assertion that only by studying in and understanding the original languages can one truly and rightly divide the Word of God and present it in worship as it's truest form. That would be most prudent.

-JD


----------



## Scott Bushey

> God has prescribed new songs. Check the Psalms - check Revelation.



Is the Song of Solomon a _song_; I mean, is it to be sung? Is that what the writer meant when he titled the book?

Song of Solomon 1:1 The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.



> Do you still use fire in worship?



No, because the ceremonial aspect has been done away with. You are evading the fact that the elements of worship are compartmentalized. They are not seperate. Worship has inclusive elements; they cannot be seperated for your own desire. 




> Again you assert error - again I will assert your lack of zeal for your hermeneutic - you are content to distill and refine to a point but shrink away from anything that causes you to really strech yourself. According to your own standard it is sinful if you have the capability and do not at least attempt it.



That being what? That I won't sing in Hebrew? Is it a sin to read Gods word in English? 



> In what part?
> 
> 26Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,
> 
> If I love God and my hermeneutic is based on Scripture and the Holy Spirit, how can I go wrong? What part of all things should I count out? Worship?



Even the heretics would confess this. Just because they have a heart they think is correct, does not make it so. You ask, "How can I go wrong if my hermeneutic is based on scripture?". If your hermeneutic is erred. You may count out all the ceremonial.



> This is not about anti-nomianism - it is about the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit to guide us into Spirit and Truth. This is about Liberty vs. dogmatism.



Ok. I am not dogmatic; you may do as you see fit.




> You make mention God has "refined your worship through Christ so that it can be acceptable to Him". Does He do this with everyone and if not, whom does he not refine?
> 
> The unregenerate's.



All of the regenerates worship is approved under Gods RPW? No one is wrong? Christ mediates for all the error? Wow. Interesting. No one is mistaken about how they worship God.




> Who is to say Adab and Abihu were regenerate? The signs point to "Not".



Really. Why, because they offered illicit worship? Does God not make even some regenerates _sleep_ for some sin? 

Exodus 24:1 NAS Exodus 24:1 Then He said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and you shall worship at a distance.

Exodus 28:1 NAS Exodus 28:1 "Then bring near to yourself Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the sons of Israel, to minister as priest to Me-- Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.

Exodus 24:9-11 9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the *nobles* of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

I would assume these guys were punished for their assault of the RPW; this does not prove they were unregenerates.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> You are evading the fact that the elements of worship are compartmentalized.



Elaborate, please, or is this a typo?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> God has prescribed new songs. Check the Psalms - check Revelation.






> _Originally posted by Scott_Is the Song of Solomon a song; I mean, is it to be sung? Is that what the writer meant when he titled the book?



Sorry - I lost you here...what if it were - Oh, are you asking if I would sing the Song of Songs in worship?

Hmmm....

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> You are evading the fact that the elements of worship are compartmentalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elaborate, please, or is this a typo?
Click to expand...


The RPW. You cannot disect it and remove or seperate things from it, i.e prayer, sacraments, and singing what God has commanded. You previously said:



> Yes - strange fire = strange songs in context.
> 
> God has clearly punished folk for being disobedient in how they interact with His prescence.
> 
> Touching the ark, for instance.
> 
> Where has God punished anyone for "strange" songs?



You seem to have a propensity to not see worship as a whole. God does not grade worship on a curve. In other words, if singing hymms is illicit, your worship is illicit. If offering illicit fire is wrong, your worship is wrong. If singing accapela is wrong, your whole worship is flawed and an abomination to God.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> You are evading the fact that the elements of worship are compartmentalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elaborate, please, or is this a typo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The RPW. You cannot disect it and remove or seperate things from it, i.e prayer, sacraments, and singing what God has commanded.
Click to expand...


So - you meant to say the elements are *not* compartmentalized?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> God has prescribed new songs. Check the Psalms - check Revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_Is the Song of Solomon a song; I mean, is it to be sung? Is that what the writer meant when he titled the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry - I lost you here...what if it were - Oh, are you asking if I would sing the Song of Songs in worship?
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


Think about that. As well, is the intent for us to see the Song of Solomon as a literal song, i.e. something that we sing or was the Hebrew word meant to imply it is poetic and the words are a harmony to our soul, much like music that we will only hear in heaven? Is the word NEW really meant to imply something entirely _new_ as is mentioned on numerous occasions in the Psalms? Is the New Covenant really new?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> You are evading the fact that the elements of worship are compartmentalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elaborate, please, or is this a typo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The RPW. You cannot disect it and remove or seperate things from it, i.e prayer, sacraments, and singing what God has commanded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So - you meant to say the elements are *not* compartmentalized?
Click to expand...


No. They are a package deal. God has not meant for them to be disected. This is exactly what the brothers did. They did not follow the protocol. They disected it and added something to it (or removed something that should have been there).


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> God has prescribed new songs. Check the Psalms - check Revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott_Is the Song of Solomon a song; I mean, is it to be sung? Is that what the writer meant when he titled the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry - I lost you here...what if it were - Oh, are you asking if I would sing the Song of Songs in worship?
> 
> Hmmm....
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about that. As well, is the intent for us to see the Song of Solomon as a literal song, i.e. something that we sing or was the Hebrew word meant to imply it is poetic and the words are a harmony to our soul, much like music that we will only hear in heaven? Is the word NEW really meant to imply something entirely _new_ as is mentioned on numerous occasions in the Psalms? Is the New Covenant really new?
Click to expand...



From the historical context? I'd say it was a song meant to be sung - much like an epic ballad.

Would I sing it in worship...if it were appropriate to the sermon, I suppose - parts of it, anyway - modern folk would fall asleep, even with the steamy language! (well really not steamy considering the popular culture influence of the modern hearer...more's the pity!)

And I know ALL about the NEW not meaning NEW assertion - I am unconvinced.

-JD


----------



## panta dokimazete

> God has not meant for them to be disected.



So...help me understand.

Prayer is an element of worship, yes?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> God has not meant for them to be disected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...help me understand.
> 
> Prayer is an element of worship, yes?
Click to expand...


Yes. Keep in mind, we are talking about corporate worship and not personal.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Ok - each element has its own guidelines, right?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Ok - each element has its own guidelines, right?



The elements are prescribed by God under what we call the RPW. This is the guideline. Each element does not function seperately per se.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Again, I understand what the RPW is:

The regulative principle of worship is a Christian theological doctrine teaching that the public worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible; that God institutes in Scripture everything he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else is prohibited.

Prayer has it guidelines.

Reading of Scripture.

Preaching.

Singing.

Each an element of the whole - with Scriptural proof for its inclusion.

You propose that if *one element* is imperfect, then the whole activity is an abomination, correct?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Again, I understand what the RPW is:
> 
> The regulative principle of worship is a Christian theological doctrine teaching that the public worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible; that God institutes in Scripture everything he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else is prohibited.
> 
> Prayer has it guidelines.
> 
> Reading of Scripture.
> 
> Preaching.
> 
> Singing.
> 
> Each an element of the whole - with Scriptural proof for its inclusion.
> 
> You propose that if *one element* is imperfect, then the whole activity is an abomination, correct?



I will retract the statement that I earlier said that all of the worship would then be an abomination. It would be a serious error and sinful, but not an abomination.



[Edited on 6-10-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Ok  - just want you to understand that I am convinced that God's worship is not dependent upon me or you or the perfected elements of worship. *Any* worship we offer God is tainted by sin. *He* perfects our worship *and* gives us Liberty through Christ. The author and perfector of our faith. Worship is a component of faith. 

With that being said - different folks are given different measures of faith - so I suppose we could say that our viewpoints originate from our measure of faith and call it a day.

Romans 12
2Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. 3For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

I am good to go, either way. I am laid up with a bum leg for the next 2 days, so I got plenty of time. 

-pax-

JD

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

JD,
But does He perfect all worship so that it is acceptable to Him? It would seem unrealistic to say this. God commands, but he perfects??? The key is that there is a correct way to worship God and an imperfect way. It is our goal to align our worship to the word of God. This is what the RPW does; it keeps everyone honest. Groups that have no principle and are flying on the seat of their pants are sinning. Would you think God is perfecting their worship as well?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Scott - the RPW is a good principle and I hold to the intent of it, but when the principle becomes a discriminator among brothers, who wins?

I appreciate that you have modified your position to sinful and error filled as opposed to abominatory and I do agree that there are some things that are outside of or degenerative to the elements that are "called" worship that is indeed abomination.

I just think that God is very gracious indeed and that Scripture and the Holy Spirit are faithful to reveal elements and practice that may be imperfect, but are still effective through Christ in liberty.



> God commands, but he perfects?



You say that as if you do not agree? 

Does this not describe the process of sanctification?

-JD

[Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "Inquity and transgression and sin" (Exod. 34:7) doesn't indicate three different things. Explain why Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................................................
> 
> Ephesians 5:19 Speaking (5723) to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing (5723) and making melody (5723) in your heart to the Lord;
> 
> lalountev (5723) eautoiv [en] yalmoiv *kai* umnoiv *kai* wdaiv pneumatikaiv, adontev (5723) kai yallontev (5723) th kardia umwn tw kuriw,
> 
> Exodus 34:7
> who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
> 
> ncr xsd l(lpye n&( )wa wp$) wxV(h wnQh l( ynQh Pqd )wa (bt )l-Bnye w)l-Bny bnye )l-$L$ye w)l-rB)ye
> 
> ............................................................
> 
> Because the greek has "and" (kai) as a discriminator between the terms and the Hebrew does not.
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...

You're not familiar with Hebrew, are you?

Iniquity *and* transgression *and* sin

_'wn *w*phsh' *w*cht'h_

The _waw_ (or _vav_) at the beginning of the words in question is a conjunction, approximating the word "and" (or "kai"). Therefore, the Hebrew has a discriminator between the terms, contrary to your assertion. (And I usually use _waw_ rather than _vav_ because (1.) that is what older Hebrew scholars used, and (2.) I want to properly distinguish between that letter and _bheth,_ which also makes a "v" sound.)

But since you seem more comfortable with Greek...

2 Cor. 12:12: "signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds"

Greek: _semeiois *kai* terasin *kai* dunamesin_

Again: If these words are not distinguishing between each other, explain why Eph. 5:19/Col. 3:16 (which come from the pen of the same apostle) must be distinguishing between each other.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 2. My whole point is that we, as Protestants, believe that Scripture Alone is our rule. So why do those who put forth this ridiculous argument not likewise say that we should only read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Your comment ignores the entire force of my argument, that it is inconsistent for a Protestant to use this argument against exclusive psalmody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No - it is inconsistent for the strict EP RPW types to not use the ridiculous arguement and require the Bible be read only in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
> 
> One could see the assertion that only by studying in and understanding the original languages can one truly and rightly divide the Word of God and present it in worship as it's truest form. That would be most prudent.
> 
> -JD
Click to expand...

1. Assertions are easy to make. But I have never seen anyone even begin to attempt to demonstrate or prove that the position of "the strict EP RPW types" (_c'est moi!_) naturally, logically, and of its own accord leads to the position that we should only sing from the Psalms in Hebrew. I would, in fact, offer the counter-argument that, because no "strict EP RPW types" have ever come to that conclusion, the position does not logically lead to Hebrew Psalter only. Your claim that we are inconsistent with ourselves in this remains undemonstrated. If you can't demonstrate your argument, stop making it.

2. I recognize that only by studying the text in its original language can one come to the fullest possible understanding of the text. But no one in their right mind would claim that it would be "most prudent" to have the congregation read the Scripture only in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, or sing the Psalms only in Hebrew. Again, no exclusive psalmodist has ever claimed we should sing only in Hebrew, and no one opposed to exclusive psalmody has ever demonstrated that we are inconsistent in this.

3. I repeat my claim that you are being inconsistent, in not equally applying your argument against _sola scriptura,_ and demanding of Protestants that we read the Bible only in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

[demonstration]
1. Exclusive Psalmodists believe that only the Psalms should be sung in worship. But when they sing Psalms, they are not actually singing Psalms, but only English translations of Psalms. If they were consistent, they would have to sing the Psalms only in Hebrew.

2. Protestants believe that only the Bible is the all-sufficient and infallible rule of faith and life. But when they read the Bible, they are not actually reading the Bible, but only English translations of the Bible. If they were consistent, they would have to read the Bible only in its original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
[/demonstration]

In both of these examples, the key argument is that an English translation is not actually Scripture -- only the Bible in its original languages is Scripture. But exclusive psalmodists have opposed that opinion for hundreds of years (John Anderson did so in his book-length defense of EP, _Vindiciae Cantus Dominici,_ written in 1793). This opinion is opposed to the idea of translations of Scripture, and not just the singing of translations of Psalms. As I said before, it smacks of Mahometanism, which in its most conservative forms insists that an English translation of the Koran is not the Koran (one must read it only in Arabic).


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Again, I understand what the RPW is:
> 
> The regulative principle of worship is a Christian theological doctrine teaching that the public worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible; that God institutes in Scripture everything he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else is prohibited.
> 
> Prayer has it guidelines.
> 
> Reading of Scripture.
> 
> Preaching.
> 
> Singing.
> 
> Each an element of the whole - with Scriptural proof for its inclusion.


It is not just "preaching," but "preaching of Scripture" (as in the case of "reading of Scripture"). Likewise, it is not merely "singing," but "singing of Psalms" (cf. WCF 21.5). The subject-matter is defined for preaching, and the content is defined for reading and singing. (And no, before you say it, I don't equate citing the Confession to citing a Scripture-proof.)


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Yes - thinking along the lines of Phillips, Craig and Dean - proponents of heresy (Oneness Pentacostalism)- yet very popular CC Musicians.
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]



Just curious, would you happen to have any evidence handy for this? Only one of their churches has a statement of faith, and it's vague at best on the Trinity. I have family who like these guys.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Patrick, from James White's Site.



Thanks. Still not much to go on there. But enough to keep the red flags up.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> As I said before, it smacks of Mahometanism, which in its most conservative forms insists that an English translation of the Koran is not the Koran (one must read it only in Arabic).



You understand that I am not proposing it, but merely going ad absurdum comparing EP as a framework of the logic.



> It is not just "preaching," but "preaching of Scripture" (as in the case of "reading of Scripture"). Likewise, it is not merely "singing," but "singing of Psalms" (cf. WCF 21.5). The subject-matter is defined for preaching, and the content is defined for reading and singing. (And no, before you say it, I don't equate citing the Confession to citing a Scripture-proof.)



right - which is why at this point my answers to you will be mere repetitions of my posts to Scott - my hermeneutic centers around Scriptural directives concerning songs and singing and how God alone makes service and offering and sacrifice and worship to Him worthy.

"New song"

Psalm 33:3 
Psalm 40:3 
Psalm 96:1 
Psalm 98:1 
Psalm 144:9 
Psalm 149:1 
Isaiah 42:10 
Revelation 5:9 
Revelation 14:3 


"Pslams and hymns and spiritual songs"

Ephesians 5:19 
Colossians 3:16 

Through the guidance of Scripture and The Holy Spirit

John 4:23-24 

And the use of my mind and spirit

1 Corinthians 14:15

To use ALL the gifts *and* abilities *and* talents of my mind *and* heart *and* soul *and* strength He has given me, multiply it, as God desires, and return it to Him as a sacrifice of praise. With Christian liberty. (Luke 19:11-27) (Hebrews 13:15) (Romans 8)

And not use my mind to constrain my liberty with endless iterative reductionary doctrines that use ignorance and safety as foundational reasoning. 

It's really about living the abundant life...

-pax-

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Scott - the RPW is a good principle and I hold to the intent of it, but when the principle becomes a discriminator among brothers, who wins?
> 
> I appreciate that you have modified your position to sinful and error filled as opposed to abominatory and I do agree that there are some things that are outside of or degenerative to the elements that are "called" worship that is indeed abomination.
> 
> I just think that God is very gracious indeed and that Scripture and the Holy Spirit are faithful to reveal elements and practice that may be imperfect, but are still effective through Christ in liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God commands, but he perfects?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that as if you do not agree?
> 
> Does this not describe the process of sanctification?
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


What I meant by that was it sounds as if you drop the responsibilty in Gods lap. Like it's His responsibility and not ours. Yes it is sanctification; however, men are called to obey, institute etc. Sanctification is pro active; I am responsible for much of it.I can rebel; my flesh deceives. My heart is deceitful. From your perspective, it is like no one is wrong, all are in the process of sanctification, which ultimately is Gods responsibility and as long as one has a heart like David, all is well. 

I asked earlier:



> But does He perfect all worship so that it is acceptable to Him?



You never answered..........

This brings us back to my premise. One is less likely to assault Gods principles if one recites/sings the psalms. I have less of a chance sinning against God, by reciting His holy words insong than singing some stuff a person wrote, brought about by who-knows.



[Edited on 6-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> You understand that I am not proposing it, but merely going ad absurdum comparing EP as a framework of the logic.



To use "EP" ad absurdum is simply not honest. They have already addressed your arguments before. We sing the psalms in English because we must sing with understanding which biblically may require translation (1 Cor. 14). If your going to argue with EP, then at least dont' argue with straw men. Almost any biblical position taken out of context can go to an extreme absurdity.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> I have less of a chance sinning against God, by reciting His holy words insong than singing some stuff a person wrote, brought about by who-knows.



"Chance" - "less likely"? I don't believe in chance, accidents or likelyhood where it concerns my relationship with God.

You understand that the super strict adherance to the RPW may be life abundant for you - looking around every theological corner for an opportunity to NOT do something that may offend God. To constrain the adundance of talents, gifts and skill that the brethern seek to offer in worship to the MOST RESTRICTIVE intepretation...(and I do understand that the WAY is NARROW...as in many are called but few are chosen...)

Doesn't seem like the life abundant, to me, though.

I understand Scripture to say that ALL my righteousness is a filthy rags before Him - even after His gracious redemption - and that I have been given liberty in faith to worship Him with the understanding that ALL things, even my filthy worship, will work to good if I love the Lord and am indeed called by Him.

Now, how do I know that I am not just doing these things as a unregenerate pagan?

