# Manifest Difference between EP and the Rest



## kceaster (Jul 26, 2005)

Could someone explain the difference between those following the RPW by practicing EP and those who are not EP?

If one group is truly worshipping God as He requires and the other is not, shouldn't the difference be manifested and manifold?

Purely from the RPW standpoint, we can see manifest differences between those who subscribe to it and those who don't. The difference between the Reformed and the Romans is one such example.

So what of those who follow the RPW more closely vs. those who see latitude.

Incidentally, I'm not advocating that the ends justify the means. I'm trying to ascertain real differences in the way God blesses or does not bless the means of each.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 26, 2005)

When singing EP for a while, you start to realize that you are memorizing Scripture. Singing is the easiest way to memorize something for most people. There are people in my Church that have almost every Psalm memorized.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 27, 2005)

but I know people who are not EP that also have most of all the Psalms memorized. So while that is a benefit to EP, it is not exclusive to EP, nor does it in any way distinguish EP from others.

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> When singing EP for a while, you start to realize that you are memorizing Scripture. Singing is the easiest way to memorize something for most people. There are people in my Church that have almost every Psalm memorized.



One could also argue that the memorization is imbalanced. Do those who have every psalm memorized also have entire NT epistles memorized?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

God's word is at enmity with itself?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> God's word is at enmity with itself?



No, but God's WHOLE word is important. Paul talks about the whole counsel of God


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

Agreed, but that doesn't make memorizing the Psalms by singing them inherently bad or inadvisable.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Agreed, but that doesn't make memorizing the Psalms by singing them inherently bad or inadvisable.



Absolutely not. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it *is* advisable to memorize the psalms - they are especially helpful portions of Scripture. My point was that because someone memorizes a portion of Scripture does not make for an inherent difference.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

Okay, I see.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Could someone explain the difference between those following the RPW by practicing EP and those who are not EP?
> 
> If one group is truly worshipping God as He requires and the other is not, shouldn't the difference be manifested and manifold?
> ...



Kevin, could it be that those who sing the Psalms, Church Hymns that are proven, and scripture songs, are just as pleasing to God as the EP camp because they come from the influence of grace upon the singers hearts and they magnify Jehovahs grace and goodness. Therefore He is pleased with both.

Let me ask another question. Is God glorified by a man who sings Great is thy Faithfulness, or Praise God from whom all blessings Flow, any less than someone who sings Old 100th?

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



Apparently He is. He is also glorified less by one who sings His praises from Exodus 15, or Isaiah 55, or any NT passage.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 27, 2005)

Easy, Fred...


----------



## kceaster (Jul 27, 2005)

I would also add that some churches, especially the OPC ones around me, sing Psalms every Lord's Day. At the church I am membered with, we sing at least three Psalms every Lord's Day between morning and evening. On the last Lord's Day of each month, we do a song service in the evening, and then we may sing in upwards of 8 Psalms. It's not that we don't sing the Psalms, it's that we don't exclusively sing the Psalms.


In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by kceaster]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I would also add that some churches, especially the OPC ones around me, sing Psalms every Lord's Day. At the church I am membered with, we sing at least three Psalms every Lord's Day between morning and evening. On the last Lord's Day of each month, we do a song service in the evening, and then we may sing in upwards of 8 Psalms. It's not that we don't sing the Psalms, it's that we don't exclusively sing the Psalms.
> 
> 
> ...





At the church where I minister, we sing two hymns and one psalm at every service (morning and evening).


----------



## kceaster (Jul 27, 2005)

BTW, we use the Book of Psalms for Singing. Let's hear a cheer for the RPCNA.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

We sing 5-6 Psalms in the morning. 4-5 at night. 3-4 during a Lord's Supper service.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 27, 2005)

Kevin:

It could be that your question is a bit biased too. Who says the EP is a closer following of the RPW? If EP is an over-regulation, then it is not a closer following of the RPW, but could be considered an "ultra" following of it, going too far; like we use the term in "ultra-Calvinism". In such a case those who are not EP, but yet Reformed in worship, are closer followers of the RPW. 

The way the question has always been put has put the onus on EP. They commit themselves to an assertion, which then has the burden of proof. That really isn't fair. For a while I've wanted to put the question in a manner that requires a postulation from both sides, leaving a double burden of proof. That would make for a fair debate. I've tried to do that before by asserting that it could be enforced as a policy, but not as a doctrine. I thought that might do it, but I don't think it caught on. What Matt is doing is a really good idea. I think someone from the non-EP side should cut and paste, and also write a dissertation on it.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 27, 2005)

Could someone who has access to the needed resources, tell me what the greek word is for "spiritual" and its exact definition is, in Col. 3:16? Thanks.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

Spiritual -> pneumatikoÃŸ

1. relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ; that which possesses the nature of the rational soul
2. belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God
3. belonging to the Divine Spirit; of God the Holy Spirit; one who is filled with and governed by the Spirit of God
4. pertaining to the wind or breath; windy, exposed to the wind, blowing


*Uses:*


> For I long to see you in order that I may impart some *spiritual* gift to you, that you may be established; (Rom 1:11)
> 
> For we know that the Law is *spiritual*; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. (Rom 7:14)
> 
> ...


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 27, 2005)

Thanks Gabe.

Gabe, what is the EP explanation of this word "spiritual" in relation to "songs"? What does "spiritual songs" mean to an EP? (I hope my question makes sense; I have more coming)


----------



## kceaster (Jul 27, 2005)

*John...*



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Kevin:
> 
> It could be that your question is a bit biased too. Who says the EP is a closer following of the RPW? If EP is an over-regulation, then it is not a closer following of the RPW, but could be considered an "ultra" following of it, going too far; like we use the term in "ultra-Calvinism". In such a case those who are not EP, but yet Reformed in worship, are closer followers of the RPW.



My presumption is that the RPW the way it is defined by the Westminsterians and their practice of EP would be the strictest subscription. I agree that EP'ers could be "ultras" as well. But if there is a significant difference between the two, there should be a manifest difference as well.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Thanks Gabe.
> 
> Gabe, what is the EP explanation of this word "spiritual" in relation to "songs"? What does "spiritual songs" mean to an EP? (I hope my question makes sense; I have more coming)



Songs composed by God's Spirit.

Also, there is good reason to interpret "spiritual" as modifying "hymns" and "psalms" along with "songs."



> *"The adjectival expression 'prompted by the Spirit' (pneumatikais) refers materially to all three terms."*
> Lohse, Edward. _Colossians and Philemon_. (ET, Philadelphia, 1971), p. 151.
> 
> *"... [the adjective pneumatikais] characterises all that the congregation sings as being inspired or produced by the Spirit."*
> Schnackenburg, R. _Ephesians_. (ET, Edinburgh, 1991), p. 238.