I follow the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit as well as my heart, mind, soul and strength - these convict and convince me of my liberty in Christ. 

Not legalism, not liscentiousness, but liberty.

-pax-

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_Almost any biblical position taken out of context can go to an extreme absurdity.



Which I believe EP does.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Quote: 
But does He perfect all worship so that it is acceptable to Him? 




> You never answered..........



I am sorry - I thought I had made myself clear.

If you love the Lord and are called according to His purpose - He will make everything - including worship - acceptable to Him. Through Christ with the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

The worship of the unregenerate will ALWAYS be unacceptable to him. It is blasphemy.

The worship of the regenerate will ALWAYS be acceptable to Him through Christ, as He wills, because it will be done in Spirit and Truth.

-JD


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> I have less of a chance sinning against God, by reciting His holy words insong than singing some stuff a person wrote, brought about by who-knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Chance" - "less likely"? I don't believe in chance, accidents or likelyhood where it concerns my relationship with God.
> 
> You understand that the super strict adherance to the RPW may be life abundant for you - looking around every theological corner for an opportunity to NOT do something that may offend God. To constrain the adundance of talents, gifts and skill that the brethern seek to offer in worship to the NARROWEST intepretation...
> 
> Doesn't seem like the life abundant, to me, though.
> 
> I understand Scripture to say that ALL my righteousness is a filthy rags before Him - even after His gracious redemption - and that I have been given liberty in faith to worship Him with the understanding that ALL things, even my filthy worship, will work to good if I love the Lord and am indeed called by Him.
> 
> Now, how do I know that I am not just doing these things as a unregenerate pagan?
> 
> I follow the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit as well as my heart, mind, soul and strength - these convict and convince me of my liberty in Christ.
> 
> Not legalism, not liscentiousness, but liberty.
> 
> -pax-
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


You've misinterpeted what Christ meant by 'life abundant'. You have taken this to it's illicit extreme. As well, you have misunderstood liberty. Please don't see this as an attack, but as this discussion progresses, you are sounding much like a New Covenant Theology adherent.

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Quote:
> But does He perfect all worship so that it is acceptable to Him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never answered..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry - I thought I had made myself clear.
> 
> If you love the Lord and are called according to His purpose - He will make everything - including worship - acceptable to Him. Through Christ with the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The worship of the unregenerate will ALWAYS be unacceptable to him. It is blasphemy.
> 
> The worship of the regenerate will ALWAYS be acceptable to Him through Christ, as He wills, because it will be done in Spirit and Truth.
> 
> -JD
Click to expand...


So then, all worship today, Calvary Chapel et. al. as long as the people are regenerate, is acceptable to God?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You've misinterpeted what Christ meant by 'life abundant'. You have taken this to it's illicit extreme. As well, you have misunderstood liberty. Please don't see this as an attack, but as this discussion progresses, you are sounding much like a New Covenant adherent.



Ah - so now the labeling begins...


1. I have agreed that there are ordained elements to worship.

2. I have agreed that I hold to the RPW.

3. I have disagreed with EP.

Everything I substantiate my postion on adundance and liberty is contextualized within 1-3.

I am not anti-nomian.

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Quote:
> But does He perfect all worship so that it is acceptable to Him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never answered..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry - I thought I had made myself clear.
> 
> If you love the Lord and are called according to His purpose - He will make everything - including worship - acceptable to Him. Through Christ with the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The worship of the unregenerate will ALWAYS be unacceptable to him. It is blasphemy.
> 
> The worship of the regenerate will ALWAYS be acceptable to Him through Christ, as He wills, because it will be done in Spirit and Truth.
> 
> -JD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, all worship today, Calvary Chapel et. al. as long as the people are regenerate, is acceptable to God?
Click to expand...


Who is to judge it as acceptable? What criteria has God given?

Is it Scriptural and led by the Holy Spirit? Is it in Spirit and Truth? Does their worship challenge Orthodoxy?

BTW - not familiar with Calvary Chapel or their worship...

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You've misinterpeted what Christ meant by 'life abundant'. You have taken this to it's illicit extreme. As well, you have misunderstood liberty. Please don't see this as an attack, but as this discussion progresses, you are sounding much like a New Covenant adherent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah - so now the labeling begins...
> 
> 
> 1. I have agreed that there are ordained elements to worship.
> 
> 2. I have agreed that I hold to the RPW.
> 
> 3. I have disagreed with EP.
> 
> Everything I substantiate my postion on adundance and liberty is contextualized within 1-3.
> 
> I am not anti-nomian.
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


You write:



> Who is to judge it as acceptable? What criteria has God given?



Has not God given us the principles comprised in the RPW? If you agree with the RPW, then you have just judged all those whom break the principle. in my opinion 75% of the churches in America break this principle, even some Presbyterian churches I have visited.


----------



## panta dokimazete

so you are saying 75% of churches worship:

...is unScriptural and not led by the Holy Spirit? 

...is it not in Spirit and Truth? 

...content challenges Orthodoxy?

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Do you think it is possible to perfectly worship God on fallen Earth?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> so you are saying 75% of churches worship:
> 
> ...is unScriptural and not led by the Holy Spirit?
> 
> ...is it not in Spirit and Truth?
> 
> ...content challenges Orthodoxy?
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]



I am. The majority of contemporary evangelicals are essentially, Arminian, antinomian, Man centered, and historically & biblically unorthodox! If it was led by the Spirit of God, it would adhere to TRUTH, which is found in Gods Word. 

John 10:27 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;


----------



## panta dokimazete

Yes - I do use the RPW to discern good worship practices.

No - I do not use the RPW to condemn my brethren.

No - I do not hold the RPW as an infallible rule.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Do you think it is possible to perfectly worship God on fallen Earth?



Matthew 5:48 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

God would have not commanded it if it were impossible.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> so you are saying 75% of churches worship:
> 
> ...is unScriptural and not led by the Holy Spirit?
> 
> ...is it not in Spirit and Truth?
> 
> ...content challenges Orthodoxy?
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am. The majority of contemporary evangelicals are essentially, Arminian, antinomian, Man centered, and historically & biblically unorthodox! If it was led by the Spirit of God, it would adhere to TRUTH, which is found in Gods Word.
> 
> John 10:27 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
Click to expand...


so- 75% of the visible Church is unregenerate?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Do you think it is possible to perfectly worship God on fallen Earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 5:48 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
> 
> God would have not commanded it if it were impossible.
Click to expand...

So you also believe that it is possible to never sin again on the fallen Earth?

"Go ye and sin no more..."

-JD


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Yes - I do use the RPW to discern good worship practices.
> 
> No - I do not use the RPW to condemn my brethren.
> 
> No - I do not hold the RPW as an infallible rule.



Are we in the church not to judge each other? I condemn no one; God will do that on the last day. 

Is not the RPW a compilation of Gods word?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> so you are saying 75% of churches worship:
> 
> ...is unScriptural and not led by the Holy Spirit?
> 
> ...is it not in Spirit and Truth?
> 
> ...content challenges Orthodoxy?
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am. The majority of contemporary evangelicals are essentially, Arminian, antinomian, Man centered, and historically & biblically unorthodox! If it was led by the Spirit of God, it would adhere to TRUTH, which is found in Gods Word.
> 
> John 10:27 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so- 75% of the visible Church is unregenerate?
Click to expand...


Only God know the unregenerate; The mass majority of churches today are in error. Those that hold to the above errors are either unregenerate and perishing and the rest may be regenerate and not yet converted. Onxce converted they will abandon the error for truth, much like I did.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Do you think it is possible to perfectly worship God on fallen Earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 5:48 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
> 
> God would have not commanded it if it were impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you also believe that it is possible to never sin again on the fallen Earth?
> 
> "Go ye and sin no more..."
> 
> -JD
Click to expand...


I agree, it seems unrealistic, however, God commanded it. Why would he have commanded it if it were not possible?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Yes - I do use the RPW to discern good worship practices.
> 
> No - I do not use the RPW to condemn my brethren.
> 
> No - I do not hold the RPW as an infallible rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we in the church not to judge each other? I condemn no one; God will do that on the last day.
> 
> Is not the RPW a compilation of Gods word?
Click to expand...


God's word and man's principles.

Somewhat like, but lesser than, the WCF.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Do you think it is possible to perfectly worship God on fallen Earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 5:48 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
> 
> God would have not commanded it if it were impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you also believe that it is possible to never sin again on the fallen Earth?
> 
> "Go ye and sin no more..."
> 
> -JD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, it seems unrealistic, however, God commanded it. Why would he have commanded it if it were not possible?
Click to expand...


You have not answered - Yes or no.

Not confrontational, just curious.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> The majority of contemporary evangelicals are essentially, Arminian, antinomian, Man centered, and historically & biblically unorthodox



Where is your objective evidence to this? Is this from Barna or something? Or a prophetic revelation?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Do you think it is possible to perfectly worship God on fallen Earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 5:48 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
> 
> God would have not commanded it if it were impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you also believe that it is possible to never sin again on the fallen Earth?
> 
> "Go ye and sin no more..."
> 
> -JD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, it seems unrealistic, however, God commanded it. Why would he have commanded it if it were not possible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not answered - Yes or no.
> 
> Not confrontational, just curious.
Click to expand...


In looking at my life today, I would say no. However, God commanded it, hence he would not have commanded perfection if it were impossible. So, based upon my portion of faith, I must believe Him. One has the choice of either believing God or falling into greasy grace. It cannot be both ways. We are called to run the race, fight the fight, put our faith into practice, repent, reject, pray. All these things bring us closer to God and further away from sin.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of contemporary evangelicals are essentially, Arminian, antinomian, Man centered, and historically & biblically unorthodox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your objective evidence to this? Is this from Barna or something? Or a prophetic revelation?
Click to expand...


It is an assertion which I believe to be correct. You may dismiss it if it bothers you..........

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## panta dokimazete

You misunderstand - it does not bother me - just trying to understand your perspective.

So - in your opinion 75% of the visible Church is either unregenrate or in error?

that is a strong statement.

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> You misunderstand - it does not bother me - just trying to understand your perspective.
> 
> So - in your opinion 75% of the visible Church is either unregenrate or in error?
> 
> that is a strong statement.
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]



I do. Maybe even more.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> In looking at my life today, I would say no. However, God commanded it, hence he would not have commanded perfection if it were impossible.



improbable - but not impossible or implausible, yes?

BTW - I do not believe in "Chance" - but do adhere to probability - God is Sovereign over probability, too.




> So, based upon my portion of faith, I must believe Him. One has the choice of either believing God or falling into greasy grace.



Sorry - greasy grace? 




> It cannot be both ways. We are called to run the race, fight the fight, put our faith into practice, repent, reject, pray. All these things bring us closer to God and further away from sin.



We also called to love and bear with one another's weaknesses - thus to be more judgemental of ourselves and gracious to others.

-JD


----------



## Scott Bushey

Let me clarify abbout sinlessness. In the divided sense it is impossible but in the compound it is not.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> You misunderstand - it does not bother me - just trying to understand your perspective.
> 
> So - in your opinion 75% of the visible Church is either unregenrate or in error?
> 
> that is a strong statement.
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. Maybe even more.
Click to expand...


Well, that certainly helps me understand your worldview better.

I will opine that it does not seem to be a very gracious, merciful or forgiving one - and I am fairly conservative.

-pax-

-JD


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Let me clarify abbout sinlessness. In the divided sense it is impossible but in the compound it is not.



Sorry? Please help me understand?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Scott - when you say I sound more and more like an adherent to the New Covenant doctrine:

Is this a good summary? http://www.ids.org/ids/wnct.html

And how would this be in opposition to what you believe? An article or something would be great.

Tx,

-JD


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> As I said before, it smacks of Mahometanism, which in its most conservative forms insists that an English translation of the Koran is not the Koran (one must read it only in Arabic).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that I am not proposing it, but merely going ad absurdum comparing EP as a framework of the logic.
Click to expand...

JD, I have repeatedly challened this assertion, and you have repeatedly refused to demonstrate or substantiate it. Your continued refusal to do so demonstrates to me that there is no substance to the argument, and that you are charging an absurdity upon your brethren without the slightest warrant for so doing; which is not right.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> It is not just "preaching," but "preaching of Scripture" (as in the case of "reading of Scripture"). Likewise, it is not merely "singing," but "singing of Psalms" (cf. WCF 21.5). The subject-matter is defined for preaching, and the content is defined for reading and singing. (And no, before you say it, I don't equate citing the Confession to citing a Scripture-proof.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right - which is why at this point my answers to you will be mere repetitions of my posts to Scott - my hermeneutic centers around Scriptural directives concerning songs and singing and how God alone makes service and offering and sacrifice and worship to Him worthy.
Click to expand...

Try this Scripture directive: Sing "the words of David, and of Asaph the seer" (2 Chron. 29:30). Because this constitutes a divine appointment of the content of song in worship, I argue from thence that the content of song in worship is regulated (and not merely theological accuracy). Unless you can demonstrate that this is ill-founded, all of the quotes regarding "new song" and "hymns and spiritual songs" must pertain to actual songs available to those who penned those words, and not the hymns of Watts, Wesley, Cowper, et al.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> And not use my mind to constrain my liberty with endless iterative reductionary doctrines that use ignorance and safety as foundational reasoning.


1. I do not recall using ignorance and/or safety as foundational reasoning. If I understand him correctly, Scott does not principially believe in EP; he simply prefers it. So please do not take his arguments as "foundational reasoning" for EP.

2. You have not demonstrated any of your assertions; you have not responded to detailed critiques of your statements; you have been shown to be in error in your discussion of the Hebrew of Exod. 34:7; and you continue to malign your brethren without foundation. May I ask why you think it is that *our* position is the one employing ignorance?



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> The worship of the regenerate will ALWAYS be acceptable to Him through Christ, as He wills, because it will be done in Spirit and Truth.


But if it is not done according to the regulative principle, it will not be done in truth. You seem here to be saying that unregulated worship is acceptable to God, because "Jesus makes it all better." That is about as clear a rejection of the RPW as could be stated.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> so you are saying 75% of churches worship:
> 
> ...is unScriptural and not led by the Holy Spirit?
> 
> ...is it not in Spirit and Truth?
> 
> ...content challenges Orthodoxy?


I don't know who came up with those numbers. But we believe that the vast majority of the world, as it now stands, is un-Christian and going to hell, right? Of the professing church, the largest part is Romish/Eastern Orthodox, which is heretical, right? Of Protestants, the larger part are mainline denominations which couldn't discern between true doctrine and false if the Bible said so plainly (and it does), right? Of evangelical Protestants, the larger part embrace Arminianism and other forms of rejection of five-point Calvinism, right? What keeps me from saying that the majority of Presbyterian and Reformed churches, where true doctrine is preached, have fallen away from their previously universal practice, and now maintain erroneous modes of worship?



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew 5:48 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
> 
> God would have not commanded it if it were impossible.


Be careful, Scott. Orthodox Calvinism maintains that God has the prerogative to command what we are now, by the fall, unable to perform. It was the arch-heretic Pelagius who developed the idea that if God commands it, we can do it; and developed from thence his understanding of free will, rejection of original sin, possibility of sinless perfection, etc. Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists likewise recognize this maxim. It is an error.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Sorry, Kaalvinist - I have been mostly focused on the discussion Scott and I have been engaged in. I am most comfortable responding to one person at a time - I will go back and respond to each of the points that I have not directly responded to in a bit.

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> You understand that I am not proposing it, but merely going ad absurdum comparing EP as a framework of the logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To use "EP" ad absurdum is simply not honest. They have already addressed your arguments before. We sing the psalms in English because we must sing with understanding which biblically may require translation (1 Cor. 14). If your going to argue with EP, then at least dont' argue with straw men. Almost any biblical position taken out of context can go to an extreme absurdity.
Click to expand...


A straw man?

The challenge I am presenting to the EP'er is this:

The RPW demands that elements used in the worship of God that are not specifically allowed is specifically prohibited and adherents utilize Scripture to substantiate this claim.

So - How does the EP'er use the RPW? I contend it is in the MOST RESTRICTIVE manner possible, in order to distill out the most perfect, correct and God pleasing worship humanly possible in Spirit and Truth. (If this is a strawman, please correct me.)

So - with that in mind and using the wisdom of Paul:



> 1 Corinthians 14
> 
> 10There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.



Now - I know that this is in context of the gift of tongues - but consider this application:

It is now possible to substantially teach, learn and know the original languages that God spoke to His people in and His chosen people worshipped Him in.

If the goal is to distill worship to its purest sense, why would one not do these things and become less of a foreigner to God? Why risk the possible distortion of God's word with a tongue foreign to the Bible? Reduce the ignorance of the flock, bring them closer to original worship and build them up?

What is true enough and good enough for God? Is it just not worth the effort? What work would you refuse to do?

Why even sing them, since you do not know what their singing entailed - do you presume to know their lyricism, tone, stylistic interpretations modalities? You only know what you can guess - and that will be shaded by your presuppositions and predjudices. I assure you, different cultures of the world sing much differently now - how much more so in the ancient days?

Why not continue to become leaders among leaders? 

Stop singing altogether and only speak the psalms (in the original language, of course) otherwise you risk offending God with your corrupted worship.

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _kaalvenist_You have not demonstrated any of your assertions; you have not responded to detailed critiques of your statements; you have been shown to be in error in your discussion of the Hebrew of Exod. 34:7; and you continue to malign your brethren without foundation. May I ask why you think it is that our position is the one employing ignorance?



who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." (Exodus 34:7)

kai dikaiosunhn diathrwn kai poiwn eleov eiv xiliadav afairwn anomiav kai adikiav kai amartiav kai ou kaqariei ton enoxon epagwn anomiav paterwn epi tekna kai epi tekna teknwn epi trithn kai tetarthn genean (Exodus 34:7)

kaalvenist - you are correct - I am unfamiliar with Hebrew and Greek - but learning bit by bit. Looks like you were right - the kai is used in the Septuagint. My error - however:

I believe though, that the normative use of the conjuctions in Scripture is to seperate similar elements with different characteristics.