[Edited on 7-27-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> My presumption is that the RPW the way it is defined by the Westminsterians and their practice of EP would be the strictest subscription. I agree that EP'ers could be "ultras" as well. But if there is a significant difference between the two, there should be a manifest difference as well.



A critique against EP is a critique against the RPW as the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly understood it.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by RAS_
> ...



Is this synonymous with "inspiration"? Or can/does it mean something different?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

Yes, inspiration as with Scripture.

For example, when quoting from the Psalms, the author of Hebrews prefaces it with:



> Heb 4:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, ...




And again, we are not talking about songs simply inspired by God, but INSPIRED by God, as Scripture is.



> 2 Sam 23:1 Now these are the last words of *David*: The oracle of David, the son of Jesse, the oracle of the man who was raised on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, *the sweet psalmist* of Israel: 2 "œ*The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me; his word is on my tongue*.




David and the other Psalm writers didn't just sit down and write songs. God spoke through them by His Spirit.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 27, 2005)

*Gabe...*

I am not critiquing the RPW, but I also think that your assessment cannot stand either. You're assuming that the Westminster divines would be EP no matter what. I think that if they had our body of hymnody there may be more debate on that than what you may think. How many hymns were extant in 1650?

Again, what is the manifest difference between our views? We can see the differences between all those who say that they subscribe to the RPW and those that don't. Within this microcosm of all those who say they do, what is the manifest difference between those who are EP and those who aren't.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Yes, inspiration as with Scripture....
> 
> ...And again, we are not talking about songs simply inspired by God, but INSPIRED by God, as Scripture is.



So then should we read Col. 3:16 as saying "psalms, hymns, and _inspired_ songs"?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> I am not critiquing the RPW, but I also think that your assessment cannot stand either. You're assuming that the Westminster divines would be EP no matter what. I think that if they had our body of hymnody there may be more debate on that than what you may think. How many hymns were extant in 1650?



And you are assuming that they wouldn't be. Presuppositions on both sides perhaps, but at least EP'ers base theirs on objective evidence we have, not speculation.  How many hymns were extant in 1650? Exactly. That is my point. There is no need for them, God has given us 150 that are infallible, inerrant, and alone capable of truly edifying us by His Spirit and Truth. The Westminster Divines were not worried about running out of songs to sing to the Lord, or about not having enough that speak about Christ, or whatever else we might object. Neither was Calvin, Augustine, Athanasius, etc. 




> Again, what is the manifest difference between our views? We can see the differences between all those who say that they subscribe to the RPW and those that don't. Within this microcosm of all those who say they do, what is the manifest difference between those who are EP and those who aren't.



_Trust and obey, for there's no other way._ Loving obedience to God is always better than perhaps being disobedient, whether in ignorance or intentionally.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



My understanding that the word "spiritual" (re: inspired by the Holy Spirit) is properly applied to all three terms. I spoke to this issue in the previous EP thread.

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> So then should we read Col. 3:16 as saying "psalms, hymns, and _inspired_ songs"?



"... inspired psalms, hymns and songs" would be more along the lines of what I'm saying.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> And you are assuming that they wouldn't be. Presuppositions on both sides perhaps, but at least EP'ers base theirs on objective evidence we have, not speculation.  How many hymns were extant in 1650? Exactly. That is my point. There is no need for them, God has given us 150 that are infallible, inerrant, and alone capable of truly edifying us by His Spirit and Truth. The Westminster Divines were not worried about running out of songs to sing to the Lord, or about not having enough that speak about Christ, or whatever else we might object. Neither was Calvin, Augustine, Athanasius, etc.



I'm sorry, but I again cannot agree that the psalter is infallible and inerrant. It may be very accurate in its conveyance and contain the same ideas and concepts, but it is not the very word of God. 

Nor are the 150 psalms alone capable of edifying us. We shouldn't limit the Spirit in His work of edification by the Truth of God. I am edified by many things that aren't Inspired but still contain the truth of God. I am edified by you, brother, and you're not Inspired. I am edified by the WCF and it is not Inspired.



> _Trust and obey, for there's no other way._ Loving obedience to God is always better than perhaps being disobedient, whether in ignorance or intentionally.



So that obedience must manifest itself in some way in the RPCNA that is not manifest in the OPC. What is that difference? Again, we're talking about the one holy catholic and apostolic church. God has one people. So how is your obedience within the RPCNA manifested which manifestation is not present in non-EP denominations?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 27, 2005)

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



Gabe, disagreement is one thing, but it is frustrating that you keep ignoring his question.

If I understand him correctly, his question (and mine for that matter), is this:

*What manifest difference is there between those who observe EP and those who do not?*

We are not arguing over whether we should "trust and obey" God. We ALL agree on that. So your reply was not helpful at all.

Roman Catholics do not trust and obey God. They do not observe the RPW at all. And there are obvious differences between Roman Catholics and PCA/OPC/etc. Presbyterians that can be *clearly observed*.

Now, what differences can be *clearly observed* between pro-RPW-pro-EPs and pro-RPW-non-EPs? Does one group have a *clearly observable* advantage (spiritual or otherwise) over the other group? Remember that your personal musings about one group or the other "trusting and obeying God" don't count. We are asking you to point out some difference that can be clearly seen, like the differences between RCs and OPC people can be clearly seen.

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by RAS_
> ...



Let me try this for the dozenth time then:

so according to what you say above, it would be perfectly permissible and in line with Paul's statement to in Col. 3:16 to sing Exodus 15, right?

That is most certainly an inspired song.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> I'm sorry, but I again cannot agree that the psalter is infallible and inerrant. It may be very accurate in its conveyance and contain the same ideas and concepts, but it is not the very word of God.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Let me try this for the dozenth time then:
> 
> so according to what you say above, it would be perfectly permissible and in line with Paul's statement to in Col. 3:16 to sing Exodus 15, right?
> ...



I would say "no," simply because I believe this is a reference to the Book of Psalms, not _any_ inspired portion of Scripture.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 27, 2005)

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



Then why didn't Paul just say, "inspired Psalms", and stop there? Or to really get his point across, he could have said, "inspired Psalms, Psalms, and Psalms".

But it says (according to your view), "inspired Psalms, hymns, and songs".

Like Fred said, Exodus 15 is definitely an inspired song.