Ro 1:23 

and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

kai hllaxan thn doxan tou afyartou yeou en omoiwmati eikonov fyartou anyrwpou kai peteinwn kai tetrapodwn kai erpetwn

>>All similar (images in the form of corruptible) - but of elements with different characteristics.

Ro 2:4 
Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

h tou ploutou thv xrhstothtov autou kai thv anoxhv kai thv makroyumiav katafroneiv agnown oti to xrhston tou yeou eiv metanoian se agei

>>All riches, but seperate elements with different characteristics.

>>And here:

Ro 2:7 
to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

toiv men kay upomonhn ergou agayou doxan kai timhn kai afyarsian zhtousin zwhn aiwnion

>> Seperation between distinct elements and none between immortality and eternal life. Because they mean exactly the same thing.

Here is a good one:

Ro 7:12 
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 

wste o men nomov agiov, kai h entolh agia kai dikaia kai agaqh.

>>Do holy righteous and good mean exactly the same thing? No, but the have commonality.

Ro 7:12 [ Greek Font Size: "“ / + ] [ View in: BYZ /&nsp;TR | Side-by-side | Greek Lexical Parser ]
So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 
wste o men nomov agiov, kai h entolh agia kai dikaia kai agaqh.


I am going to stop here, but * this search on "and" in the Pauline epistles* will let you draw your own conlusions.

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> As I said before, it smacks of Mahometanism, which in its most conservative forms insists that an English translation of the Koran is not the Koran (one must read it only in Arabic).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You understand that I am not proposing it, but merely going ad absurdum comparing EP as a framework of the logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JD, I have repeatedly challened this assertion, and you have repeatedly refused to demonstrate or substantiate it. Your continued refusal to do so demonstrates to me that there is no substance to the argument, and that you are charging an absurdity upon your brethren without the slightest warrant for so doing; which is not right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> It is not just "preaching," but "preaching of Scripture" (as in the case of "reading of Scripture"). Likewise, it is not merely "singing," but "singing of Psalms" (cf. WCF 21.5). The subject-matter is defined for preaching, and the content is defined for reading and singing. (And no, before you say it, I don't equate citing the Confession to citing a Scripture-proof.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right - which is why at this point my answers to you will be mere repetitions of my posts to Scott - my hermeneutic centers around Scriptural directives concerning songs and singing and how God alone makes service and offering and sacrifice and worship to Him worthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try this Scripture directive: Sing "the words of David, and of Asaph the seer" (2 Chron. 29:30). Because this constitutes a divine appointment of the content of song in worship, I argue from thence that the content of song in worship is regulated (and not merely theological accuracy). Unless you can demonstrate that this is ill-founded, all of the quotes regarding "new song" and "hymns and spiritual songs" must pertain to actual songs available to those who penned those words, and not the hymns of Watts, Wesley, Cowper, et al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> And not use my mind to constrain my liberty with endless iterative reductionary doctrines that use ignorance and safety as foundational reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I do not recall using ignorance and/or safety as foundational reasoning. If I understand him correctly, Scott does not principially believe in EP; he simply prefers it. So please do not take his arguments as "foundational reasoning" for EP.
> 
> 2. You have not demonstrated any of your assertions; you have not responded to detailed critiques of your statements; you have been shown to be in error in your discussion of the Hebrew of Exod. 34:7; and you continue to malign your brethren without foundation. May I ask why you think it is that *our* position is the one employing ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> The worship of the regenerate will ALWAYS be acceptable to Him through Christ, as He wills, because it will be done in Spirit and Truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if it is not done according to the regulative principle, it will not be done in truth. You seem here to be saying that unregulated worship is acceptable to God, because "Jesus makes it all better." That is about as clear a rejection of the RPW as could be stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> so you are saying 75% of churches worship:
> 
> ...is unScriptural and not led by the Holy Spirit?
> 
> ...is it not in Spirit and Truth?
> 
> ...content challenges Orthodoxy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know who came up with those numbers. But we believe that the vast majority of the world, as it now stands, is un-Christian and going to hell, right? Of the professing church, the largest part is Romish/Eastern Orthodox, which is heretical, right? Of Protestants, the larger part are mainline denominations which couldn't discern between true doctrine and false if the Bible said so plainly (and it does), right? Of evangelical Protestants, the larger part embrace Arminianism and other forms of rejection of five-point Calvinism, right? What keeps me from saying that the majority of Presbyterian and Reformed churches, where true doctrine is preached, have fallen away from their previously universal practice, and now maintain erroneous modes of worship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Matthew 5:48 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
> 
> God would have not commanded it if it were impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be careful, Scott. Orthodox Calvinism maintains that God has the prerogative to command what we are now, by the fall, unable to perform. It was the arch-heretic Pelagius who developed the idea that if God commands it, we can do it; and developed from thence his understanding of free will, rejection of original sin, possibility of sinless perfection, etc. Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists likewise recognize this maxim. It is an error.
Click to expand...


Correct. That is why I qualified it with Gods will being divided and compound. In the divided senses, it is impossible, but in the compound it is not.

JD,
Are you privy to Owens works on the compound and divided senses of Gods will? Matt has an excellent book: The Two Wills of God, qwhich explain it thoroughly.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> A straw man?
> 
> The challenge I am presenting to the EP'er is this:
> 
> The RPW demands that elements used in the worship of God that are not specifically allowed is specifically prohibited and adherents utilize Scripture to substantiate this claim.
> 
> So - How does the EP'er use the RPW? I contend it is in the MOST RESTRICTIVE manner possible, in order to distill out the most perfect, correct and God pleasing worship humanly possible in Spirit and Truth. (If this is a strawman, please correct me.)


Then consider this a correction.

As I already said, Scott (correct me if I'm wrong, Scott) does not principially maintain EP; he only prefers it. Hence, do not take his arguments as representative arguments for EP.

Your statement "it is in the MOST RESTRICTIVE manner possible" is a strawman, since no exclusive psalmodist maintains that we should be "as restrictive as possible," but only as restrictive as the Bible requires us to be.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> So - with that in mind and using the wisdom of Paul:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 14
> 
> 10There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now - I know that this is in context of the gift of tongues - but consider this application:
> 
> It is now possible to substantially teach, learn and know the original languages that God spoke to His people in and His chosen people worshipped Him in.
Click to expand...

You seem to be avoiding the wisdom of Paul, not using the wisdom of Paul. Paul says not to speak in an unknown tongue that isn't interpreted. Since the Reformation, Protestants have always appealed to this chapter to have services and Scripture in the common tongue, rather than the Latin of Popish services. It has further relevance to this particular discussion, because singing in worship is particularly mentioned by the apostle (verses 15, 26). When he commands singing with "understanding" in this context, how could one come to any conclusion but that we should sing in the common tongue?



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> If the goal is to distill worship to its purest sense, why would one not do these things and become less of a foreigner to God? Why risk the possible distortion of God's word with a tongue foreign to the Bible? Reduce the ignorance of the flock, bring them closer to original worship and build them up?


But now you have defined "purity" in a way that Scripture does not define it. You have added to the commands and requirements of God, that we must read or sing in the languages in which the Scriptures originally came to us. And adding to the commands of God in worship is impurity, not purity.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> What is true enough and good enough for God? Is it just not worth the effort? What work would you refuse to do?


"He hath shewed thee, O man..." If He has not told us that we (all Christians in their assembled capacity) must learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, then you are adding commands of God which He has not commanded. And understand, that's not just against the RPW -- that's against _sola scriptura._ You are placing requirements upon God's people which God Himself never did.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Why even sing them, since you do not know what their singing entailed - do you presume to know their lyricism, tone, stylistic interpretations modalities? You only know what you can guess - and that will be shaded by your presuppositions and predjudices. I assure you, different cultures of the world sing much differently now - how much more so in the ancient days?


Again, there is no statement from Scripture to the effect that, in our singing of Psalms, we are bound to the Hebrew language, or Hebrew modes of singing, or Hebrew tunes. And no exclusive psalmodist is going to go beyond the Scripture requirement that we "sing Psalms." _Ordinary Christians_ are commanded to sing Psalms, just like _ordinary Christians_ are commanded to read Scripture. If the latter indicates that we should translate the Scriptures into the common tongue (cf. WCF 1.8), then the former indicates that we should translate the Psalms into the common tongue.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Why not continue to become leaders among leaders?


Â¿QuÃ©?



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Stop singing altogether and only speak the psalms (in the original language, of course) otherwise you risk offending God with your corrupted worship.


No. We would offend God if we stopped singing Psalms, since He commanded us so to do. No exclusive psalmodist "binds your conscience" to doing anything that is not commanded in Scripture. Singing of Psalms is commanded in Scripture. Singing in Hebrew is not commanded in Scripture. Singing Hebrew tunes is not commanded in Scripture.

So quit presenting these strawmen, and actually deal with our position.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I am familiar and comfortable with the concept - wanted to make sure we both understood it the same.

Hendryx:



> So we find that God allows things to happen that He would prefer not to happen. This is referred to by theologians as His permissive (revealed) will. The Scriptures distinguish between God's secret will, embodied in his counsel of foreordination, and God's revealed will, embodied in his law. The two are often denominated God's decretive will and his preceptive will. It is by His decretive will that "He sovereignly brings to pass whatever He decrees, while His permissive will leaves room for the moral actions of His creatures." (R.C Sproul in The Invisible Hand). So we can argue that God's revealed will is an infallible guide for the life of his Church. But his secret will is not meant to be a guide at all. God's Providential hand is simply seen by us as the gradual unfolding of God's secret will. It should be clear to us then that it cannot serve as a guide for our moral behavior nor as a way to postulate who wil be saved. It might be better for the sake of understanding to differentiate these wills as God's commands and his decrees. Man is held accountable for his disobedience to God's commands (revealed will), not God's decrees. His revealed will in his law is for us and is not meant to give us a glimpse into what He plans to do with His secret will.
> 
> Deuteronomy 29:29 makes it is clear there are at least two types of wills in God. It says,
> 
> "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever"



-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_Singing of Psalms is commanded in Scripture. Singing in Hebrew is not commanded in Scripture. Singing Hebrew tunes is not commanded in Scripture.
> 
> So quit presenting these strawmen, and actually deal with our position.



That is what I am trying to reveal - it seems to me that your (EP) position is extreme and absurd, just like my suggestion to sing in the original language.

You cherry pick and redefine to force some foreign restriction.

Singing new songs are commanded in Scripture.

Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs are commanded in Scripture.

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _kaalvenist_You have not demonstrated any of your assertions; you have not responded to detailed critiques of your statements; you have been shown to be in error in your discussion of the Hebrew of Exod. 34:7; and you continue to malign your brethren without foundation. May I ask why you think it is that our position is the one employing ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." (Exodus 34:7)
> 
> kai dikaiosunhn diathrwn kai poiwn eleov eiv xiliadav afairwn anomiav kai adikiav kai amartiav kai ou kaqariei ton enoxon epagwn anomiav paterwn epi tekna kai epi tekna teknwn epi trithn kai tetarthn genean (Exodus 34:7)
> 
> kaalvenist - you are correct - I am unfamiliar with Hebrew and Greek - but learning bit by bit. Looks like you were right - the kai is used in the Septuagint. My error - however:
> 
> I believe though, that the normative use of the conjuctions in Scripture is to seperate similar elements with different characteristics.
> 
> Ro 1:23
> 
> and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
> 
> kai hllaxan thn doxan tou afyartou yeou en omoiwmati eikonov fyartou anyrwpou kai peteinwn kai tetrapodwn kai erpetwn
> 
> >>All similar (images in the form of corruptible) - but of elements with different characteristics.
> 
> Ro 2:4
> Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?
> 
> h tou ploutou thv xrhstothtov autou kai thv anoxhv kai thv makroyumiav katafroneiv agnown oti to xrhston tou yeou eiv metanoian se agei
> 
> >>All riches, but seperate elements with different characteristics.
> 
> >>And here:
> 
> Ro 2:7
> to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
> 
> toiv men kay upomonhn ergou agayou doxan kai timhn kai afyarsian zhtousin zwhn aiwnion
> 
> >> Seperation between distinct elements and none between immortality and eternal life. Because they mean exactly the same thing.
> 
> Here is a good one:
> 
> Ro 7:12
> So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
> 
> wste o men nomov agiov, kai h entolh agia kai dikaia kai agaqh.
> 
> >>Do holy righteous and good mean exactly the same thing? No, but the have commonality.
> 
> Ro 7:12 [ Greek Font Size: "“ / + ] [ View in: BYZ /&nsp;TR | Side-by-side | Greek Lexical Parser ]
> So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
> wste o men nomov agiov, kai h entolh agia kai dikaia kai agaqh.
> 
> 
> I am going to stop here, but * this search on "and" in the Pauline epistles* will let you draw your own conlusions.
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...

The following is a footnote from a paper I am in the process of writing on the subject of unaccompanied exclusive psalmody. I only quote it here because it has to do with this particular question.


> The argument that this makes the apostle command us to sing "œpsalms and psalms and psalms" is of no force. (1.) Hymn-singers themselves are unable to substantially differentiate between "œhymns" and "œspiritual songs," which leaves their position open to a similar charge"”that we are here commanded to sing "œpsalms and uninspired hymns and uninspired hymns." (2.) The literary device of piling up several synonymous terms, in order to refer to the same thing, is a very common usage in the Bible. Concerning God´s commandments, see Gen. 26:5; Exod. 15:26; 16:28; 18:16; Lev. 26:3, 15, 46; Num. 36:13; Deut. 4:40; 5:31; 6:1, 2, 17; 7:11; 8:11; 10:13; 11:1; 26:17; 27:10; 28:15, 45; 30:10, 16; 1 Kings 2:3; 3:14; 6:12; 8:58, 61; 9:6; 11:34, 38; 2 Kings 17:13; 23:3; 1 Chron. 28:7; 29:19; 2 Chron. 7:19; 34:31; Ezra 7:11; Neh. 1:7; 9:13, 14; 10:29; Ezek. 44:24; Dan. 9:5. Concerning human sin, see Exod. 34:7, 9; Lev. 16:16, 21; Num. 14:18; Deut. 19:15; Josh. 24:19; Job 13:23; Ps. 59:3; Jer. 16:18; 36:3; Ezek. 33:10; Amos 5:12; Heb. 8:12; 10:17. Concerning miracles (both true and false), see Exod. 7:3; Deut. 6:22; 7:19; 26:8; 29:3; 34:11; Neh. 9:10; Isa. 8:18; Jer. 32:20, 21; Dan. 4:2, 3; 6:27; Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; John 4:48; Acts 2:22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 7:36; 8:13; 14:3; Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12; 2 Thess. 2:9; Heb. 2:4. Concerning prayer, see 1 Kings 8:28, 38, 45, 49, 54; 9:3; 2 Chron. 6:19, 29, 35, 39; Jer. 7:16; 11:14; Dan. 9:3, 17; Acts 1:14; Eph. 6:18; Phil. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:1; 5:5; Heb. 5:7. And concerning the songs used in worship, see the titles of Pss. 30, 48, 65, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 83, 87, 88, 92, 108.


And please note also that I am not, in these citations, emphasizing the use of _kai_ or the _waw_ conjunction. Although those are frequenlty used, the commonality between all of these verses is, as I said, the "piling up of terms" -- usually two or three, but sometimes four words, all referring to the same thing or things. Other verses could have been cited (especially verses in poetic portions of Scripture, such as the Psalms or Proverbs, where words are presented in Hebrew parallelism); but this should give you an indication of the commonality of the literary practice of using several (synonymous) terms to refer to the same thing.

That being said, you are going to have to demonstrate that the phrase "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) refers to three distinct things; and your demonstration will have to go beyond saying that _kai_ is used in the passage.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Actually - *you* have to prove that *Paul's* normative use of *kai* would include the "piling up" of terms. Also that he uses the terms interchangeably

Otherwise, this resembles argument ad populum.

Kaalvinist - if you are doing this for a paper - a chart would convey much more meaning than just piling up a buch of references.

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> That is what I am trying to reveal - your (EP) position is extreme and absurd, just like my suggestion to sing in the original language.


1. Our position is that of the Westminster Confession: "singing of Psalms with grace in the heart" is an ordinary part of worship (WCF 21.5). It is not just "preaching" that is an element of worship, but "preaching of the Word" -- the subject-matter is defined. It is not just "reading" that is an element of worship, but "reading of Scripture" -- the content is defined. Likewise, we believe that the content has been defined as regards singing. How is that extreme or absurd?

2. EP is not related to singing in the original language. Two different things may be absurd, without there being any relation between them.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> You cherry pick and redefine to force some foreign restriction.


We agree that the regulative principle is a restriction that is not "foreign," right? The question concerns how the RPW applies re: song in worship. I don't know of anyone who denies that God commanded the Psalms to be sung in worship -- especially not Presbyterians. If the content of song has been appointed, then the content of song is regulated.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Singing new songs are commanded in Scripture.
> 
> Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs are commanded in Scripture.


1. I've been arguing with an Arminian who's been attending our church, who can't demonstrate his position from Scripture. All he can do is quote certain passages of Scripture -- no explanation, no interpretation, no exegesis. He simply quotes 1 John 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:9; Heb. 2:9; John 3:16, etc. How is that different from what you're doing? You haven't made any demonstration from the "new song" commanded, or the _psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais_ that are commanded, that this indicates we are to sing other songs along with the Psalms. You haven't demonstrated that this indicates we are to sing uninspired songs. You haven't demonstrated that this indicates we are to sing songs written thousands of years after those words were penned, which those human authors of Scripture could never sing.

2. Unless the question regarding the content of song being regulated gets answered, these passages will afford you nothing. If God regulates the content of song, these must be commands to sing songs of that period that God authorized (the Psalms).


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Actually - *you* have to prove that *Paul's* normative use of *kai* would include the "piling up" of terms. Also that he uses the terms interchangeably
> 
> Otherwise, this resembles argument ad populum.


No, this indicates the common usage of Scripture, and that it is not isolated to Paul, or to the use of the word _kai._ But Dr. Ed Robson, who used to teach at our seminary (RPTS) until he retired last year, did his doctoral thesis on Paul's use of the word _kai,_ and has written on its bearing on Eph. 5:19/Col. 3:16.

A doctoral thesis on the word "and"... I'm sure that would make for an interesting read. 



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Kaalvinist - if you are doing this for a paper - a chart would convey much more meaning than just piling up a buch of references.


It's not really a paper, just a little scribble, honest -- I'm not presenting it for any class, just writing it to write. And it's fine as a footnote.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> I've been arguing with an Arminian who's been attending our church, who can't demonstrate his position from Scripture.



I have utilized Scriptural arguments throught this thread - why are utilizing ad hominem?

Why do I have to debate on your terms? Answer - I do not.

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> I've been arguing with an Arminian who's been attending our church, who can't demonstrate his position from Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have utilized Scriptural arguments throught this thread - why are utilizing ad hominem?
Click to expand...

Again, you fail to deal with the substance of my argument. You have not once demonstrated that "new song" means anything. You have not demonstrated that "hymns and spiritual songs" mean anything. And you continue to ignore the fact that *God appointed particular songs to be sung in worship,* meaning that *God regulates the content of song in worship* -- and how that relates to the interpretation of the "new song" and the "hymns and spiritual songs."

I referred to the Arminian by way of illustration, not _ad hominem._ I was not saying that you are Arminian, or that your arguments tend to Arminianism. I was saying that, what one person I know is doing (not doing any kind of interpretive work on the texts he cites), you do likewise. If it had been a Presbyterian arguing for an orthodox doctrine, but arguing for it poorly, it would amount to the same thing, and would not be _ad hominem._

So again, deal with the substance of my arguments.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Why do I have to debate on your terms? Answer - I do not.


I simply ask to be treated fairly as an opponent, and that Scripture be dealt with beyond its surface-level statements. I wouldn't call these "my terms."


----------



## panta dokimazete

> God appointed particular songs to be sung in worship



Right - three types - Psalms and hymn and spiritual songs - The Greek points to 3 types. This is where your argument stands or falls.

No-one contests the Psalms.

Just saying that these are synonymous does not make it so. Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that these are the same, the command stands - and there are examples and mention of early Christian Hymns in antiquity.

"singing by turns a *hymn to Christ*, as to a god" - Pliny's Letter to the Emperor Trajan, 112 A.D. Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 6.

There are no "Psalms of Christ" in Psalms that mention Him specifically - and yes, I understand messianic Psalms.

Nowhere does it say - Thou shalt *only* sings Psalms in worship of Me.

Christ sang a Hymn - maybe or not a Psalm - again - unless you can irrevocably prove that He did not sing an uninspired hymn - which you do not know for certain, then hymns stand.

We will sing new songs in Heaven - they sang new songs in the OT - who instituted the cessation of new songs? - Songs stand.

psalms - http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5568

hymns - http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5215

spiritual songs - http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5603

-JD

BTW - who says we should not *first* read the Scriptures for their simple meaning? Sometimes wine is wine - not grape juice.

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Also - start about here if you want to see my earlier rationale.i may have to compile all these together at some point.

-JD


----------



## Kaalvenist

YES!!! Some interaction!! 



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> God appointed particular songs to be sung in worship
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right - three types - Psalms and hymn and spiritual songs - The Greek points to 3 types. This is where your argument stands or falls.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I base my argument upon the original institution of psalmody in the OT. When I say "God appointed particular songs," how do you interpret that?

Let us for a moment suppose the song "Amazing Grace" was written during the period of inscripturation. What I am saying, when I say that God appointed *particular songs,* is that He would indicate, in Scripture, by direct precept, good and necessary consequence, or approved example, that the song "Amazing Grace" should be sung in worship. *That song particularly.* Because He did so with the Psalms. The Psalter, as a songbook, was particularly appointed to serve in that capacity. God defined the content of song in worship. Your position is that God does not define the content of song in worship, and that we are free to do so, as long as the songs are theologically accurate. (I think. But correct me if I'm wrong in that.) But if God appoints something to be sung, that means God's regulation extends to what particular songs (or songbook) will be sung in His worship.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> so you are saying 75% of churches worship:
> 
> ...is unScriptural and not led by the Holy Spirit?
> 
> ...is it not in Spirit and Truth?
> 
> ...content challenges Orthodoxy?



That's too low. Personally, I'd probably run about 90-95% (that may even be generous.)

Sproul Sr., even, in a Ligonier Conference said it was like 98%.

Just FYI.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> But if God appoints something to be sung, that means God's regulation extends to what particular songs (or songbook) will be sung in His worship.



But in order to constrain this to particular "songs" you have to nullify the clear meaning of "new".

Remember: there are non-Psalmic commands to sing *new* - not "the" new - songs.

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> No-one contests the Psalms.
> 
> Just saying that these are synonymous does not make it so.


Very true. Perhaps a demonstration is in order.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that these are the same, the command stands - and there are examples and mention of early Christian Hymns in antiquity.
> 
> "singing by turns a *hymn to Christ*, as to a god" - Pliny's Letter to the Emperor Trajan, 112 A.D. Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 6.
> 
> There are no "Psalms of Christ" in Psalms that mention Him specifically - and yes, I understand messianic Psalms.


1. The command stands to sing what? You must demonstrate what these words mean to vindicate your position, just as I.

2. Pliny's letter has also been discussed on this board...but the gentleman with whom I was originally arguing didn't seem to want to discuss it any further. Maybe you would like to revive the thread?

3. Why are you trying to determine the meaning of these terms by an appeal, not to Scripture, but to an extra-Scriptural source authored by a Pagan governor writing *in Latin,* not in Greek, so that his use of the word cannot be regarded as normative?

4. As you can see in the thread, I contend that the "hymn to Christ" was a Messianic Psalm... or any of the Psalms, which collectively speak primarily of Him (Luke 24:44). And a passing reference in an extra-Scriptural epistle is not going to determine this matter.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Nowhere does it say - Thou shalt *only* sings Psalms in worship of Me.


But given the RPW, it doesn't have to. If we are only commanded to sing Psalms, then we are commanded to only sing Psalms.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Christ sang a Hymn - maybe or not a Psalm - again - unless you can irrevocably prove that He did not sing an uninspired hymn - which you do not know for certain, then hymns stand.


1. You are assuming the 21st century European/American understanding of what a "hymn" means, as is evidenced by your last remark, "then hymns stand." *What stands?*

2. Check any commentator on the passages in question (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26) -- I've checked between three or four dozen, and they are agreed that Christ and His apostles sang Psalms. (BTW, it was not "a hymn"; the Greek is _humnesantes,_ a verb we might otherwise translate as "having hymned." I say this only because all commentators are agreed that they sang several Psalms, not just one, which is obscured when we think that they sang a (one) _humnos._)


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> We will sing new songs in Heaven - they sang new songs in the OT - who instituted the cessation of new songs? - Songs stand.


1. We aren't in heaven yet.

2. They sang Psalms in the OT.

3. When revelation ceased, so did new songs.

4. *What stands?* How many Psalms are identified as "songs"? Check the last line in the quote from my paper, as well as Pss. 120-134, and many more.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> so you are saying 75% of churches worship:
> 
> ...is unScriptural and not led by the Holy Spirit?
> 
> ...is it not in Spirit and Truth?
> 
> ...content challenges Orthodoxy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's too low. Personally, I'd probably run about 90-95% (that may even be generous.)
> 
> Sproul Sr., even, in a Ligonier Conference said it was like 98%.
> 
> Just FYI.
Click to expand...


wow - just find it hard to believe...and weep at the tragedy if it is so...


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> But if God appoints something to be sung, that means God's regulation extends to what particular songs (or songbook) will be sung in His worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in order to constrain this to particular "songs" you have to nullify the clear meaning of "new".
> 
> Remember: there are non-Psalmic commands to sing *new* - not "the" new - songs.
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...

And the substance of my argument continues to be ignored.

Perhaps another quote from my paper will help:


> We therefore see that particular songs (i.e. the Psalms) were appointed for use in singing God´s praise. This has direct bearing upon the question at issue between Psalm-singers and hymn-singers.*[16]* With particular songs appointed for singing, we must conclude that the regulative principle extends to which particular songs will be sung; or, that God must authorize which songs are sung in His praise. This is because divine appointment indicates divine regulation. For example, God has appointed preaching as an element of worship, and has more particularly appointed the Scriptures to be the material from which the minister should preach. This does not mean that the minister´s words in preaching are limited to the inspired Word, but that the Word of God is to be preached from, and not any other text"”the fact that only the Word is appointed to fulfill this role shows that we are restricted to the Word. With a particular text appointed, we see that God regulates what particular text will be used for this purpose.*[17]*
> 
> Let us suppose a minister was to go into the pulpit and announce as his text a portion of John Bunyan´s _The Pilgrim´s Progress,_ or Thomas Boston´s _Human Nature in Its Fourfold State._ Why should such an action be protested? Because God has appointed the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the subject matter of preaching. His appointment in this area shows that, for any other text to be used, it must be particularly appointed; and He has not appointed Bunyan´s _Pilgrim´s Progress,_ or Boston´s _Fourfold State,_ to serve in that capacity. The Word of God alone has been appointed to be preached in worship; and we have no right or permission to go beyond that appointment.
> 
> We see in this Old Testament text that particular songs have been appointed by God to be sung in worship; and with that appointment comes the divine regulation. Only songs which have been appointed for that purpose are to be used in singing God´s praise. This very clearly answers the question of whether God regulates only the theological content of songs (the position of the hymn-singers), or whether He regulates what particular songs will be sung (the position of the Psalm-singers). With this point established, we can proceed in the argument for the exclusive singing of the Psalms in worship.*[18]*
> 
> Only songs which have been appointed by God for that purpose are to be sung in worship. But what songs have been appointed? Only the songs contained in the Book of Psalms. This text clearly appoints the Psalms, and only the Psalms, to be sung in worship. If any other songs are to be used in worship, one must show their special appointment. But this cannot be shown for any other song, or group of songs.
> 
> *Notes:*
> *[16]* This also addresses another point in debate: the question of whether the singing of praise is an element of worship, distinct from preaching or prayer. Many hymn-singers argue that singing praise is simply another way of praying, or preaching, or both. They then draw the conclusion that, just as we can pray non-canonical prayers, and preach non-canonical sermons, so we can also sing non-canonical songs. But in this text, we see singing of praise particularly appointed and instituted to be an element of worship, distinct from the appointments of preaching or prayer as elements of worship. Cf. _The Westminster Confession of Faith,_ 21.3-5.
> *[17]* This regulation is even more apparent when considering the reading of the Word. God has appointed reading as an element of worship, and has appointed a particular text to be used in this element (Scripture); which indicates His regulation and restriction of which particular text is used. In this part of worship, our words are limited to a particular text.
> *[18]* In order to maintain their position on this point, hymn-singers would have to show that no particular songs have been appointed for use in worship, because such appointment leads to the conclusion that the use of particular songs in worship is regulated. But the very presence of the Psalms in the Bible, as songs employed in worship, is a strong argument for their divine appointment, aside from the verse just considered (2 Chron. 29:30).


Mind you, this is only a "pre-publication" copy; I plan on submitting the finished product to the Session of my church. We'll see where it goes from there.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_1. The command stands to sing what? You must demonstrate what these words mean to vindicate your position, just as I.
> 
> 2. Pliny's letter has also been discussed on this board...but the gentleman with whom I was originally arguing didn't seem to want to discuss it any further. Maybe you would like to revive the thread?
> 
> 
> 4. As you can see in the thread, I contend that the "hymn to Christ" was a Messianic Psalm... or any of the Psalms, which collectively speak primarily of Him (Luke 24:44). And a passing reference in an extra-Scriptural epistle is not going to determine this matter.



You *assert* that this was a Messianic hymn - he said "Hymn to Christ" - to fully rebut this - you *must prove* that this was not a composed hymn specifically to Christ. If he said a "Psalm of Messiah", I would be stumped. You can't - move on.




> 3. Why are you trying to determine the meaning of these terms by an appeal, not to Scripture, but to an extra-Scriptural source authored by a Pagan governor writing *in Latin,* not in Greek, so that his use of the word cannot be regarded as normative?



Merely trying to develop my hermeneutic - which allows historical/cultural references to substantiate a point.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Nowhere does it say - Thou shalt *only* sings Psalms in worship of Me.





> But given the RPW, it doesn't have to. If we are only commanded to sing Psalms, then we are commanded to only sing Psalms.



Again, you turn your back on the clear reading of Scripture - and propose that the Apostle was ambiguous. I do not.




> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Christ sang a Hymn - maybe or not a Psalm - again - unless you can irrevocably prove that He did not sing an uninspired hymn - which you do not know for certain, then hymns stand.





> 1.You are assuming the 21st century European/American understanding of what a "hymn" means, as is evidenced by your last remark



And that is where you are wrong, sir - I have a graduate degree in Music (actually 2) and have extensively studied forms of ancient music - I have seen the fragment hymn examples and know that the early hymns are not the Euro-Western versions.



> "then hymns stand."





> *What stands?*



Hymns - discreet in form and content from the Psalms.



> 2. Check any commentator on the passages in question (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26) -- I've checked between three or four dozen, and they are agreed that Christ and His apostles sang Psalms. (BTW, it was not "a hymn"; the Greek is _humnesantes,_ a verb we might otherwise translate as "having hymned." I say this only because all commentators are agreed that they sang several Psalms, not just one, which is obscured when we think that they sang a (one) _humnos._)



I'm ok with multiple hymns - but not with a presuppositional Psalms - if they were just Psalms, the authors could have just put "yalmovÃŸ" psalmos - again you push ambiguity on plain reading.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> We will sing new songs in Heaven - they sang new songs in the OT - who instituted the cessation of new songs? - Songs stand.





> 1. We aren't in heaven yet.



poor response



> 2. They sang Psalms in the OT.



they sang other songs, too - the hymn/song of Moses - Isaiah commanded that we sing new songs




> 3. When revelation ceased, so did new songs.



What? where does it say that? A song is not a sign of Apostolic authority.



> 4. *What stands?*





> How many Psalms are identified as "songs"? Check the last line in the quote from my paper, as well as Pss. 120-134, and many more.



Sorry, you will had to lead me more, or quote what you would like me to respond to.

"Song" is a generic term.

-pax-

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> particular songs have been appointed by God to be sung in worship



where have the particular (and not new) songs been appointed for worship?

Isa 42:10 Sing to the LORD a *new song*, Sing His praise from the end of the earth! You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it. You islands, and those who dwell on them. 

umnhsate tw kuriw umnon kainon h arxh autou docazete to onoma autou ap' akrou thv ghv oi katabainontev eiv thn qalassan kai pleontev authn ai nhsoi kai oi katoikountev autav


[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> You *assert* that this was a Messianic hymn - he said "Hymn to Christ" - to fully rebut this - you *must prove* that this was not a composed hymn specifically to Christ. If he said a "Psalm of Messiah", I would be stumped. You can't - move on.


Actually, you *assert* that it was an uninspired hymn. Honestly, I don't care too much about what an uninspired non-Christian wrote after the close of the apostolic era. I would assume that, since you place so much weight upon it, you would be the one devoting careful arguments to the development of your case. The thread remains open, Sir.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Merely trying to develop my hermeneutic - which allows historical/cultural references to substantiate a point.


Fine. But develop the argument from the reference. My argument in the above-linked thread has no comment upon it. And I have not seen even one hymn-singer develop the argument from Pliny's letter. Not one.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> But given the RPW, it doesn't have to. If we are only commanded to sing Psalms, then we are commanded to only sing Psalms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you turn your back on the clear reading of Scripture - and propose that the Apostle was ambiguous. I do not.
Click to expand...

Again, you confuse me with Scott. I never said that the apostle's terminology is ambiguous. I believe he is plainly referring to the Psalter with those three terms. You have still refused to define "hymn" or "song."



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> I'm ok with multiple hymns - but not with a presuppositional Psalms - if they were just Psalms, the authors could have just put "yalmovÃŸ" psalmos - again you push ambiguity on plain reading.


The "plain reading" that I have from *every commentator* on those texts is that Christ and the apostles sang the last part of the Hallel Psalms (115-118). They "could" have put _psalmos_ (or _psalleo,_ to match the verb), but they didn't have to, because "hymn" was a common way of speaking of Psalms at that time. It is only with our modern times that "hymn" has become "discreet in form and content from the Psalms." For an extensive treatment of the Eph./Col. passages, I recommend that you read John McNaugher's paper, "A Special Exegesis of Eph. v. 19 and Col. iii. 16" (unfortunately, this site doesn't have his extensive footnotes; I could email the paper to you, if you would like). He deals extensively with the use of the word _humnos_ in the literature of that period, and demonstrates the frequent use of that term to refer to the Psalter. (Of course, the original Hebrew title of the book is _Sepher Tehillim_ -- Book of Praises, or Book of Hymns.)

You continue to emphasize "new song." But you have not yet demonstrated that "new song" refers to non-canonical songs. Until you do so, I fail to see a need to respond.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Again, you confuse me with Scott. I never said that the apostle's terminology is ambiguous. I believe he is plainly referring to the Psalter with those three terms. You have still refused to define "hymn" or "song."



I never said the Apostle's terminology was ambiguous either.........and I never turned my back on the clear reading of scripture.

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I never said the Apostle's terminology was ambiguous either.........and I never turned my back on the clear reading of scripture.






> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> JD,
> Not wanting to turn this into a EP debate, but I know you have no idea what the Apostle meant when he said hymms and spiritual songs. No one knows. Having said this, you are left with only one clear cut choice on what is NOT assaulting Gods RPW, the psalms.





> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> This is true. I am basing my position on the idea that we all know what Psalms are. The ambiguous nature to the term _hymms and spiritual songs_ are my contention.


----------



## panta dokimazete

* You continue to emphasize "new song." But you have not yet demonstrated that "new song" refers to non-canonical songs. Until you do so, I fail to see a need to respond. *

*I* have to prove that new means non-canonical? Sir, new means means new - new wife, new house, new wine, new man, new covenant. Different than the old, can include components of the old.