So, what reason do you have to say that Colossians 3:16 *certainly cannot* include anything but the book of Psalms? What can you exegetically show me that *definitely excludes* Exodus 15 from being included in Colossians 3:16?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

I guess the 'manifest difference' would not be largely measurable, just as it would be very hard to distinguish the difference between a person who is Particular Baptist and a person who is a Reformed Presbyterian in their views of soteriology, the covenants, etc. There are some differences (children being baptized), but the main thrust of the system is largely the same, with no outward, discernable, manifest differences in the people involved.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

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



Then you cannot say what you said above. You said:

"inspired psalms, *hymns *and *songs*"

You cannot have it both ways.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Then why didn't Paul just say, "inspired Psalms", and stop there? Or to really get his point across, he could have said, "inspired Psalms, Psalms, and Psalms".
> 
> But it says (according to your view), "inspired Psalms, hymns, and songs".
> ...



Again ...



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



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


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Then you cannot say what you said above. You said:
> 
> "inspired psalms, *hymns *and *songs*"
> ...



Wrong. Read the article quoted above. By saying "inspired psalms, hymns, and songs", I mean "inspired psalms, inspired hymns, and inspired songs" which are all references to the Book of Praise in the OT.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Joseph, Joseph,

If you only take a translation made of the Hebrew that is several hundreds of years later - and actually has a couple of significant departures in the Psalms itself, and then take the uninspired titles to the psalms added a couple of hundred years later, and then ignore the lexical meaning of words like "hymn" and assume that everyone knows the translation's superscription, even if they don't know a word of Hebrew, can't read at all, and are brand new to the OT, then you will se that it makes _complete_ sense for Paul to stutter and say "psalms, psalms, and psalms" but only not to say that, but three different words that _really_ mean psalms, psalms and psalms.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

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



Yep, it was among the weakest linguistic arguments I have ever heard the first couple of hundred times, and now +1.

But I suppose if you can't have words mean what they actually mean, you need to say something.

I suppose continually repeating it might convince 0.011% of Christendom, instead of just 0.01%.

[Edited on 7/27/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

From your beloved MT text, Fred:



> Psalm 76
> To the Chief Musician. On stringed instruments. *A Psalm* of Asaph. *A Song*.




Or how about...



> And when they had sung a *hymn*, they went out to the Mount of Olives. (Matt 26:30 NKJV)



Every scholar knows that they sang the Jewish _Hallel_ here, which was straight from the Book of Psalms. Yet it is called a *hymn*.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Yep, it was among the weakest linguistic arguments I have ever heard the first couple of hundred times, and now +1.
> 
> But I suppose if you can't have words mean what they actually mean, you need to say something.
> ...



With respect, your modern viewpoint is against the majority position of orthodox Church history. What the (objectively speaking) Church does today is _hardly_ a glowing recommendation for supporting the practice of a doctrine.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by RAS_
> ...



Gabe, thanks for your patience; I am open to your view. (I am trying to work through this step by step without just accepting assertions)

Would you mind explaining to me some things now that regard to where I am wanting to go with this? (Please understand I am not seeking to offend you or even challenge you as a non-EP. These are just things I need answered before I can be swayed. Please really think about my questons before you answer; rememeber, we are not trying to win an argument per se, rather, we are trying to build one another up in the faith through mutual christian love for God's glory. So please know these questions are nothing personal towards you.)

1) Is there something in the Greek that allows the qualifying word "spiritual" to be placed in front of the last subject of a list if it is actually referring to the whole list? Are there any examples of this in english?

2) if the greek does allow for this, then why do we translate it in english as only qualifying "songs"? Is this a translation error? In other words, if it is so clearly qualifying all three terms and not "songs" then why don't english translators translate it that way ("spiritual psalms, hymns, and songs", or "spiritual psalms, spiritual hymns, and spiritual songs")? I would think if it were so clearly referring to all three than it would be translated as such.

3) if the greek does not allow this, and "spiritual" is only qualifying "songs", then what gives us the right to mess with these inpsired words of God? If we can't sing unispired music, then what gives us the right to translate something in a way that it was not inspired?

4) you gave me the definitons of the word "spiritual" in an above post. Nowhere is it defined as "inspired". What gives us the right to make "spiritual" mean "inspired" when it doesn't? Obviously the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes and inspired this verse also, so why is the word then "spiritual" and not "inspired"?

5)in the other uses of the word "spiritual" throughout scripture (that you posted above), spiritual seems to be a contrast between "that which is consistent with the Spirit"(e.g. truth) and "that which is not", and not a contrast between inspired and non-inspired. Why does "spiritual" then mean "inspired" in Col. 3:16?

6) some of our hermenuetic rules are the anology of faith, the historical-grammatical context of the author, and immediate context. With this in mind, should we not interpret colossians 3:16 in light of all of Colossians first, before we jump to the psalms to interpret it? Does Paul's theme of wisdom and the fact that his audience is Gentile have anything to do with understanding "spiritual"? In the broader context of Colossians, Paul seems to be making contrasts between the spiritual and the non-spiritual, (or between what is consistent with the Spirit, the Faith, etc. and what is not consistent with it), not contrasts between inspired and uninspired. 

7)If Paul was referring all three (psalms, hymns, songs) to the book of psalms (which is inspired) then why would he need to qualify them all with "spiritual" or "inspired"? Wouldn't they already know this if they have the OT with them (as you have asserted earlier to Fred that they did, but did not prove)?


As an aside question, I'd like to know if EP's think that everyone who is not EP is actually practicing idolatry, and are therefore false worshippers. No one here has said this yet, but I can't help but think it is the logical conclusion and/or an unspoken thought.

Something from Ed Clowney:...."Those who insist that the church should sing biblical psalms exclusively need to consider more carefully the apostle's words in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:18-20. It is the wisdom that is the enduement of the Spirit-filled church, taught by the Word of Christ, that enables them to admonish and teach one another; they do so in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Paul's expression shows that he is thinking of the wisdom, that composes psalms, and therefore not of the psalms of David. Nor do his words refer to inspired compositions exclusively. The context of his use of spirituall wisdom in Colossians 1:9, his prayers for wisdom, and his charge to walk in wisdom show that he thinks of the wisdom of the Spirit as the daily need of every christian, not a gift of revelation to bring the Word of Christ." (The Church, p. 136)

Thanks for your time, patience, and answers, Gabe.

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by RAS]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

I will e-mail you the answers.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...




Gabe,

Please point out _anything_ in that article that excludes Exodus 15. I didn't see it in there.

Even if I accepted everything in that article as truth (which I do not), you would still be committing a logical fallacy. Just because you point out that the Psalms are "hymns" and "songs" does not prove that Exodus 15 is _not_ a hymn or a song. In fact, the text itself proves quite the contrary . . . it explicitly states that it IS a song! And not only that, it is inspired by the Holy Spirit as well!

So your article does nothing whatsoever to exclude Exodus 15.

Bad logic, Gabe. Go back to the drawing board.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I will e-mail you the answers.