Does that mean is *has* to take 100% of its content outside canon?

No, but even the Psalms you sing have a "new" component to them.

-pax-

-JD

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Yes - I did blend you and Scott togther some - that just brings us back to the 3 types being different as the core to your position. You have not proven that.

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> * You continue to emphasize "new song." But you have not yet demonstrated that "new song" refers to non-canonical songs. Until you do so, I fail to see a need to respond. *
> 
> *I* have to prove that new means non-canonical? Sir, new means means new - new wife, new house, new wine, new man, new covenant. Different than the old, can include components of the old.
> 
> Does that mean is *has* to take 100% of its content outside canon?
> 
> No, but even the Psalms you sing have a "new" component to them.


Again, you do not deal with my argument. I understand that "new" means "new." But demonstrate how that points to *non-canonical* songs. When we read of the "New Testament," I would not suppose from the use of the word "new" that it is referring to a non-canonical text. You are the one trying to make some kind of point from the phrase "new song." Make your point. While you're at it, demonstrate that this gives us warrant to compose songs for worship.

[My Substantial Argument]
All Reformed Christians recognize that God commanded the singing of Psalms. This means that He authorized a particular text to serve as the content of our song. It follows that the content of our song is regulated by God. It is incumbent upon hymn-singers to demonstrate that this is no longer the case -- that God no longer regulates the content of our song in worship; that He has specifically relaxed this regulation, as Christ specifically said that He would relax the regulation regarding the place of worship under the New Testament (John 4:21). If they cannot do so, they must demonstrate that each and every hymn they employ in worship has been particularly appointed by God, as were the Psalms. Their failure to meet these requirements demonstrates that they are engaged in unlawful worship.

If God regulates the content of song in worship, then the commands to "sing a new song" and to "sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" are commands to sing particular songs which have been particularly authorized and appointed by God for that purpose -- not blanket permissions to sing whatever we want, as long as it is theologically accurate. And since only the Psalms have been particularly authorized and appointed for this purpose, they alone are to be sung in worship.
[/My Substantial Argument]

And your last paragraph seems to concede the argument, that I can fulfill the command to sing "new songs" by singing Psalms. Have you ever sung any of the Psalms that use that phrase? I have. And I have never supposed, while singing those words, that I was being commanded to sing *what I was not singing at that very moment.*


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I never said the Apostle's terminology was ambiguous either.........and I never turned my back on the clear reading of scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> JD,
> Not wanting to turn this into a EP debate, but I know you have no idea what the Apostle meant when he said hymms and spiritual songs. No one knows. Having said this, you are left with only one clear cut choice on what is NOT assaulting Gods RPW, the psalms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> This is true. I am basing my position on the idea that we all know what Psalms are. The ambiguous nature to the term _hymms and spiritual songs_ are my contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sean,
I apologize; I stand corrected. I guess I did say that. Are the terms not ambiguous? If they are not, then why is there such grappling over the topic? I'd love to settle this.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Ok. So what is an EP thread if this isn't one now?
On the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs question see the recent audio by Dr. Bacon. 
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/Audiofiles/2006/A60521P.mp3


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Ok. So what is an EP thread if this isn't one now?
> On the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs question see the recent audio by Dr. Bacon.
> http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/Audiofiles/2006/A60521P.mp3



Not familiar with Dr.Bacon - what church? website?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

My pastor since 1992ish. Dr. Richard Bacon. www.fpcr.org


----------



## panta dokimazete

Just popping in:

1Co 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

If one were to examine this verse in context - it seems to be saying that when they assembled, each one had *a* psalm - not one of *the* Psalms - grouped along with other not strictly canonical contextual items.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Just popping in:
> 
> 1Co 14:26
> What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
> 
> If one were to examine this verse in context - it seems to be saying that when they assembled, each one had *a* psalm - not one of *the* Psalms - grouped along with other not strictly canonical contextual items.


This text actually came up during our evening study at church last night. As far as I can tell, there are two possible interpretations of the passage. (And we can include verse 15, "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." The word "sing" in verse 15 is the Greek _psalo_ -- we could just as easily translate it, "I will psalm with the spirit, and I will psalm with the understanding also.")

1. First interpretation: The apostle is referring to charismatic songs, given by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The context of the discussion in the entire chapter seems to favor this understanding. The larger discussion of spiritual gifts (prophecy, tongues, interpretation, etc.) would then be seen to color our understanding of the psalms here mentioned. Verse 26, "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying," since it speaks of several other charismatic gifts (tongue, revelation, interpretation), would be seen to speak of the "psalm" as also a charismatic gift. Such charismatic psalms would have passed away with the close of the canon of Scripture.

2. Second interpretation: The apostle is referring to the Psalms of the Old Testament. I myself tend to favor this understanding (although the above is taken by most scholars today), for a couple reasons. (1.) *All other uses* of the word "psalm," in either noun or verb form, in the NT clearly refer to the Psalms of the OT. I do not think it reasonable to suppose that this passage would provide a lone exception to that rule. (2.) All recognize that the early church, at this time, sang from the Psalms of the OT. Why would a reference to singing psalms, in that period, *not* be a reference to the Psalms of the Bible? (The argument that it says *a* psalm, not *the* Psalms, makes no sense. We sang *a* Psalm last night at church. The context, emphasizing the lack of order and harmony that existed in the Corinthian church at that time, is highlighted by each individual having *a* Psalm, *a* doctrine, etc.) (3.) The early Christians were said to "have a psalm." If that is grouped with the last three items mentioned, it favors the above interpretation; if it is grouped with "hath a doctrine," it would seem to favor this interpretation, because people didn't receive "doctrines" as charismatic gifts. Christians would then be said to have had *a psalm, a doctrine* (non-charismatic examples of previous revelation), and to have had *a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation* (charismatic gifts). (4.) While the other items mentioned as charismatic gifts (tongues, revelations, interpretations) are throughout this passage, and in other passages, identified as charismatic gifts, psalms are nowhere expressly identified as such. Except for these passing references (1 Cor. 14:15, 26), they do not appear in any context that would even suggest such an understanding.

No matter which interpretation one takes, this passage cannot militate against exclusive psalmody. Obviously, if they were singing Psalms, that would serve as a further confirmation of our position. But even if they were singing "charismatic psalms," given by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, our position still stands. (1.) This gifting of "charismatic psalms" would have ceased with the close of the canon, along with the other gifts, so that it would provide no rule for us to follow today. (2.) Since these would have been inspired songs, that could provide no warrant for the composition and singing of uninspired songs in worship today. (3.) Their singing such songs at that time would not militate against exclusive psalmody, any more than their exercise of prophetic gifts would militate against _sola scriptura._ The Psalms have been authorized by God for the perpetual use of His church; these were not. They were, however, authorized by Him for other purposes, which purposes they fulfilled -- just as prophecies which never became inscripturated were true prophecies authorized by Him, that served their purpose, without becoming a perpetual rule of faith and life to the church.

So how do you understand the passage?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _kaalvenist_
> 
> 1.) All other uses of the word "psalm," in either noun or verb form, in the NT clearly refer to the Psalms of the OT.



Let's see...


Search on *Psalm*

*Ac 13:33 
that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second *Psalm*, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'

oti tauthn o yeov ekpeplhrwken toiv teknoiv autwn hmin anasthsav Ihsoun [ wv kai en tw qalmw tw deuterw gegraptai uiov mou ei su egw Shmeron gegennhka se

*Ac 13:35 
"Therefore He also says in another *Psalm*, 'YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.' 

Dio kai en eterw Legei ou dwseiv ton osion sou idein diafyoran

1Co 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has *a psalm*, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 

ti oun estin adelfoi otan sunerchsye ekastov umwn qalmon exei didaxhn exei glwssan exei apokaluqin exei ermhneian exei panta prov oikodomhn genesyw

........................................................

Search on *Psalms*

*Lu 20:42 
"For David himself says in the book of *Psalms*, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY 

RIGHT HAND, 
kai autov dabid Legei en biblw qalmwn eipen o kuriov tw kuriw mou kayou ek dexiwn mou

*Lu 24:44 
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, 

that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and *the Psalms* must be fulfilled."

eipen de autoiv outoi oi logoi ouv elalhsa, prov umav eti wn sun umin oti dei plhrwyhnai panta ta gegrammena en tw nomw mwsewv kai profhtaiv kai qalmoiv peri emou

*Ac 1:20 
"For it is written in *the book of Psalms*, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'

gegraptai gar en biblw qalmwn genhyhtw h epauliv autou erhmov kai Mh estw o katoikwn en auth kai thn episkophn autou laboi eterov

Eph 5:19 
speaking to one another in *psalms* and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

lalountev eautoiv qalmoiv kai umnoiv kai wdaiv pneumatikaiv adontev kai qallontev en th kardia umwn tw kuriw

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

o logov tou Xristou enoikeitw en umin plousiwv en pash sofia didaskontev kai nouyetountev eautouv qalmoiv kai umnoiv kai wdaiv pneumatikaiv en xariti adontev en th kardia umwn tw kuriw

.........................................................

So - let's see:

1. Out of 8 verses in the NT that mention the word Psalm - roughly half refer specifically to the *Book of Psalms* - in a non-singing context - as Scripture

2. The others mention psalms in an informal context, that is, as a song for singing.

Two of the 8 verses use it in context with other contemporary *types* of songs for singing.

That is - the 2 other forms mention were generally understood types of non-canonical "uninspired" composition.

We know for certain Hymns were a recognized non-canonical "uninspired" compositional type - normatively a song witten to a god/demigod:

see - 

"Hymn to the Muse" by Mesomedes 

The Homeric Hymns

The Orphic Hymn to Athena

Paul doubtlessly would have considered the Book of Psalms and a psalm (most likely a canonical song) in general on a higher plain than the hymn, yet understood the usefulness of the hymn as a form for elevating Christ as deity among Greek/Roman culture.

........................................................

I'll get to spititual song in a bit.

http://www.google.com/search?num=10...6-04,GGLG:en&q=ancient+greek+hymn&btnG=Search

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/HM.html

http://www.commonplacebook.com/inspire/athena/hymns.shtm

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciCozm.htm

-JD

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _kaalvenist_
> 
> 1.) All other uses of the word "psalm," in either noun or verb form, in the NT clearly refer to the Psalms of the OT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> 
> Search on *Psalm*
> 
> *Ac 13:33
> that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second *Psalm*, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'
> 
> oti tauthn o yeov ekpeplhrwken toiv teknoiv autwn hmin anasthsav Ihsoun [ wv kai en tw qalmw tw deuterw gegraptai uiov mou ei su egw Shmeron gegennhka se
> 
> *Ac 13:35
> "Therefore He also says in another *Psalm*, 'YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.'
> 
> Dio kai en eterw Legei ou dwseiv ton osion sou idein diafyoran
> 
> 1Co 14:26
> What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has *a psalm*, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
> 
> ti oun estin adelfoi otan sunerchsye ekastov umwn qalmon exei didaxhn exei glwssan exei apokaluqin exei ermhneian exei panta prov oikodomhn genesyw
> 
> ........................................................
> 
> Search on *Psalms*
> 
> *Lu 20:42
> "For David himself says in the book of *Psalms*, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY
> 
> RIGHT HAND,
> kai autov dabid Legei en biblw qalmwn eipen o kuriov tw kuriw mou kayou ek dexiwn mou
> 
> *Lu 24:44
> Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you,
> 
> that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and *the Psalms* must be fulfilled."
> 
> eipen de autoiv outoi oi logoi ouv elalhsa, prov umav eti wn sun umin oti dei plhrwyhnai panta ta gegrammena en tw nomw mwsewv kai profhtaiv kai qalmoiv peri emou
> 
> *Ac 1:20
> "For it is written in *the book of Psalms*, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
> 
> gegraptai gar en biblw qalmwn genhyhtw h epauliv autou erhmov kai Mh estw o katoikwn en auth kai thn episkophn autou laboi eterov
> 
> Eph 5:19
> speaking to one another in *psalms* and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;
> 
> lalountev eautoiv qalmoiv kai umnoiv kai wdaiv pneumatikaiv adontev kai qallontev en th kardia umwn tw kuriw
> 
> Col 3:16
> Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with *psalms* and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
> 
> o logov tou Xristou enoikeitw en umin plousiwv en pash sofia didaskontev kai nouyetountev eautouv qalmoiv kai umnoiv kai wdaiv pneumatikaiv en xariti adontev en th kardia umwn tw kuriw
Click to expand...

Here are the results of my study:

*Psalmos* (Noun Form)
*Luke 20:42:* "And David himself saith in the book of Psalms (_biblo psalmon_), The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand." *Clear reference to the Psalms of the Bible*
*Luke 24:44:* "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms (_psalmois_), concerning me." *Clear reference to the Psalms of the Bible (note the lack of a definite article; it was still understood to speak of THE Psalms)*
*Acts 1:20:* "For it is written in the book of Psalms (_biblo psalmon_), Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." *Clear reference to the Psalms of the Bible*
*Acts 13:33:* "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm (_psalmo to deutero_), Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." *Clear reference to a Biblical Psalm (interesting to note that the Psalms already had their current order and numbering)*
*1 Corinthians 14:26:* "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm (_psalmon_), hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." *Text in question*
*Ephesians 5:19:* "Speaking to yourselves in psalms (_psalmois_) and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." *Almost all are agreed that it refers to the Psalms of the Bible*
*Colossians 3:16:* "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms (_psalmois_) and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." *Almost all are agreed that it refers to the Psalms of the Bible*

*Psallo* (Verb Form)
*Romans 15:9:* "And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing (_psalo_) unto thy name." *Clear reference to a Psalm of the Bible (quote of Ps. 18:49, LXX.)*
*1 Corinthians 14:15:* "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing (_psalo_) with the spirit, and I will sing (_psalo_) with the understanding also." *Text in question*
*Ephesians 5:19:* "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody (_psallontes_) in your heart to the Lord." *"Singing and psalming" -- since almost all are agreed that the "psalms" refer to Biblical Psalms, the "psalming" would also refer to Biblical Psalms*
*James 5:13:* "Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms (_psalleto_)." *Possible question as to its origin, though most believe it refers to the Psalms*

Note also that Acts 13:35 doesn't make the list, since it does not actually use the word "psalm" in the Greek: we would translate it, "He also says in another [psalm]." It is obviously a reference to a Biblical Psalm, but does not use that word.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> So - let's see:
> 
> 1. Out of 8 verses in the NT that mention the word Psalm - roughly half refer specifically to the *Book of Psalms* - in a non-singing context - as Scripture


Basically correct. And the *Book of Psalms* was originally given by God as a hymnbook, as the very title indicates, both in Hebrew (_Tehillim,_ or _Sepher Tehillim_) and Greek (_Psalmoi,_ or _Biblo Psalmon_).


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 2. The others mention psalms in an informal context, that is, as a song for singing.


Why do you suppose that a Psalm being mentioned for singing indicates that it is an informal context?


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Two of the 8 verses use it in context with other contemporary *types* of songs for singing.


Which are also other words used in contemporary literature for Psalms. See the article linked above; or, if that doesn't work, or if you want the footnotes, I can email you the paper.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> That is - the 2 other forms mention were generally understood types of non-canonical "uninspired" composition.
> 
> We know for certain Hymns were a recognized non-canonical "uninspired" compositional type - normatively a song witten to a god/demigod:
> 
> see -
> 
> "Hymn to the Muse" by Mesomedes
> 
> The Homeric Hymns
> 
> The Orphic Hymn to Athena


http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15129


> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 4. Many argue that the Gentile character of these churches determines how we should interpret "hymns" and "songs." The argument is then made that, because these words (in pagan Gentile literature) referred to uninspired compositions, they should be understood as such when they appear in these passages. I would briefly respond,
> 
> (1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.
> 
> (2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given special Christian meaning (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.
> 
> (3.) The singing of God's praise is a particularly specified element of worship, under both Old and New Testaments. It is highly doubtful that the pagan culture of the time would influence how this ordinance would be observed, any more than the pagan culture would influence the observance of any other ordinances of worship (preaching, prayer, reading of Scripture, baptism, the Lord's supper).
> 
> (4.) The "hymns" and "songs" of pagan Gentiles, who did not have the Spirit of God at all, would of course have been uninspired; this does not mean that the "hymns" and "songs" of Christians would have been uninspired, any more than the "hymns" and "songs" of Christians would have been in praise of pagan gods.
> 
> Joe Nesom writes of the word "hymns," "In classical Greek this word was used of a festive lyric written in praise of a god or hero. Therefore we understand a hymn to be a song that is of extra-biblical origin and employs us in the direct praise of the Most High." I note,
> 
> (1.) This points us to "classical Greek," rather than attempting to determine how the Bible uses the word "hymn."
> 
> (2.) It is "written in praise of a god or hero." He draws upon an obviously pagan usage to determine how a Christian ordinance is to be observed.
> 
> (3.) The definition he gives from classical Greek makes no mention of its inspiration or lack thereof; yet he still draws the conclusion, "_Therefore_ we understand a hymn to be a song that is of extra-biblical origin," etc.
> 
> (4.) He himself makes a confusion between the words "hymn" and "song." "Therefore we understand a _hymn_ to be a _song,_" etc.





> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Paul doubtlessly would have considered the Book of Psalms and a psalm (most likely a canonical song) in general on a higher plain than the hymn, yet understood the usefulness of the hymn as a form for elevating Christ as deity among Greek/Roman culture.


1. If Paul would have understood individual Psalms to be on a higher plain than uninspired compositions, why do you argue that he here lumps together canonical and non-canonical songs, so that he is essentially putting them all on equal footing?

2. Give me one undisputed example of an uninspired hymn from this period. Just one. That's all I ask. Until you do so, I regard the LXX. use of "hymn," Josephus's use of "hymn," and Philo's use of "hymn" (aside from the use of "hymn" in Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26, which all are agreed refers to the latter part of the Hallel Psalms) as defining Paul's use here, as contrasted with its use in pagan Gentile literature.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> I'll get to spititual song in a bit.


How did you manage to go from discussing 1 Cor. 14 back to Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16? My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)? not, How do you understand the three words, _psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais_? You keep jumping around; try to stick to one topic, or one text, and examine that.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by Kaalvenist]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Why do you suppose that a Psalm being mentioned for singing indicates that it is an informal context?



I should have said less formal in context of Psalms used as Scriptural support for spoken teaching, preaching by the pastor/preacher vs. singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs as congregational affirmation/praise in worship.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

[quotes]Which are also other words used in contemporary literature for Psalms. See the article linked above; or, if that doesn't work, or if you want the footnotes, I can email you the paper.[/quote]

Sorry - did not see the article link you referenced.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Sorry if it seems I am jumping around, just seems we are introducing more and more data into the conversation.

for instance - you say in your linked article:



> (1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.
> 
> (2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given special Christian meaning (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.



It is quite an assertion that Paul was writing and using "Christianized" vocabulary for common terms. Can you substantiate this or did you just make it up?


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you suppose that a Psalm being mentioned for singing indicates that it is an informal context?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should have said less formal in context of Psalms used as Scriptural support for spoken teaching, preaching by the pastor/preacher vs. singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs as congregational affirmation/praise in worship.
> 
> [Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...

I would deny such a distinction. I understand the Scripture to command the use of canonical texts for reading, preaching, confirmation of doctrine, singing. Why would there be a difference between reading the Psalms and singing the Psalms as far as formality, efficacy, authority, etc.?


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> [quotes]Which are also other words used in contemporary literature for Psalms. See the article linked above; or, if that doesn't work, or if you want the footnotes, I can email you the paper.



Sorry - did not see the article link you referenced.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire] [/quote]Not sure that the link is working now, or very often. But I still have it as a Word doc (hint hint hint).


----------



## panta dokimazete

> My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)?



My understanding of this verse is very broad and has many implications.

I Cor. 14:26 
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 

In context to our discussion - what are you asking? Is this about EP or RPW?

Could each of these elements be uninspired and used in worship? Yes.

(BTW - I strongly believe that tongues ARE strictly regulated and are, in fact, discouraged by Paul...as well as revelation (prophecies?))

Is Paul constraining the elements of worship to these items alone? No.

Is this what you are asking?

-JD


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Sorry if it seems I am jumping around, just seems we are introducing more and more data into the conversation.
> 
> for instance - you say in your linked article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.
> 
> (2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given special Christian meaning (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite an assertion that Paul was writing and using "Christianized" vocabulary for common terms. Can you substantiate this or did you just make it up?
Click to expand...

By this, I mean such words as _Christos_ having a significance beyond simply using a Greek word meaning "anointed" -- it has a history going back over a thousand years as referring to the Hebrew Messiah. "Redeem" has a meaning beyond a temporal "buying," which would be the immediate connotation in Greek language and culture. Again, "redemption" is a term used in the OT Scriptures to refer to God's salvation, both temporal and spiritual. "Elect" has particular reference to a specific Christian doctrine, etc., etc. The fact that both letters are replete with such terms that are not accompanied with a particular explanation of what each means, as contradistinguished from their common Greek usage, shows that he would have expected them to understand them with a Christian meaning. The fact that we don't immediately recognize this only shows how much *we* have become "Christianized" in our understanding.

Why is it that so many suppose Paul's use of these terms was being guided by pagan Greek usage, when they have a nearly unanimous testimony of reference to the Psalms from the Septuagint (the Bible he used, as evidenced by his OT quotes to the Ephesians), and the Greek writers familiar with the Psalms in that period (notably Jews), and the NT itself (Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26 referring to the paschal Psalms, Heb. 2:12 referring to Psalm 22:22)? Why do they think that "hymns" in praise of pagan deities have a bearing upon the determination of what Christians are to sing (especially regarding the inspiration or non-inspiration thereof)?

The word that we translate "Scripture" in our Bibles (_graphe_) simply means "writing" in Greek. Why do we not turn to pagan Greek literature in order to determine its usage of this term? Why don't we go to pagan Greek usage for how we should understand words like _kurios_ (Lord), or _theos_ (God), or other terms of like weight and import? Quite simply, because they have no bearing on such things. When the NT commands us to worship _theos,_ it commands us to worship, not some pagan Greek deity, but the God of the OT. When it commands us to read the _graphe,_ it is not referring to any sort of writing, but the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. And when we are commanded to sing _psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais,_ we are not commanded to sing hymns and songs in praise of pagan Greek deities; we are commanded to sing the psalms, hymns, and songs contained in the Book of Psalms of the Old Testament.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Why would there be a difference between reading the Psalms and singing the Psalms as far as formality, efficacy, authority, etc.?



Not reading - Preaching - surely you recognize the primacy, regulation and differentiation of Preaching vs. singing in worship?


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding of this verse is very broad and has many implications.
> 
> I Cor. 14:26
> What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
> 
> In context to our discussion - what are you asking? Is this about EP or RPW?
> 
> Could each of these elements be uninspired and used in worship? Yes.
> 
> (BTW - I strongly believe that tongues ARE strictly regulated and are, in fact, discouraged by Paul...as well as revelation (prophecies?))
> 
> Is Paul constraining the elements of worship to these items alone? No.
> 
> Is this what you are asking?
> 
> -JD
Click to expand...

JD, I'm asking you to give an interpretation of the passage (particularly the verses in question), give substantial reasons and arguments for that interpretation, and interact with my comments on the passage.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> Why would there be a difference between reading the Psalms and singing the Psalms as far as formality, efficacy, authority, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not reading - Preaching - surely you recognize the primacy, regulation and differentiation of Preaching vs. singing in worship?
Click to expand...

I recognize them to be different elements of worship; never said otherwise. All I was meaning is that the Word of God is still the Word of God, whether it is read, preached, or sung; and the Word of God is still authoritative for us, and effectual to accomplish God's purposes, whether it is read, preached, or sung. You seemed to be denying that in the quote I was examining.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> You seemed to be denying that in the quote I was examining.




huh? not sure I follow you...


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding of this verse is very broad and has many implications.
> 
> I Cor. 14:26
> What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
> 
> In context to our discussion - what are you asking? Is this about EP or RPW?
> 
> Could each of these elements be uninspired and used in worship? Yes.
> 
> (BTW - I strongly believe that tongues ARE strictly regulated and are, in fact, discouraged by Paul...as well as revelation (prophecies?))
> 
> Is Paul constraining the elements of worship to these items alone? No.
> 
> Is this what you are asking?
> 
> -JD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JD, I'm asking you to give an interpretation of the passage (particularly the verses in question), give substantial reasons and arguments for that interpretation, and interact with my comments on the passage.
Click to expand...


in context to EP or RPW?


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding of this verse is very broad and has many implications.
> 
> I Cor. 14:26
> What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
> 
> In context to our discussion - what are you asking? Is this about EP or RPW?
> 
> Could each of these elements be uninspired and used in worship? Yes.
> 
> (BTW - I strongly believe that tongues ARE strictly regulated and are, in fact, discouraged by Paul...as well as revelation (prophecies?))
> 
> Is Paul constraining the elements of worship to these items alone? No.
> 
> Is this what you are asking?
> 
> -JD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JD, I'm asking you to give an interpretation of the passage (particularly the verses in question), give substantial reasons and arguments for that interpretation, and interact with my comments on the passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in context to EP or RPW?
Click to expand...

The passages mention the practice of "psalming" (verse 15), and having a "psalm" (verse 26). My discussion of the passage above, posted at 10:08 AM, examined the question of the identity of these songs, and concluded that they were either OT Psalms, or charismatic psalms given by immediate inspiration (favoring the former interpretation). In discussing this text, not once did I mention the RPW.

Answer: EP.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Sorry if it seems I am jumping around, just seems we are introducing more and more data into the conversation.
> 
> for instance - you say in your linked article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.
> 
> (2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given *special Christian meaning* _emphasis mine: jdl_ (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite an assertion that Paul was writing and using "Christianized" vocabulary for common terms. Can you substantiate this or did you just make it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By this, I mean such words as _Christos_ having a significance beyond simply using a Greek word meaning "anointed" -- it has a history going back over a thousand years as referring to the Hebrew Messiah. "Redeem" has a meaning beyond a temporal "buying," which would be the immediate connotation in Greek language and culture. Again, "redemption" is a term used in the OT Scriptures to refer to God's salvation, both temporal and spiritual. "Elect" has particular reference to a specific Christian doctrine, etc., etc. The fact that both letters are replete with such terms that are not accompanied with a particular explanation of what each means, as contradistinguished from their common Greek usage, shows that he would have expected them to understand them with a Christian meaning. The fact that we don't immediately recognize this only shows how much *we* have become "Christianized" in our understanding.
> 
> Why is it that so many suppose Paul's use of these terms was being guided by pagan Greek usage, when they have a nearly unanimous testimony of reference to the Psalms from the Septuagint (the Bible he used, as evidenced by his OT quotes to the Ephesians), and the Greek writers familiar with the Psalms in that period (notably Jews), and the NT itself (Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26 referring to the paschal Psalms, Heb. 2:12 referring to Psalm 22:22)? Why do they think that "hymns" in praise of pagan deities have a bearing upon the determination of what Christians are to sing (especially regarding the inspiration or non-inspiration thereof)?
> 
> The word that we translate "Scripture" in our Bibles (_graphe_) simply means "writing" in Greek. Why do we not turn to pagan Greek literature in order to determine its usage of this term? Why don't we go to pagan Greek usage for how we should understand words like _kurios_ (Lord), or _theos_ (God), or other terms of like weight and import? Quite simply, because they have no bearing on such things. When the NT commands us to worship _theos,_ it commands us to worship, not some pagan Greek deity, but the God of the OT. When it commands us to read the _graphe,_ it is not referring to any sort of writing, but the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. And when we are commanded to sing _psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais,_ we are not commanded to sing hymns and songs in praise of pagan Greek deities; we are commanded to sing the psalms, hymns, and songs contained in the Book of Psalms of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...


So - Paul spoke to all Christians with the same understanding that the vocabulary he utilized would have "specialized meanings"? 

He mixed specific terms ("psalms") with non-specific terms ("hymns" and "spiritual songs") with the reader having "special knowledge" to discern that all the terms meant the same thing?.

This sounds very gnostic.

I think your foundational arguments are flawed.

-JD

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Sorry if it seems I am jumping around, just seems we are introducing more and more data into the conversation.
> 
> for instance - you say in your linked article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.
> 
> (2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given *special Christian meaning* _emphasis mine: jdl_ (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite an assertion that Paul was writing and using "Christianized" vocabulary for common terms. Can you substantiate this or did you just make it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By this, I mean such words as _Christos_ having a significance beyond simply using a Greek word meaning "anointed" -- it has a history going back over a thousand years as referring to the Hebrew Messiah. "Redeem" has a meaning beyond a temporal "buying," which would be the immediate connotation in Greek language and culture. Again, "redemption" is a term used in the OT Scriptures to refer to God's salvation, both temporal and spiritual. "Elect" has particular reference to a specific Christian doctrine, etc., etc. The fact that both letters are replete with such terms that are not accompanied with a particular explanation of what each means, as contradistinguished from their common Greek usage, shows that he would have expected them to understand them with a Christian meaning. The fact that we don't immediately recognize this only shows how much *we* have become "Christianized" in our understanding.
> 
> Why is it that so many suppose Paul's use of these terms was being guided by pagan Greek usage, when they have a nearly unanimous testimony of reference to the Psalms from the Septuagint (the Bible he used, as evidenced by his OT quotes to the Ephesians), and the Greek writers familiar with the Psalms in that period (notably Jews), and the NT itself (Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26 referring to the paschal Psalms, Heb. 2:12 referring to Psalm 22:22)? Why do they think that "hymns" in praise of pagan deities have a bearing upon the determination of what Christians are to sing (especially regarding the inspiration or non-inspiration thereof)?
> 
> The word that we translate "Scripture" in our Bibles (_graphe_) simply means "writing" in Greek. Why do we not turn to pagan Greek literature in order to determine its usage of this term? Why don't we go to pagan Greek usage for how we should understand words like _kurios_ (Lord), or _theos_ (God), or other terms of like weight and import? Quite simply, because they have no bearing on such things. When the NT commands us to worship _theos,_ it commands us to worship, not some pagan Greek deity, but the God of the OT. When it commands us to read the _graphe,_ it is not referring to any sort of writing, but the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. And when we are commanded to sing _psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais,_ we are not commanded to sing hymns and songs in praise of pagan Greek deities; we are commanded to sing the psalms, hymns, and songs contained in the Book of Psalms of the Old Testament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So - Paul spoke to all Christians with the same understanding that the vocabulary he utilized would have "specialized meanings"?
> 
> He mixed specific terms ("psalms") with non-specific terms ("hymns" and "spiritual songs") with the reader having "special knowledge" to discern that all the terms meant the same thing?.
> 
> This sounds very gnostic.
> 
> I think your foundational arguments are flawed.
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...

And I think you aren't reading my posts. I fail to see any degree of interaction with my argument at its most basic level.

1. You fail to show where my "foundational arguments are flawed."

2. You confuse my argument (that certain terms have different meanings and connotations for Christians than for pagans, primarily because of the OT background of their usage) with Gnosticism (that certain Christians have a special knowledge of more deep and spiritual things, many of which are obviously heretical, which position was actively opposed by John in his gospel and epistles).

3. Your basis for rejecting my position is an _ad hominem_ charge of Gnosticism, which you do not prove, and which is not related (as shown in point 2).

4. You have consistently failed to interact with the use of _humnos_ in the LXX. version of the Psalms, as well as in writers of the period (both canonical and extra-canonical) who were familiar with the Psalms. (Incidentally, the fact that Josephus and Philo also used _humnos_ to refer to Biblical Psalms demonstrates that it is not a simply "Christian" or NT understanding of the term; it is a BIBLICAL (OT included) understanding of the term.)

This debate has been going for a while now. "Let me explain...no, there is no time. Let me sum up." (Can you guess the movie quote?)

1. The charge that if we are consistent, we should sing in Hebrew, has been answered repeatedly, with no substantiation of the charge (the charge was in fact based upon a straw-man of our position).

2. The argument that the content of our songs falls under the RPW (since particular songs with established content have been appointed) has not been answered.

3. The literary device of using several (synonymous) terms to refer to the same thing, with over one hundred verses cited as proof thereof, was never shown to be erroneous; nor was it demonstrated that this is irrelevant, and the only relevant discussion is Paul's use of _kai_ in this regard.

4. Although several Scripture phrases and passages have been cited as proof of the warrant for hymn-singing ("new songs," 1 Cor. 14, "hymns and spiritual songs"), there has been no attempt to give an interpretation of any of those texts, or demonstrate how they lead us, by good and necessary consequence, to the composition and singing of non-canonical or uninspired songs.

5. Reference was made to Pliny's letter. A link was provided to a recent discussion of the pertinent section of that letter, because no hymn-singer had chosen to interact with the actual text in question, or my observations thereupon. To date, the letter has still not been subjected to a thorough examination by a hymn-singer, although it continues to be cited as proof of hymn-singing in the early church.

6. My appeal to every commentator on Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, that _humnesantes_ refers to the singing of the Hallel Psalms at the close of the Passover meal, has still not been answered.

7. My argument for a Christian (or Biblical) understanding of the terms in Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16, was glossed over with an _ad hominem_ reference to Gnosticism.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> This debate has been going for a while now. "Let me explain...no, there is no time. Let me sum up." (Can you guess the movie quote?)



Buttercup is marrying Humperdinck in little less than half an hour. So all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape - after I kill Count Reugen.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> This debate has been going for a while now. "Let me explain...no, there is no time. Let me sum up." (Can you guess the movie quote?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buttercup is marrying Humperdinck in little less than half an hour. So all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape - after I kill Count Reugen.
Click to expand...

*YES!!!*  You gotta love "The Princess Bride"!!! (And no, the topic of the thread is not changing. This was just a brief digression. )


----------



## Augusta

Have fun storming the castle!!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I'm in the mood for a nice MLT right about now, you know, mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is lean and the tomato is ripe.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I'm in the mood for a nice MLT right about now, you know, mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is lean and the tomato is ripe.


 Just thinking about these quotes made me realize something funny. I have to occasionally fire an M4 carbine, and I always fire left-handed because I'm left eye dominant; but...

I am not left handed!


----------



## panta dokimazete

Just had a gyro and tzatziki with pita bread - trying to get more familiar with Greek.



-JD - posting from my Blackberry at the auto mechanics.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Ok - let's step back - I am not interested in answering your entire polemic - it would take more time than I have to research, compile and publish a rebuttal. 

I am interested in discussing the crux Scriptures and hermeneutic centered around psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Our entire disagreement centers around this. If Paul had merely said "...with the Psalms alone", I would be 100% on board with EP.

So - the issues:

1. Either all 3 song types are mandated and should be understood as seperate types - perhaps with inclusive elements, that is a psalm could be included in the type "hymn", but "hymns" are not strictly the Psalms and "spiritual song" may be a 3rd even more inclusive or distinct type.

2. Or - the Psalms are exclusively mandated and the term is inclusive, synonymous and self-referential to the terms "hymn" and "spiritual song".

Is this agreeable?

If so - I think we should start another thread.

Enjoying the discussion.

-pax-

-JD


----------



## panta dokimazete

Let's also agree on and define Sola Scriptura and the RPW.

-JD


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Let's also agree on and define Sola Scriptura and the RPW.
> 
> -JD


I think we're already good on RPW, which is _sola scriptura_ as it applies to worship. I thought your previous definition was good:


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Again, I understand what the RPW is:
> 
> The regulative principle of worship is a Christian theological doctrine teaching that the public worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible; that God institutes in Scripture everything he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else is prohibited.