Thanks, but the board will do. If need be after that, I'd be glad to discuss this through email.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 27, 2005)

Matthew posted this on a different thread or earlier on this one, but here are some of the linguistically challenged who held that Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 refer to David's Psalms. They all signed the preface to the 1673 English version of the 1650 Scottish Psalter, which says: _and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of "œpsalms and hymns and spiritual songs," which the apostle useth (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)._ The list includes Watson, Poole, Vincent, Owen and Manton, all familiar names I expect to lovers of Puritan books.
1. Thomas Manton D.D
2. Henry Langley D.D.
3. John Owen D.D.
4. William Jenkyn
5. James Innes
6. Thomas Watson
7 Thomas Lye
8 Matthew Poole
9 John Milward
10 John Chester
11 George Cokayn
12 Matthew Meade
13 Robert Francklin
14 Thomas Dooelittle
15 Thomas Vincent
16 Nathanael Vincent
17 John Ryther
18 William Tomson
19 Nicolas Blaikie
20 Charles Morton
21 Edmund Calamy [from the date this must be the son of the Westminster Divine by the same name who died in 1666.]
22 William Carslake
23 James Janeway
24 John Hickes
25 John Baker


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by RAS_
> ...



Brian Schwertley:



> The grammar also supports the contention that Paul was speaking of the book of Psalms. In our English Bibles the adjective "œspiritual" only applies to the word songs ("œspiritual songs"). In the Greek language, however, when an adjective immediately follows two or more nouns, it applies to all the preceding nouns. John Murray writes, "œWhy does the word pneumatikos [spiritual]32 qualify odais and not psalmois and hymnois? A reasonable answer to this question is that pneumatikais qualifies all three datives and that its gender (fem.) is due to attraction to the gender of the noun that is closest to it. Another distinct possibility, made particularly plausible by the omission of the copulative in Colossians 3:16, is that "˜Spiritual songs´ are the genus of which "˜psalms´ and "˜hymns´ are the species. This is the view of Meyer, for example. On either of these assumptions the psalms, hymns, and songs are all "˜Spiritual´ and therefore all inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bearing of this upon the question at issue is perfectly apparent. Uninspired hymns are immediately excluded."33 If one wants to argue that spiritual does not apply to psalms and hymns, then one must answer two pertinent questions. First, why would Paul insist on divine inspiration for songs, yet permit uninspired hymns? We can safely assume that Paul was not irrational. Second, given the fact that psalms refers to divinely inspired songs, it would be unscriptural not to apply spiritual to that term. Furthermore, since we have already established that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs refer to the divinely inspired book of Psalms, it is only natural to apply spiritual to all three terms. Since the book of Psalms is composed of divinely inspired or spiritual psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, we obey God only when we praise Him using the biblical Psalter; uninspired hymns do not meet the scriptural criteria for authorized praise.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Matthew posted this on a different thread or earlier on this one, but here are some of the linguistically challenged who held that Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 refer to David's Psalms. They all signed the preface to the 1673 English version of the 1650 Scottish Psalter, which says: _and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of "œpsalms and hymns and spiritual songs," which the apostle useth (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)._ The list includes Watson, Poole, Vincent, Owen and Manton, all familiar names I expect to lovers of Puritan books.
> 1. Thomas Manton D.D
> 2. Henry Langley D.D.
> ...



Chris,

Even Homer nods, and especially in the context of the divines - little to no congregational song at all, papist performance practices, etc., I am more than willing to believe that they (like me, and you, at times) are susceptible to overstating one's case or even being wrong.

Or were you going to adopt Owen's view of the New Covenant, or Vincent's views on polity?

The fact is, the EP position requires us to see the word "song" and to say not only that it means "psalm," but that it _cannot_ mean song! Why? Because singing the inspired inscripturated song of Exodus 15 is forbidden, because Paul commands to sing "songs!"

[Edited on 7/27/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Brian Schwertley:
> 
> ...



Or "spiritual" there has a meaning other than "inspired." Or are Christians an "inspired house" (1 Peter 2:5) ? Is the food that the Israelites ate "inspired" (i.e. made out of words of the Bible) (1 Cor. 10:3) ? Is the spiritual an "inspired" by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:15- that has great implications for cessationalism!) ? Are the sacrifices that we offer up as believers inspired (1 Peter 2:5) ?

This is my big problem with EP - not that it encourages the psalms and the psalter (I love them), not that it attempts to take the RPW seriously (that is a great thing) - that it takes liberties with exegesis and the meanings of words in order to come to a predefined conclusion. "Song" can't mean "song" (inspired or otherwise - Isaiah 42 is a NO-NO!), spiritual has to (MUST!) mean "inspired" when it rarely has that meaning in the NT.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I am more than willing to believe that they (like me, and you, at times) are susceptible to overstating one's case or even being wrong.
> [Edited on 7/27/2005 by fredtgreco]


Fred; of course we all can fail in this regard. My objection was to the linguistically challenged comment which I thought not helpful to the tone of the discussion.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> This is my big problem with EP - not that it encourages the psalms and the psalter (I love them), not that it attempts to take the RPW seriously (that is a great thing) - that it takes liberties with exegesis and the meanings of words in order to come to a predefined conclusion. "Song" can't mean "song" (inspired or otherwise - Isaiah 42 is a NO-NO!), spiritual has to (MUST!) mean "inspired" when it rarely has that meaning in the NT.





Fred, I couldn't have said it better myself!!! The Psalms are GREAT, and I wish more churches would sing them. But the doctrine of _exclusive_ psalmody is a sin against God for the reasons you give above. It binds consciences in ways that God never intended. And it diminishes the capacity of a church to praise God for the Gospel with full-orbed clarity. 

Like you said, the worst thing about EP is the liberties taken with exegesis. Ironically, in an attempt to exalt God's inspired Word, exclusive psalmodists end up making a mockery of exegesis within God's very Word, which makes of mockery of God's Word itself! I'm not saying it's intentional, but it is still a big problem.


----------



## daveb (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> Like you said, the worst thing about EP is the liberties taken with exegesis. Ironically, in an attempt to exalt God's inspired Word, exclusive psalmodists end up making a mockery of exegesis within God's very Word, which makes of mockery of God's Word itself! I'm not saying it's intentional, but it is still a big problem.



Saying EP proponents make a mockery of the Word is a serious charge. 
Would you care to flush this out?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> This is my big problem with EP - not that it encourages the psalms and the psalter (I love them), not that it attempts to take the RPW seriously (that is a great thing) - that it takes liberties with exegesis and the meanings of words in order to come to a predefined conclusion. "Song" can't mean "song" (inspired or otherwise - Isaiah 42 is a NO-NO!), spiritual has to (MUST!) mean "inspired" when it rarely has that meaning in the NT.