It is only when you start expressing things contrary to this definition that I have a problem. If we can stick with this definition, we should be good.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Ok - let's step back - I am not interested in answering your entire polemic - it would take more time than I have to research, compile and publish a rebuttal.
> 
> I am interested in discussing the crux Scriptures and hermeneutic centered around psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Our entire disagreement centers around this. If Paul had merely said "...with the Psalms alone", I would be 100% on board with EP.
> 
> So - the issues:
> 
> 1. Either all 3 song types are mandated and should be understood as seperate types - perhaps with inclusive elements, that is a psalm could be included in the type "hymn", but "hymns" are not strictly the Psalms and "spiritual song" may be a 3rd even more inclusive or distinct type.
> 
> 2. Or - the Psalms are exclusively mandated and the term is inclusive, synonymous and self-referential to the terms "hymn" and "spiritual song".
> 
> Is this agreeable?
> 
> If so - I think we should start another thread.
> 
> Enjoying the discussion.
> 
> -pax-
> 
> -JD


I disagree.

1. I think we can continue our discussion on this thread, without having to rehash all the items I rehashed.

2. I believe that the more fundamental issue is the application of the RPW as regards song in worship. Are we restricted in our song to particular texts appointed by God for that purpose (EP), or are we at liberty to employ any text in song, as long as it is theologically accurate (non-EP)?

I consider that to be more important, because it treats of our presuppositions with which we approach the debate. When we discuss the "new songs," you approach them with the thought that we are not restricted to any particular text in song, and conclude that this refers to the composition of new texts for song. I approach them with the thought that we are restricted to appointed and authorized texts, so that these passages must refer to an appointed or authorized text. I then conclude that they refer either to the Psalms being used in public worship, or other particular texts authorized for an extraordinary use. We go through a similar process in discussing Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:15, 26; Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26, etc.

If I can demonstrate that particular texts must be authorized for them to be sung in worship, and you cannot demonstrate your position, or refute my position, or demonstrate that things have changed with regard to such regulation in the shift from OT to NT, I think that we will go a long way in answering many of your other questions.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> I disagree.



Why am I not surprised?



> 1. I believe that the more fundamental issue is the application of the RPW as regards song in worship. Are we restricted in our song to particular texts appointed by God for that purpose (EP), or are we at liberty to employ any text in song, as long as it is theologically accurate (non-EP)?



I maintain that if the key passages with "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" are resolved, there will be no questions about your position (EP), because your question then becomes moot, since I hold to the RPW and Sola Scriptura.

If my position is valid - that psalms and hymns and spiritual songs are all discrete, but perhaps non-exclusive, *then* we would need to begin to wrap RPW around the implications.

That is - inspired v. uninspired and canonical v. non-canonical, etc...

-JD

[Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I believe that the more fundamental issue is the application of the RPW as regards song in worship. Are we restricted in our song to particular texts appointed by God for that purpose (EP), or are we at liberty to employ any text in song, as long as it is theologically accurate (non-EP)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I maintain that if the key passages with "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" are resolved, there will be no questions about your position (EP), because your question then becomes moot, since I hold to the RPW and Sola Scriptura.
> 
> If my position is valid - that psalms and hymns and spiritual songs are all discrete, but perhaps non-exclusive, *then* we would need to begin to wrap RPW around the implications.
> 
> That is - inspired v. uninspired and canonical v. non-canonical, etc...
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...

Does this mean that if this question (i.e. regarding the use of these three terms in these two verses) gets resolved, you won't come back asking how to reconcile EP with "new songs," Pliny's letter, 1 Cor. 14, Luke 1-2, etc. etc.?

If that's the case, and the entire EP question can be resolved (for you, anyway) by an examination of Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, then I will happily do so.

If not, and you know right now that those would still be insurmountable issues for you, I recommend that we pursue my course (since it is basically an examination of our underlying presuppositions).

But if you would be convinced by these two texts alone, let's do it. And I would ask that you begin.

...Mind you also, I disagree with the statement that "*then* we would need to begin to wrap RPW around the implications." This implies that the RPW is a rather morphable thing without any definite shape (a "wax nose," if you will), and that we can make the RPW fit with us, not the other way around. But we won't go there at the moment.

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by Kaalvenist]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> Does this mean that if this question (i.e. regarding the use of these three terms in these two verses) gets resolved, you won't come back asking how to reconcile EP with "new songs," Pliny's letter, 1 Cor. 14, Luke 1-2, etc. etc.?



I think it would be the start of the perfect defense of EP - It certainly kills the "new song" as an entirely new composition mandate. As a matter of fact, it really is the extinguisher for most all subsequent arguments, in my book.



> If that's the case, and the entire EP question can be resolved (for you, anyway) by an examination of Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, then I will happily do so.





> If not, and you know right now that those would still be insurmountable issues for you, I recommend that we pursue my course (since it is basically an examination of our underlying presuppositions).



Loverly...




> But if you would be convinced by these two texts alone, let's do it. And I would ask that you begin.



Ok - do you agree we can do this in a new thread? I certainly don't mind keeping this one going - it just seems off the OP.

Name recommendation - psalms and hymns and spiritual songs - EP v. non-EP or somesuch.

If you agree - I will recapitulate a bit for folks to "catch up" - then will start my response.



> ...Mind you also, I disagree with the statement that "then we would need to begin to wrap RPW around the implications." This implies that the RPW is a rather morphable thing without any definite shape (a "wax nose," if you will), and that we can make the RPW fit with us, not the other way around. But we won't go there at the moment.



hmm - I consider the RPW a guideline, much as the WCF is - uninspired, thus fallible, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. 

SDG!

-JD

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Oh, yeah - I also committ to answering as completely and as timely as I can, but acknowledge that I am normally very busy, so there may be some time between posts.

-JD


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Ok - do you agree we can do this in a new thread? I certainly don't mind keeping this one going - it just seems off the OP.


Let's just keep this one going. And feel free to post whenever you're ready.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Ok - for our purposes - here are the 2 verses in contention:

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

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

my source

You, Kaalvinist, as an EP'er, contend that the words - psalms and hymns and spiritual songs - are all references to the same thing - the contents of book of the Psalms, correct?

I need your concurrence to continue.

_Edited to add:_
Oh, and just in case there is ambiguity - I proposed to recap if we moved to another thread.

[Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Ok - for our purposes - here are the 2 verses in contention:
> 
> Eph 5:19
> Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
> 
> Col 3:16
> Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
> 
> my source
> 
> You, Kaalvinist, as an EP'er, contend that the words - psalms and hymns and spiritual songs - are all references to the same thing - the contents of book of the Psalms, correct?
> 
> I need your concurrence to continue.
> 
> _Edited to add:_
> Oh, and just in case there is ambiguity - I proposed to recap if we moved to another thread.
> 
> [Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]


Basically correct. To distinguish:

1. I *do not* believe that every occurrence of the use of these terms in all known literature of that period indicate a reference to the Psalms of the Bible.

2. I *do* believe that, in this particular context, every term is here being used to be understood of the Psalms of the Bible; so that no songs or songbook are here being referred to other than the Psalms of the Bible.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 2. I do believe that, in this particular context, every term is here being used to be understood of the Psalms of the Bible; so that no songs or songbook are here being referred to other than the Psalms of the Bible.



Thanks - tracking to the epistles themselves (Ephesians, Colossians) - who do you believe would have been the audience? Mostly Gentiles or converted Jews?


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I do believe that, in this particular context, every term is here being used to be understood of the Psalms of the Bible; so that no songs or songbook are here being referred to other than the Psalms of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks - tracking to the epistles themselves (Ephesians, Colossians) - who do you believe would have been the audience? Mostly Gentiles or converted Jews?
Click to expand...

Mostly Gentile audience for both.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Thanks "“ staying within the epistles in question themselves:

Do you think Paul, as the disciple to the Gentiles, seeing he would have a mixed audience, but probably anticipated distribution of his letters primarily to a large group of Gentiles, would have used terminology that was very Greco-Roman culturally attenuated - hymns and spiritual songs - as a synonym for a song type attuned primarily to Jewish culture?

That is, wouldn't he have been terminologically *exclusionary* as opposed to inclusionary to remove ambiguity? Just as he is when describing sin?

Particularly in light of this verse?

Col 4

3At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison-- 4*that I may make it clear*, which is how I ought to speak


Aren't you also assuming that ALL the churches and Christians Paul would have been writing to would have a copy of the Psalms? I am sure all the home churches did not have a copy. Why would he direct them to sing the specific Psalms to which they may have had no access other than the occasional glance in the synagogue, if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief?

Also "“ did Paul refer to the Book of Psalms as a proof text in either of these letters?

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire - added Scripture reference]

[Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Thanks "“ staying within the epistles in question themselves:
> 
> Do you think Paul, as the disciple to the Gentiles, seeing he would have a mixed audience, but probably anticipated distribution of his letters primarily to a large group of Gentiles, would have used terminology that was very Greco-Roman culturally attenuated - hymns and spiritual songs - as a synonym for a song type attuned primarily to Jewish culture?


Yes. He is describing how to conduct a Christian ordinance. Christians (whether Jew or Gentile) would not regard a "song" or "hymn" in praise of a pagan deity as determining their use of the term.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> That is, wouldn't he have been terminologically *exclusionary* as opposed to inclusionary to remove ambiguity? Just as he is when describing sin?


If I understand you correctly, you are asking that if Paul is trying to limit our praise to the Psalms, he would use terms that specifically limited our praise to the Psalms, and would not have used terms that would admit of different understandings.

But the Psalms being sung exclusively to this point in the public praise of God's people, that would be the assumption under which God's people would continue to operate. Christ gave no directive to sing anything beyond the Psalms; and His example only confirms the practice of singing Psalms. There is nothing recorded in Acts to indicate that other, non-canonical songs were sung in praise to God. Now, we have two texts which employ terms which *could* be understood of songs in general (although they do not explicitly command the singing of non-canonical or uninspired songs); and could also be understood of the Psalms. Without a clear break from the heretofore universal practice of exclusive psalmody, that would be the continuing practice. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that this, in very clear and unambiguous terms, signifies a break from exclusive psalmody.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Particularly in light of this verse?
> 
> Col 4
> 
> 3At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison-- 4*that I may make it clear*, which is how I ought to speak


1. I maintain that Paul's language would have been clearly understood by his hearers to refer to the Biblical Psalms.

2. Many words appearing in these verses had a previous connotation in pagan Greek literature -- "pray," "God," "word," "mystery," "Christ." We understand these terms in light of the OT (as well as the greater light afforded by Christ and His apostles in the NT). Why do I not see hymn-singers turn to the use of the word "pray" in pagan Greek literature, in order to determine how we ought to observe this Christian ordinance; and instead turn to the OT?


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Aren't you also assuming that ALL the churches and Christians Paul would have been writing to would have a copy of the Psalms? I am sure all the home churches did not have a copy. Why would he direct them to sing the specific Psalms to which they may have had no access other than the occasional glance in the synagogue, if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief?


Yes. They would have had the Scriptures (not necessarily each individual, but at least the church), since the reading and preaching of Scripture is an ordinance which they would have observed, along with prayer, the administration of the sacraments, and the singing of Psalms. And I'm not sure I understand the line, "if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief." I am not here talking about synagogue worship; I am speaking of the worship occurring in Christian churches.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Also "“ did Paul refer to the Book of Psalms as a proof text in either of these letters?


Paul did not quote from the OT in his epistle to the Colossians. He quoted five times from the OT in his epistle to the Ephesians, twice from the Psalms.

Eph. 4:8 --- Ps. 68:18
Eph. 4:25 --- Zech. 8:16
Eph. 4:26 --- Ps. 4:4
Eph. 5:31 --- Gen. 2:24
Eph. 6:2-3 --- Deut. 5:16

As a point of interest, it is demonstrable from each of these quotes (with the exception of the quote from Zech. 8:16) that he was quoting from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic, because the Septuagint varies slightly from the Masoretic in all of those verses, and Paul follows those variations. The reason why it cannot be demonstrated from Zech. 8:16 is because the Masoretic and Septuagint read identically in that verse; which makes it likely that Paul quoted from the Septuagint in all five OT quotes.


----------



## panta dokimazete

*Response I* (give it a little time to settle, as I may edit it a bit - anything I missed, I'll see if I can get to shortly - feel free to start chewing )



> Originally posted by jdlongmire
> Aren't you also assuming that ALL the churches and Christians Paul would have been writing to would have a copy of the Psalms? I am sure all the home churches did not have a copy. Why would he direct them to sing the specific Psalms to which they may have had no access other than the occasional glance in the synagogue, if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief?






> _by kaalvinist_ Yes. They would have had the Scriptures (not necessarily each individual, but at least the church), since the reading and preaching of Scripture is an ordinance which they would have observed, along with prayer, the administration of the sacraments, and the singing of Psalms. And I'm not sure I understand the line, "if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief." I am not here talking about synagogue worship; I am speaking of the worship occurring in Christian churches.



I was actually speaking of the converted Jews continuing to go to synagogue worship being rejected for their belief in Christ. As for Scripture availability "“ how prolific were the OT Scriptures in that time, in that place? Would it be as common to have them in their entirety? I am sure there would have been some, but not widely available to every Christian and Christian community as they are today. I am perfectly willing to concede this point, though.



> _by kaalvinist_ But the Psalms being sung exclusively to this point in the public praise of God's people, that would be the assumption under which God's people would continue to operate. Christ gave no directive to sing anything beyond the Psalms; and His example only confirms the practice of singing Psalms. There is nothing recorded in Acts to indicate that other, non-canonical songs were sung in praise to God. Now, we have two texts which employ terms which could be understood of songs in general (although they do not explicitly command the singing of non-canonical or uninspired songs); and could also be understood of the Psalms. Without a clear break from the heretofore universal practice of exclusive psalmody, that would be the continuing practice. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that this, in very clear and unambiguous terms, signifies a break from exclusive psalmody.



You make a good point "“ the worship in Christian churches "“ particularly Ephesus - would have been guided by Paul´s words:



> Ephesians 2:
> 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by *abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances*, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,



"¦and understood that the synagogue worship ordinances (including their EP practice) in particular were no longer a requirement as they had never been recorded or ordained in Scripture and could certainly be considered "œman-made" worship.

So when God, though Paul, ordained the element of worhip song as psalms *and* hymns *and* spiritual songs, the early Christians would have understood that ALL these forms and styles of song could be turned to the worship of God through the Spirit of Truth.

And just as in the ordained element of prayer, the specific form was unregulated, while the content would be regulated "“ through Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

...just as in the ordained element of preaching, the specific form was unregulated, while the content would be regulated "“ through Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

...just as in the ordination concerning places of worship, the specific place was unregulated, while the content and elements, worship in spirit and in truth, would be regulated by the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Response I (give it a little time to settle, as I may edit it a bit)


A bit??? 


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> I was actually speaking of the converted Jews continuing to go to synagogue worship being rejected for their belief in Christ. As for Scripture availability "“ how prolific were the OT Scriptures in that time, in that place? Would it be as common to have them in their entirety? I am sure there would have been some, but not widely available to every Christian and Christian community as they are today. I am perfectly willing to concede this point, though.


If you'll concede it, I'll take it.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> You make a good point "“ the worship in Christian churches "“ particularly Ephesus - would have been guided by Paul´s words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ephesians 2:
> 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by *abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances*, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "¦and understood that the synagogue worship ordinances (including their EP practice) in particular were no longer a requirement as they had never been recorded or ordained in Scripture and could certainly be considered "œman-made" worship.
Click to expand...



1. At no time have I made any reference to synagogue. Why you continue so to do is beyond me.

2. The command to sing Psalms is not a part of "'man-made' worship," as you put it. It is a clear command of Almighty God in the Old Testament Scriptures.

3. I do not believe that "EP" (exclusive psalmody) is commanded by God. I do, however, believe that the singing of Psalms is commanded by God, and that no other songs have been commanded by Him to be sung in ordinary worship. EP is a belief and practice (not an explicit command), arrived at by good and necessary consequence from psalm-singing and the RPW.

I repeat: *Singing of Psalms is commanded by God.* It is not a ceremonial element of worship, and I daresay you'll have the darndest time to prove that it *is* ceremonial (especially given the repeating of the command in the New Testament, both by explicit precept and approved example). If you are arguing that singing of Psalms is ceremonial, then you must likewise maintain that singing of Psalms (and not just the exclusive singing of Psalms) has been "abolished" by Christ.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> So when God, though Paul, ordained psalms *and* hymns *and* spiritual songs, the early Christians would have understood that ALL these forms and styles of song could be turned to the worship of God through the Spirit of Truth.


1. Why you keep emphasizing the word "and," as though it had a significant bearing upon this discussion, is beyond me.

2. You have still not explained the difference, in the minds of early Christians, between psalms, hymns, and songs.

3. You have already imported your assumption that these can refer to uninspired compositions, without giving any demonstration whatsoever.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> And just as in the ordained element of prayer, the specific form was unregulated, while the content would be regulated "“ through Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...just as in the ordained element of preaching, the specific form was unregulated, while the content would be regulated "“ through Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> ...just as in the ordination concerning places of worship, the specific place was unregulated, while the content and elements, worship in spirit and in truth, would be regulated by the Holy Spirit and Scripture.


1. I think you have it somewhat backwards. Content was not strictly regulated for prayer or preaching, but the form was.

2. You are attempting to draw an analogy from two different and distinct elements of worship, to conclusions made regarding another, distinct element of worship; whereas the fact that they are distinct elements of worship mandates that we regard them as having their own appointment, both as to form and content, without the overlap you are suggesting.

3. The place of worship was particularly and emphatically appointed and ordained under the Old Testament. Christ, by an explicit statement to that effect, declared that such would no longer be the case under the New Testament (John 4:21). Without an explicit statement to that effect, you have no warrant to infer that we are to treat song in worship in a similar manner.

To recap:

1. The singing of Psalms is not a ceremonial command of the OT. I don't think even you believe this, although you argue as though it is.

2. You must demonstrate your contentions regarding the text (i.e., the psalms, hymns, and songs refer to three different things; they allow for the use of non-canonical or uninspired texts in song, etc.).

3. You must demonstrate that song is to be regulated in the same manner as preaching or prayer; or, if you accept my former contention regarding the regulation of song texts in the OT, you must demonstrate that this regulation has been relaxed under the NT.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Popping in...



> 1. Why you keep emphasizing the word "and," as though it had a significant bearing upon this discussion, is beyond me.



Because Paul's intent for the *and* - whether - "synonymous with" or "discrete from" is the entire crux of our discussion.

Paul's command is the command from God to sing *something*.

That is:

"one type of song and another type of song and another type of song"

vs.

"one type of song" and "another word for that type of song" and "another word for that type of song"

No?

Just trying to keep the goalposts in sight...

-JD

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Popping in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Why you keep emphasizing the word "and," as though it had a significant bearing upon this discussion, is beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Paul's intent for the *and* - whether - "synonymous with" or "discrete from" is the entire crux of our discussion.
> 
> Paul's command is the command from God to sing *something*.
> 
> That is:
> 
> "one type of song and another type of song and another type of song"
> 
> vs.
> 
> "one type of song" and "another word for that type of song" and "another word for that type of song"
> 
> No?
> 
> Just trying to keep the goalposts in sight...
> 
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...

1. Again, you emphasize the smallest and most trivial of points in our debate. You are not "keeping the goalposts in sight" by arguing in this fashion.

2. You fail to deal with my previous arguments regarding the common practice of using several synonymous terms to refer to the same thing or things (whether or not written by Paul, whether or not conjoined with _kai_). If you would like, and if you regard this as a new (or renewed) discussion, I can repeat that information, or clarify how it applies to the Pauline use of _kai._

Since it is demonstrable that the conjunctive _waw_ in the Hebrew Old Testament, and _kai_ in both the Septuagint and the New Testament, can both be used to group together either several synonymous terms, referring to the same thing or things, or several antonymous terms, referring to different things, the use of *and* in these sentences is not going to determine the debate. So quit emphasizing that word as if it manifests a clear differentiation between these terms.

3. Exactly. It is a command to sing *something* -- a command to sing an actual song or group of songs with an actual text, identifiable to the apostle; and not a command to sing songs that had not yet been written, and would not be written for another 1500+ years.

And this makes the 200th reply to this thread.


----------



## panta dokimazete

**this post edited and reposted below**

-JD

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

not trying to be a smarty pants, but for clarity's sake:



> <i>by kaalvenist</i> ...can both be used to group together either several synonymous terms, referring to the same thing or things, or several *antonymous terms, referring to different things*,



antonymous does not mean different, it means opposite - that is why I used discrete

SDG,

-JD

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

btw - am enjoying the dialogue...a nice, measured pace... 

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 1. Again, you emphasize the smallest and most trivial of points in our debate. You are not "keeping the goalposts in sight" by arguing in this fashion.





> So quit emphasizing that word as if it manifests a clear differentiation between these terms.



Sorry, bud - you aren't the rulesetter here and I will keep the goalposts in sight as we refine the discussion (iron sharpens iron ).

The intent of the "<i>and</i>" (kai) by Paul *as it relates to "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs"* is clearly discerned from a study of similar use in the epistles in question.



> Ephesians 3
> 18may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the *breadth <i>and</i> length <i>and</i> height <i>and</i> depth*
> 
> Eph 4
> 31Let all *bitterness <i>and</i> wrath <i>and</i> anger <i>and</i> clamor <i>and</i> sl<i>and</i>er* be put away from you, along with all malice.
> 
> Eph 5
> 8for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9(for the fruit of light is found in all that is *good <i>and</i> right <i>and</i> true*), 10<i>and</i> try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.
> 
> Col 1
> 22he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you *holy
> <i>and</i> blameless <i>and</i> above reproach* before him,
> 
> Col 2
> 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting *self-made religion <i>and</i> asceticism <i>and</i> severity to the body*, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
> 
> Col 4
> 7Tychicus will tell you all about my activities. He is a beloved *brother <i>and</i> faithful minister <i>and</i> fellow servant* in the Lord.



Nowhere in the usage of *<i>and</i>* in these verses does he use it to join equally synonymous terms.

It is utilized to join similar, yet terminologically discrete terms.

<hr>



> 3. Exactly. It is a command to sing something -- a command to sing an actual song or group of songs with an actual text, identifiable to the apostle; and not a command to sing songs that had not yet been written, and would not be written for another 1500+ years.





> I do, however, believe that the singing of Psalms is commanded by God, and that no other songs have been commanded by Him to be sung in ordinary worship.



Nope. Again, I contend that Paul understood that Gentile audience "“ steeped in Greco-Roman culture "“ would have understood that they could use *any* of the song styles and was encouraging them to do so, particularly in light of his command:



> Col 3:17And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.



In the case of our discussion the "whatever" is worshipping God in spirit and truth with the approved elements, specifically in song. Obviously guided by the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

Thus the command to sing songs to God as well as the content *and* context for the different types of songs were inclusively authorized.

Which is why we can compose and sing different song types to God in worship today - songs that are, in content and context, spiritually and Scripturally sound to the Glory of God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

-JD

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

JD,

I should have spoken more carefully. I was wrong to say that the terms are synonymous. They are not. In my better moments, I have acknowledged the terms to be distinct (or discrete) terms.

To clarify, I do not believe that these terms are synonymous, i.e., that the term "psalm" means "hymn," the term "hymn" means song, the term "psalm" means "song," etc. I believe, however, that these three terms refer to the same thing.

In other words, a "psalm" does not necessarily mean, or is not entirely defined by the word "song," and vice versa. However, in the title of Psalm 92, "A Psalm or Song for the sabbath day," both terms are used to refer to the same composition. Likewise, in Eph. 5:19/Col. 3:16, I maintain that, while all three terms are not synonymous terms, or do not exhaustively describe each other, the three terms are being used to refer to the same book of 150 compositions.

One example that I had previously presented of Paul's use of this literary device was 2 Cor. 12:12: "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patiece, in *signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.*" The three terms joined by the use of two _kais_ are not synonyms. The term "signs" is not a synonym of the term "wonder," "wonder" is not a synonym of the term "mighty deeds" (one word in Greek), etc. But in this verse, all three terms are referring to the same type or group of actions. One could also turn to some of the examples that you cited *against* this usage (Col. 1:22; Col. 4:7, etc.), as more examples of this usage.

So you have, by your insistence on this point, helped me to clarify what I was saying/meaning. Thank you.

But I still contend that this is not isolated to Paul, nor to the conjoining of such terms by the word "and." I again quote from footnote 24 of my paper:


> The argument that this makes the apostle command us to sing "œpsalms and psalms and psalms" is of no force. (1.) Hymn-singers themselves are unable to substantially differentiate between "œhymns" and "œspiritual songs," which leaves their position open to a similar charge"”that we are here commanded to sing "œpsalms and uninspired hymns and uninspired hymns." (2.) The literary device of piling up several *synonymous (this will be deleted or modified)* terms, in order to refer to the same thing, is a very common usage in the Bible. Concerning God´s commandments, see Gen. 26:5; Exod. 15:26; 16:28; 18:16; Lev. 26:3, 15, 46; Num. 36:13; Deut. 4:40; 5:31; 6:1, 2, 17; 7:11; 8:11; 10:13; 11:1; 26:17; 27:10; 28:15, 45; 30:10, 16; 1 Kings 2:3; 3:14; 6:12; 8:58, 61; 9:6; 11:34, 38; 2 Kings 17:13; 23:3; 1 Chron. 28:7; 29:19; 2 Chron. 7:19; 34:31; Ezra 7:11; Neh. 1:7; 9:13, 14; 10:29; Ezek. 44:24; Dan. 9:5. Concerning human sin, see Exod. 34:7, 9; Lev. 16:16, 21; Num. 14:18; Deut. 19:15; Josh. 24:19; Job 13:23; Ps. 59:3; Jer. 16:18; 36:3; Ezek. 33:10; Amos 5:12; Heb. 8:12; 10:17. Concerning miracles (both true and false), see Exod. 7:3; Deut. 6:22; 7:19; 26:8; 29:3; 34:11; Neh. 9:10; Isa. 8:18; Jer. 32:20, 21; Dan. 4:2, 3; 6:27; Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; John 4:48; Acts 2:22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 7:36; 8:13; 14:3; Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12; 2 Thess. 2:9; Heb. 2:4. Concerning prayer, see 1 Kings 8:28, 38, 45, 49, 54; 9:3; 2 Chron. 6:19, 29, 35, 39; Jer. 7:16; 11:14; Dan. 9:3, 17; Acts 1:14; Eph. 6:18; Phil. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:1; 5:5; Heb. 5:7. And concerning the songs used in worship, see the titles of Pss. 30, 48, 65, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 83, 87, 88, 92, 108.


JD,

You have repeatedly asserted that the pagan Greek usage of these terms is what defines Paul's use of these terms. I say "asserted" because you have failed to demonstrate this point, to date.

(1.) I have demonstrated that Paul used several terms which had previous connotations in pagan Greek literature, which had been entirely divested of that connection, and which were determined by their OT usage.

(2.) I demonstrated that Paul quoted from the OT five times in his epistle to the Ephesians (twice from the Psalms), and all quotes were from the Septuagint; meaning that he believed his audience, Gentile though they were, to be familiar enough with the OT for his quotes to be understood.

(3.) I pointed out the fact that you (and others who oppose EP) rely upon a pagan Greek connection to these terms, to establish how this Christian ordinance should be observed, and that you do not treat other ordinances in a similar manner (prayer, reading and preaching of Scripture, etc.).

(4.) I pointed out that you have failed to show the connection between asserting that their pagan Greek usage determines their usage in these verses, with the idea of using uninspired or non-canonical songs.

(5.) I pointed out that you have failed to give even one example of an uninspired or non-canonical song that they sang in worship at this time (not surprising, since the first such songs were not composed until hundreds of years after this time).

Until you can positively demonstrate your position, and interact with any (or all) of these arguments against your position, I regard your claims on this text as rather hollow.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> So you have, by your insistence on this point, helped me to clarify what I was saying/meaning. Thank you.



You are welcome - you are still stretching to get to your conclusion. I may come back to that.

<hr>



> (3.) I pointed out the fact that you (and others who oppose EP) rely upon a pagan Greek connection to these terms, to establish how this Christian ordinance should be observed, and that you do not treat other ordinances in a similar manner (prayer, reading and preaching of Scripture, etc.).
> 
> 
> (4.) I pointed out that you have failed to show the connection between asserting that their pagan Greek usage determines their usage in these verses, with the idea of using uninspired or non-canonical songs.



How about the fact that the use of non-Psalmic hymns are recorded in the historical record *by a pagan*?



> Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD, wrote to the Emperor Trajan observing that the Christians sang hymns to Christ "as to a god":
> 
> "[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a *hymn to Christ*, as to a god..."


link

Do you think Pliny knew what a psalm was? You can bet he knew what a hymn to a god was. And please don't try and pull the _messianic_ psalms out as a rebuttal - what would Pliny know of the messianic Psalms?



> (5.) I pointed out that you have failed to give even one example of an uninspired or non-canonical song that they sang in worship at this time (not surprising, since the first such songs were not composed until hundreds of years after this time).



Actually, according to the historical record only about 70 or so years after Christ's ascension - plenty of time for the practice to have become common.



> Until you can positively demonstrate your position, and interact with any (or all) of these arguments against your position, I regard your claims on this text as rather hollow.



That's 3 of the 5...more later.

-JD


[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> (3.) I pointed out the fact that you (and others who oppose EP) rely upon a pagan Greek connection to these terms, to establish how this Christian ordinance should be observed, and that you do not treat other ordinances in a similar manner (prayer, reading and preaching of Scripture, etc.).
> 
> 
> (4.) I pointed out that you have failed to show the connection between asserting that their pagan Greek usage determines their usage in these verses, with the idea of using uninspired or non-canonical songs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the fact that the use of non-Psalmic hymns are recorded in the historical record *by a pagan*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD, wrote to the Emperor Trajan observing that the Christians sang hymns to Christ "as to a god":
> 
> "[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a *hymn to Christ*, as to a god..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link
> 
> Do you think Pliny knew what a psalm was? You can bet he knew what a hymn to a god was. And please don't try and pull the _messianic_ psalms out as a rebuttal - what would Pliny know of the messianic Psalms?
Click to expand...

1. You have shifted this from a linguistic or terminologic question (the meaning of the Greek word _humnos_), to an historical question (what Pliny was claiming that Christians in Bithynia were singing in ca. A.D. 115). You have entirely avoided the original question(s).

2. This can have no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the Greek word _humnos_ in these texts, since Pliny, who wrote in Latin, claims that the early Christians sang a _carmen._

3. I have already mentioned the thread that I began, in order to discuss that section of Pliny's letter. I have already discussed that point on that thread with some detail, and will not do so again -- not on this thread, anyway. If you want to examine the quote in context, and deal with my remarks thereupon, follow the link, and we can deal with that item there. Otherwise, quit mentioning Pliny, and deal with my actual points.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> (5.) I pointed out that you have failed to give even one example of an uninspired or non-canonical song that they sang in worship at this time (not surprising, since the first such songs were not composed until hundreds of years after this time).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, according to the historical record only about 70 or so years after Christ's ascension - plenty of time for the practice to have become common.
Click to expand...

You continue to misunderstand what I mean. I am not asking for a *reference* to a "hymn" (which, in this instance, does not explicitly identify itself as a Psalm or a non-canonical song); I am asking for *an actual text* of *an actual non-canonical song* used in that period for Christian worship. *That* is why I said there is no example of such things until several hundred years after this time.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can positively demonstrate your position, and interact with any (or all) of these arguments against your position, I regard your claims on this text as rather hollow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's 3 of the 5...more later.
Click to expand...

Not hardly.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> You continue to misunderstand what I mean. I am not asking for a reference to a "hymn" (which, in this instance, does not explicitly identify itself as a Psalm or a non-canonical song); I am asking for an actual text of an actual non-canonical song used in that period for Christian worship. That is why I said there is no example of such things until several hundred years after this time.



Whether or not I can actually produce a non-canonical hymn is irrelevant - although it would substantiate my claim - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (There are some that would present the Odes of Solomon c. AD 100-200)

Based on the word usage in the epistles in question, we have good reason to infer that the three songs types were not synonyms for nor a summary of the Book of Psalms.

We have histo-cultural evidence to infer that utilization of multiple song types both in content and context were understood to Paul's readers.

We have the historical record that presents evidence that a *song* "œwas sung to *Christ* as to a god" and that the historian would have had VERY little and most probably NO understanding of the nuances of the messianic Psalms.

We have Paul's own guidance in matters of word and deed.

We have Christian liberty in worship under the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Paul was referring to the Book of Psalms exclusively or commanding Exclusive Psalmody in Ephesians or Colossians.

-JD

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to misunderstand what I mean. I am not asking for a reference to a "hymn" (which, in this instance, does not explicitly identify itself as a Psalm or a non-canonical song); I am asking for an actual text of an actual non-canonical song used in that period for Christian worship. That is why I said there is no example of such things until several hundred years after this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not I can actually produce a non-canonical hymn is irrelevant - although it would substantiate my claim - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (There are some that would present the Odes of Solomon c. AD 100-200)
Click to expand...

1. My question was whether or not you could present an example of a non-canonical hymn used in that period. I certainly don't regard that as an irrelevant question.

2. The Odes of Solomon are debated by scholars, not only as to what time they were written, but whether they were even _*Christian.*_ After having read through the Odes, I myself question as to whether they had a Christian origin.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Based on the word usage in the epistles in question, we have good reason to infer that the three songs types were not synonyms for nor a summary of the Book of Psalms.


Read 2 Chronincles 29:30 and Psalm 72:20 in the Septuagint, and then make that claim.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> We have histo-cultural evidence to infer that utilization of multiple song types both in content and context were understood to Paul's readers.


You still haven't produced any argument on this point.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> We have the historical record that presents evidence that a *song* "œwas sung to *Christ* as to a god" and that the historian would have had VERY little and most probably NO understanding of the nuances of the messianic Psalms.


You conceded to Dr. Clark that we can't determine one way or the other based upon that line in Pliny. (And Pliny wasn't an historian, he was a Roman governor.)


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> We have Paul's own guidance in matters of word and deed.


That is what we are trying to examine at this point, if you'll avoid trying to summarize your argument which you haven't yet made.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> We have Christian liberty in worship under the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.


We have liberty to obey God's commands, not to disobey His commands.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Ultimately, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Paul was referring to the Book of Psalms exclusively or commanding Exclusive Psalmody in Ephesians or Colossians.


If you'll continue to ignore the evidence to the contrary, I daresay you never will conclude anything beyond what you currently maintain. But you have to prove your own case as well, i.e., that we have the liberty to use any (theologically accurate) text for matter of singing praise to God in worship.


> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> -JD
> 
> [Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> [Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]


Enough editing! Deal with the arguments, deal with the text; quit making conclusions based upon no interaction with my position or the terms/Scriptures in question.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> You conceded to Dr. Clark that we can't determine one way or the other based upon that line in Pliny. (And Pliny wasn't an historian, he was a Roman governor.)



I conceded that we cannot extract too much from the Pliny text. I would still contend that singing a song to "*Christ as to a god* " would fit a historical/cultural understanding that would probably have excluded the messianic Psalms as the reference and included other song types. Perhaps canonical based songs, but still not the messianic Psalms.



> Gaius Plinius Secundas (Pliny the Elder) was a Roman official and military officer who also wrote as a naturalist, biographer and *historian*.


http://www.answers.com/topic/pliny-the-elder

kaalvenist "“ the crux of our debate was that Paul´s command to sing psalms *and* hymns *and* spiritual songs in Ephesians and Colossians either were or were not referential exclusively to the book of Psalms.



> Enough editing! Deal with the arguments, deal with the text; quit making conclusions based upon no interaction with my position or the terms/Scriptures in question.



Peace, brother!

I have interacted with the textual, Scriptural and the histo-cultural aspects of this thoroughly and have drawn a reasonable conclusion.

Just because I have refused to be pulled off into rabbit trails, you assert I have not interacted or dealt with your arguments.

Your ability to assert (which you are very good at, BTW ) that I have not does not invalidate my efforts or my conclusions.

It has been a very fruitful and interesting discussion, thanks.

-JD

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

whee! 

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Ok then....

This one's done.



[Edited on 6-19-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------