These outline my hesitation about EP also. Why is it that things the Scripture calls song (limiting to such "inspired" words, if one is to grant that interpretation for pneumatikos there) are no good unless they fall within the bounds of the book of Psalms? Exodus 15 is certainly inspired, and denominated by the same word "song", both in Hebrew and in Greek, that is found in the Psalms... similarly Numbers 21:17. Also, while 1 Chronicles 16 includes much text that is repeated in the Psalms (105 and 96 I believe) it is not identical. I gather that strict EP folk would not agree that singing the versification given in 1 Chr. 16 is appropriate. Again, why?

Thanks,

Todd


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Spiritual -> pneumatikoÃŸ
> 
> 1. relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ; that which possesses the nature of the rational soul
> ...



Andrew-
Thanks for the Schwertly excerpt. It answers my first question I gave, to Gabe. But the rest all remain unanswered, even if what Schwertly and you say in response to my first question is true. Fred has so marvelously simplified the points I was getting at in my questions. In light of my questions, Fred's concise summary of them, and the definiton of "spiritual" as quoted above, please show me where "inspiration" is in its definiton and what heremeneutical rules allow us to throw out the important hermeneutical rule of interpreting according to the plain meaning of the text, and for us to replace words with other words that are not synonyms?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Fred already said it better than I could have. EP proponents go through exegetical gymnastics in order to argue for Psalms ONLY, even to the exclusion of OTHER inspired songs in Scripture. And that is playing fast and loose with Scripture, which is a serious problem.

For what it's worth, I don't think EP is any more a sin against God than credobaptism. (Or, to be fair, I don't think EP is any more a sin against God than credobaptists believe paedobaptism to be a sin against God.)

I realize that EP proponents believe they are being true to Scripture. The same goes for baptists and paedobaptists. But _somebody_ has to be wrong. And whoever is wrong is sinning against God by holding to and teaching false doctrine.

I never said that the sin was _intentional._


----------



## daveb (Jul 27, 2005)

Thanks for your reply Joseph.



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Fred already said it better than I could have. EP proponents go through exegetical gymnastics in order to argue for Psalms ONLY, even to the exclusion of OTHER inspired songs in Scripture. And that is playing fast and loose with Scripture, which is a serious problem.



I've heard the charge but I haven't seen much by way of concrete evidence. I'm interested in seeing more from the non-EP side on showing how the EP side errors exegetically complete with their own exegesis of the passages.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 27, 2005)

> I'm interested in seeing more from the non-EP side on showing how the EP side errors exegetically complete with their own exegesis of the passages.



Me too.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 27, 2005)

I'd like to point out that in the LXX, there are 151 entries to the Psalms, including one UNINSPIRED addition. It's entitled a "Psalm".

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Hi Allan, 

I don't have time at present to answer all of your questions which were directed to Gabe, but I will try to answer this question about "spiritual" and "inspired." The normal, Biblical meaning of "spiritual" is that which proceeds from the Holy Spirit . When we say that our Bible -- including the Psalms -- are inspired (cf. 2 Tim. 3.16), we are saying that the Holy Spirit governed the writing of the words of men in such a way as it may and should be properly said that it is the very Word of God. Colossians 3.16 makes clear that the subject at hand is the Word of Christ, not the word of man and the context in Ephesians 5.16 makes clear that in so doing we are to be filled with _the_ Spirit, not _a_ spirit. All of this is consistent with definition #3 as listed above. It is not a stretch of any hermeneutical principle to see in these passages references to God's Word, not man's. B.B. Warfield says that the early Church "had in their hand the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and . . . derived their Greek religious terminology from it" (see G.I. Williamson's _The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God_). The terms used to denote the musical compositions commended and commanded by Paul all have reference to the Psalter then in use in the Church. The terms mean essentially the same thing, like "law," "commandments," and "statutes" mean essentially the same thing in Psalm 119. Yes, men may write their own psalms, hymns and songs, but they would not be inspired because they proceed not directly from the Holy Spirit and are therefore not spiritual in the sense intended by Paul. Thus, no one is "throwing out" any good hermeneutical principle; on the contrary, we are applying these passages in the way that Paul intended and the Colossians and Ephesians naturally understood, as has the Church consistently in the most Reformed times and places. Blaikie's _Catechism of Praise_ is most helpful in elucidating the principles involved here. I commend it highly. What Calvin said bears repeating:



> Moreover, that which St. Augustine has said is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God except that which he has received from him. Therefore, when we have looked thoroughly, and searched here and there, we shall not find better songs nor more fitting for the purpose, than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit spoke and made through him. And moreover, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts in our mouths these, as if he himself were singing in us to exalt his glory.



Like John, I have found this and similar current threads to be sadly lacking in charity, in contrast to a highly edifying thread on this subject in the fall of 2004. This is not at all meant to refer to you, Allan. Your questions seem to me sincere and open-minded, and very commendable. However, in light of the present circumstances, I will retire from this thread. I think there is little that I can say which would change anyone's mind which has not already been said. I would rather avoid threads that contribute more heat than light. Exclusive psalmody based on Eph. 5.16 and Col. 3.16, and the RPW (an extension of the Second Commandment), and in accord with the Westminster Standards is the historic practice of the Reformed Churches and geniuses like John Owen and other Puritans as well as average peasants and ploughboys (cf. Erasmus: "I long for the ploughboy to sing them to himself as he follows the plow, the weaver to hum them to the tune of his shuttle, the traveler to beguile with them the dullness of his journey.") It is really not a controversy based on which side is more intellectual, but rather, from my perspective, a desire to worship God as He has commanded, rather than according to will-worship. If you have any further questions on this subject, Allan, I'll be happy to discuss them privately. But I encourage everyone to look ahead to Matt's (hopefully) forthcoming treatise or thread on this subject. It should be very edifying. To God be the glory!


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Like John, I have found this and similar current threads to be sadly lacking in charity, in contrast to a highly edifying thread on this subject in the fall of 2004. This is not at all meant to refer to you, Allan. Your questions seem to me sincere and open-minded, and very commendable. However, in light of the present circumstances, I will retire from this thread. I think there is little that I can say which would change anyone's mind which has not already been said. I would rather avoid threads that contribute more heat than light. Exclusive psalmody based on Eph. 5.16 and Col. 3.16, and the RPW (an extension of the Second Commandment), and in accord with the Westminster Standards is the historic practice of the Reformed Churches and geniuses like John Owen and other Puritans as well as average peasants and ploughboys (cf. Erasmus: "I long for the ploughboy to sing them to himself as he follows the plow, the weaver to hum them to the tune of his shuttle, the traveler to beguile with them the dullness of his journey.") It is really not a controversy based on which side is more intellectual, but rather, from my perspective, a desire to worship God as He has commanded, rather than according to will-worship.



Andrew,

With respect, your last sentence is a prime example of why this subject (and not just this thread) lacks charity.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Andrew,
> 
> With respect, your last sentence is a prime example of why this subject (and not just this thread) lacks charity.



Fred,

With respect, numerous personally offensive statements have been uttered on this thread and others (not by all), impugning the intelligence and faithfulness of those who adhere to EP. I have attempted to avoid responding in kind. I am summarizing my basis for adhering to the EP position, because it is commanded by God's Word. Anything else, by definition, is will-worship. My reference to those words from Colossians is not intended as an attack on anyone, it is simply trying to get at the heart of the issue. The RPW is a Second Commandment issue, which means that one side or the other in this debate is worshipping God not as He has commanded but as they prefer. We know what you think on this issue. I have said what I think. I am sorry that that the application of the RPW divides so many otherwise like-minded brethren. It ought not so to be. May God be gracious to us all.


[Edited on 7-28-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 27, 2005)

Fred, would you agree - If someone does not believe in EP, then they would have to say (as some have already said in these threads) that Psalmists are sinning in their view by binding others' conscience. I don't think that lacks charity at all. If the Psalmist is wrong, he is engaging in will-worship as well. Correct?

If the EP is right, then the other side is engaged in will-worship. It would be impossible to say that the RPW allows for both since both cannot be right at the same time and in the same sense by definition.

If I say Arminianism is heresy, that's not a lack of charity, its the truth. If I say that Hynmists are heretics because of non-EP - that is most definitely a lack of charity.
If I say that Hymnists are in great sin and error - that is not a lack of charity if I'm right.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

When Paul said "hymns" and "songs" and "psalms", he was not saying "psalms" and "psalms" and "psalms." I keep hearing that. To clarify: psalms, hymns, and songs are all categories of sung praise contained within the Book of Praises (literally, in Heb). God has given us a Book of Praise, written by His Spirit, and David and others categorized them in various ways for various occasions. This is why we have praises that are called "psalms", "songs", "hymns", and sometimes two or more of these names for the same chorus.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> psalms, hymns, and songs are all categories of sung praise contained within the Book of Praises (literally, in Heb). God has given us a Book of Praise, written by His Spirit, and David and others categorized them in various ways for various occasions. This is why we have praises that are called "psalms", "songs", "hymns", and sometimes two or more of these names for the same chorus.



Could you point to some specific examples of different choruses in the Book of Psalms being stylistically classified in those different categories, corresponding to Paul's distinctions, as you said? That would be helpful.

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

If you look at a Psalter it is divided into three sections. I think the first section goes to Psalm 41. I can't remember the second division point. The first is the Psalms. The second is Hymns. I believe the Hallel is in this section. The last section is known as Spiritual Songs.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

Oops, I may be mistaken. My psalter has 5 books or sections.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Could you point to some specific examples of different choruses in the Book of Psalms being stylistically classified in those different categories in the Hebrew, corresponding to Paul's distinctions in Greek, as you said? That would be helpful.



Psalm 18: To the choirmaster. *A Psalm* of David, the servant of the Lord, who addressed the words of *this song* to the Lord on the day when the Lord rescued him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. He said:

Psalm 30: *A Psalm* of David. *A song* at the dedication of the temple

Psalm 46: To the choirmaster. Of the Sons of Korah. According to Alamoth. *A Song*.

etc...

The churches at both Ephesus and Colossae would absolutely not have used anything but the LXX as their "Scripture" at this time. Their understaning of Greek theological terms and phrases would be based on the LXX, as B.B. Warfield rightly points out, not Hebrew. When Paul says "psalms, hymns, and songs" are to be sung, any Greek Christian would've looked in their LXX and seen the multiple headings found within the LXX in the Book of Praise and put 2 and 2 together (or Paul would've already instructed them on this, or another apostle who founded these churches, etc.). Jesus, Paul, Peter, James all quote regularly from the LXX as God's Word. It was the most common Bible of the time outside of Israel, and had been widely used for almost 200 years by the time the epistles to Ephesus and Colossae were written.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

Gabe, can you refresh me to how the Psalter is divided? I can't remember.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

> *Song in the Public Worship of God: Part IV
> John Murray*
> 
> (4) We now come to the consideration of some facts which are even more significant than those already discussed. The Book of Psalms is composed of psalms, hymns and songs. We have already found that the overwhelming majority of the instances of these words in both Testaments has reference to the Book of Psalms. We now come to the discussion of the meaning of these words in the titles of the Psalms.
> ...



http://members.aol.com/RSICHURCH/song4.html


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Gabe, can you refresh me to how the Psalter is divided? I can't remember.



Do you mean the _Book of Psalms for Singing_?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

For anyone interested, there's several articles by many giants of the Reformed faith on EP here: http://members.aol.com/rsichurch/worship.html


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Yes, for some reason I had it in my mind that the book of Psalms was split into three sections. Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

There are five books of songs in the Book of Psalms.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 28, 2005)

Andrew-
Thanks for the reply. I hope the charge of uncharitableness doesn't apply to me, as you have stated. (I still feel a little weird though with my name being mentioned at the same time a lack of charity has been mentioned as a cause of concern) My questions _are_ sincere, and I am open-minded. I am not arguing for non-EP when I ask them, I just want the EP side to actually answer my (and others) personal roadblocks to coming to the EP side. This is not meant to offend or be uncharitable. Keep in mind that this whole issue is new to many of us, so it should be understandable if we want solid answers to our questions instead of just assertions. I think it is a sign of maturity to seek for reasons as to why you believe something instead of taking something to be true by a leap of faith.

I personally have been edified by this whole discussion. The more it goes along, the more I am convinced. I hope it continues.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> I personally have been edified by this whole discussion. The more it goes along, the more I am convinced. I hope it continues.



Take your time. God alone can convince you. I studied worship for over a year before ending up EP/RPW/Non-instrumental, coming from a background of playing guitar in a "worship" setting to uninspired, modern, heretical songs.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 28, 2005)

I have found this article by Gary Crampton against EP to be very helpful......


http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=63

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by RAS]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 28, 2005)

Thanks, Gabriel. In the Septuagint, how many different "categories" are there as such, other than "a psalm" and "a song"?



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> I'd like to point out that in the LXX, there are 151 entries to the Psalms, including one UNINSPIRED addition. It's entitled a "Psalm".



What would any of the EP adherants here make of this fact?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

The LXX uses the term psalmos (psalm) 67 times, humnos (hymn) 17 times, and ode (song) 36 times.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The LXX uses the term psalmos (psalm) 67 times, humnos (hymn) 17 times, and ode (song) 36 times.



Thanks. That certainly makes the EP interpretation of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 more believable than the "psalms, psalms and psalms" picture that was being painted of that interpretation.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Thanks. That certainly makes the EP interpretation of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 more believable than the "psalms, psalms and psalms" picture that was being painted of that interpretation.



Agreed. I personally think that Paul was saying to sing the various types of inspired songs found in the Book of Praise. These Greek Christians would have had no other Scripture _but_ the LXX.

John Murray does a much better job explaining all of this than I can.

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The LXX uses the term psalmos (psalm) 67 times, humnos (hymn) 17 times, and ode (song) 36 times.



So are the other thirty psalms unlabeled?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Some are unlabeled, some combine two or all three of these terms (psalm, hymn, song), some have labels but not describing what type of song it is.

The ESV has most of these labels if anyone wishes to browse through and look at them.

*edit:* Psalm 76 in the LXX is prefaced with:


> For the end, among the *Hymns*, a *Psalm* for Asaph; a *Song* for the Assyrian.



Psalm 76 is a psalm, hymn and spiritual song. 

Psalm 61 is prefaced with:


> For the end, among the *Hymns* of David.



Psalm 58 is prefaced with:


> For the end. Destroy not: by David, for a memorial.



Psalm 45 is prefaced with:


> For the end, for alternate strains by the sons of Core; for instruction, a *Song* concerning the beloved.



Psalm 83 is prefaced with:


> A *Song* of a *Psalm* for Asaph.



etc ...


[Edited on 7-28-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

Many have critiqued the Psalters used by EP churches as being gross paraphrases and uninspired perversions of God's Word.

Here is a comparison between the beloved MT-based KJV and _The Book of Psalms for Singing_ (the Psalter used by the RPCNA of which I am a member) on Psalm 98, for those interested in seeing the difference/similarity:

*Psalter:* *98:1 O sing a new song to the LORD for wonders He has done; His right hand and His holy arm the victory have won.*
_KJV:_ _98:1 O sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory._

*98:2 The great salvation wrought by Him Jehovah has made known. His justice in the nations' sight He openly has shown.*
_98:2 The LORD hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen._

*98:3 He mindful of His grace and truth to Isr'el's house has been. The great salvation of our God all ends of earth have seen.*
_98:3 He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God._

*98:4 O all the earth, sing to the LORD and make a joyful sound. Lift up your voice aloud to Him; Sing psalms! Let joy resound!*
_98:4 Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise._

*98:5 With harp make music to the LORD; With harp a psalm O sing!*
_98:5 Sing unto the LORD with the harp; with the harp, and the voice of a psalm._

*98:6 With horn and trumpet raise a shout before the LORD, the King.*
_98:6 With trumpets and sound of cornet make a joyful noise before the LORD, the King._

*98:7 Let seas in all their vastness roar, the world, its living horde.*
_98:7 Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein._

*98:8 Let rivers clap, let mountains sing their joy*
_98:8 Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful together_

*98:9 before the LORD! Because He comes, He surely comes, the judge of earth to be! With justice He will judge the world all men with equity.*
_98:9 Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity._


----------



## kceaster (Jul 28, 2005)

Well, I did call them paraphrases, but I didn't put gross in there. I said they're very close, but when you start mixing and matching prepositions and synonyms, I think you've gone from inspired to something else. There are no true synonyms. It's why we have so many words.

I love the psalter. I wish at times that they wouldn't put all the tunes a half a key high, but other than that, it is an excellent song book. Some tunes don't really go with the tenor of the words, but everything could be improved.

I want to make one thing straight. I don't believe my brothers are sinning when they sing only the psalms. I sing psalms, too. My brothers sin IF and only IF, they judge me for singing hymns. That has been my problem all along. I will do as they do, but in the interest of brotherhood, they could not even once do as I do. That is wrong in my opinion. It makes me believe that they truly rest upon their own righteousness in worship. It is as if they are saying with Peter, "My lips have never touched an unclean thing." That is a self-righteous statement.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 28, 2005)

This article by Dr. Crampton prompted an exchange with Richard Bacon back when the article was written in 1992. This exchange can be found at:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/crampton.htm
Despite the disagreement, the two are friends and have co-written several publications over the years. I trust that friendships here will survive the less charitable moments of these PB exchanges as well.



> _Originally posted by RAS_
> I have found this article by Gary Crampton against EP to be very helpful......
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 28, 2005)

*Paraphrases*

For those interested, one answer to the charge that metrical translations of the psalms are paraphrases is given here:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/paraphrases.htm


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 28, 2005)

Other articles on different aspects of the EP question can be found here:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/articles.htm#Psalmody


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 28, 2005)

Once again, directly realted to the issue of the LXX use of these "terms" is:

That in what is ostensibly the first Christian singing-in-worship book is a composition, labeled _Psalmos_ which is entirely without the Hebrew canon. "Psalm" 151.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 28, 2005)

Just to jump in on translation, I would concur with Bacon that a literal rendering from the Hebrew has enough dissimilarities between Hebrew and English that a wooden-literal, word-for-word, one-word-equals-one-word, translation is impossible. As he said rightly, "It cannot be done." And the NT writers did not treat the Hebrew as a wooden-literal, word-for-word, one-word-equals-one-word, translation. 

For example, as Bacon _rightly_ points out:

"Psalm 8:5/Hebrews 2:7 - The passage in Psalm 8:5 says, "œFor thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." The word I want to discuss is the word translated here as "œangels." The Hebrew word for angel is "œmal´akh" but that is not the word in Psalm 8:5. The word there is "œelohim." The word "œelohim" is usually translated "œGod." Why is it translated here "œthou hast made him a little lower than the angels" when the word that we are translating is "œelohim"? There is not a single other instance in all of the Old Testament in which the word "œelohim" is translated "œangels." It is translated "œGod" 2,346 times and "œangels" once. Why is it translated "œangels" here?
Note Hebrews 2:7 which reads, "œThou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands." We translate the word "œelohim" in the Old Testament as "œangels" because the writer of Hebrews uses it that way. Actually, he is giving authority to a translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The Septuagint translated "œelohim" as "œaggeloi," from which we get the word "œangels" in English. The Septuagint translated "œelohim" as "œaggeloi" and the writer of Hebrews confirmed "œaggeloi." Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying the Septuagint is inspired, but when an inspired author of the New Testament uses a passage from the Septuagint and, therefore, the passage becomes part of the New Testament, the New Testament passage is inspired. Jude quoted a portion of the Book of Enoch, but that does not make the entire Book of Enoch inspired. It does make that portion of the book that he included in Jude inspired. It is not inspired because it in the Book of Enoch, but because it is in the Book of Jude.
We know that we have a correct translation of the word "œelohim" as "œangels" because we have an inspired interpretation of that word in Hebrews 2:7. If the writer of Hebrews used the word "œangels" to translate the Hebrew word "œelohim," was he paraphrasing or not? Would the same objection apply to him that applies to the metrical Psalms?" (cf. Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23. - Bacon deals well there too)

Here is his summary, which I would agree with:

Summary: the Force of the Objection

So we are back to the question of the logical force of the objection. If the objection has force with respect to the singing of the Psalms it has the same force with respect to the reading of the Scripture. What is that force? It is an admission that our translations are not as perfect as we would like. We should always be ready to submit our translations to further revision. The Authorized Version of the Bible has not been revised since 1769. Even it could use some work: there are a number of archaic words.

Here is what the objectors are seemingly trying to say. "œYou folks are not really singing the words of God. You are just singing the words of man as they understand the words of God to be. And that is the same thing we are doing. When we sing John Wesley or Fanny Crosby or Isaac Watts, we are just singing their interpretation of the word of God. That is all we are doing and that is all you folks are doing when you sing a paraphrase."

But the objection breaks down. Even if I were reading the New International Version of the Bible, you would still recognize it as a poor translation of the Word of God. But if I were to stand in the pulpit and read Matthew Henry´s commentary on the same passage, _no one would understand that to mean that I was reading the Word of God. That is the difference between singing Isaac Watts and singing even the poorest translation of the Psalms._


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

Can anyone show me where the RPCNA Psalter has changed the meaning of Psalm 98, as compared to the AV/KJV version? I personally feel that it is extremely faithful to the Hebrew text. I know I have only studied Hebrew for a year, but when you start to argue about translating Hebrew -> English literally, it shows a little about your knowledge of Hebrew.

For example, in the Psalms especially, there will be a sentence composed of 5 Hebrew words, but when translated to English, we end up with 12 or more words. This happens repeatedly, and is carried over into our "literal" translations, and no one complains or feels as if they "dont' have the Word of God." The Psalter is a faithful translation of Hebrew, and I will stand by that claim by God's grace, until God proves to me otherwise.


----------



## Peter (Jul 28, 2005)

Gabe, et al, I feel _these_ sorts of objections are the death pangs of uninspired hymnody. A few _desperate_ fits of violence before the end


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 28, 2005)

Did the first Greek-speaking Christians sing _all_ the songs in their hymnal?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 28, 2005)

In the early church they sang God's book of Praise (Psalms 1-150) (as well as reading them and preaching them).

As Chrysostom wrote, "David is always in thier mouths..."

Chrysostom, Augustine, Caius, John Cassian, Jerome, Hippolytus, Josephus, Pliny, Philo, (and many more), all attest to this.

The oldest Christian "poem" we find is written by Clement of Alexandria in 202 A.D. but no mention is made whether this was written to be sung or used on worship anywhere. Its a non-issue on this topic. but important overall since such would have been over 130 years after the early church settled in.

Valentinian, Bardesanes and his son Harmonius (all Gnostics) in the third century resorted to writing hymns to propagate thier theology, as Tertullian records.

Ephraem Syrus (379 A.D.) wrote a large number of hymns against the Gnostics to teach the people who were being influecned to sin "in the other direction" towards orthodoxy.

In the 4th century Arius wrote many hymns for the same purpose of propagating heresy. Many orthodox writers wrote hymns, again, to counter this, not to sing in worship, but to sing against Arius among the common folk.

Augustine wrote a hymn after the 119 Psalm in order to cope with the Donatists who also wrote hymns to propagate thier theology.

It seems hymns came into play as a result of refuting bad theology. 
This had nothing to do with singing these hymns in church. All of those who wrote these hymns attest to singing the Book of Praise as corporate worship for the early church. But these other hymns made thier way slowly into the church during the 5-8th centuries even after entire councils bid the church to keep to the Book of Praise. 

In 563 the looseness continued where the council of Braga said "besides the Psalms or canonical Scriptures nothing be sung in the churches."

In 841 A.D. Agobard, archbishop of Lynons said the same thing, but stressed the Psalms.

So the start of it all seems to be heretics that wanted to propagate thier theology easily.

Can you even imagine Arius writing an Arian tune to propagate BAD theology?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

Matt, 

I haven't been able to keep up. Has anyone mentioned that the early church use to sing parts of the New Testament epistles at their gatherings. I had read that years ago. I can't prove that. Just wondering if anyone had mentioned it or if it could be validated.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Can you even imagine Arius writing an Arian tune to propagate BAD theology?



Yes I can. The Wesleys did it. They use to be in the Hymn wars against the Calvinists during their revivals.

Charles wrote some cool stuff though. 'And Can It Be' is one of my favorite Hymns.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

Matt, along the lines of the 'history' to RPW/EP and other tenets of this position, the following might be of some assistance:

Early Church believers loved the Psalms a great deal and made much use of them. Jerome says, 



> "Wherever you turn, the laborer at the plough sings Alleluia: the toiling reaper beguiles his work with Psalms: the vinedresser as he prunes the vine with his curved pruning hook sings something of David's. These are the songs of this province: these are the laborer's instruments."




The Council of Laodicea, about A.D. 381, prohibited the ecclesiastical use of uninspired or "private psalms." The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 confirmed this decree. Apparently this decree did not prevent hymnographers from expressing their religious ideas in the form of poetry, so it was renewed in a more precise but less rigorous form by the Council of Braga (A.D. 561) which decreed that poetic compositions were not to be used in the service of praise. The fourth Synod of Toledo in the 7th century reiterated the same proscription.

Hymns, on the other hand, were used by the heretics to spread their filth. Valentius and Marcion brought new hymns to Rome to spread their Gnostic heresy. The Arian heresy was also propagated by hymns. Augustine reproached the Donatists for "singing psalms of human composition, which arouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet of the battlefield."

Athanasias (A.D. 367) says of the Psalter (after naming the 27 books of the New Testament for the first time):



> "I believe that a man can find nothing more glorious than these Psalms: for they embrace the whole life of man, the affections of his mind, and the motions of his soul. To praise and glorify God he can select a psalm suited to every occasion, and thus will find they were written for him."




Ambrose (A.D. 385), one of the strongest early Church leaders, says:



> "The Law instructs, history informs, prophecy predicts, correction censures and morals exhort. In the Book of Psalms you find all of these. The Psalter deserves to be called the praise of God, the glory of man, the voice of the Church, and the most beneficial confession of faith."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Yes, I understand, but think of it - what would Arius say?

Can yo see him writing a hymn that Christ isn't God?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Let's not forget the Battle of Hymn of the (so-called) Republic. It was written to propogate Unitarianism and genocide.


----------

