# More on EP and the LXX



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 28, 2005)

Matthew, Doesn't the superscription in the text of Psalm 151 itself say that it is "outside the number" of 150 psalms?


----------



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

Chris - 

Yes, the superscription says that it is "written by David" but "outside the number".

Literally, "This, a psalm written or ascribed to David (though it is outside the number), after he had fought in single combat with Goliath."

It is interesting (!) that the translators of the LXX knew that the 150 was a set book, and they attached this as a psalm *outside* the number of the Book of Priase.

I added it in the list because it is an "argument" that should be answered.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 28, 2005)

Talk about a direct attack on the Historic Reformed Faith. Unfortunate indeed to see it here on "The Puritan Board".


----------



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

JO - how do you mean? We are not sure what you are upset with. Can you help us out? 

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## JOwen (Jul 28, 2005)

Sure brother. The settled and historic understanding of the subject an practice of the RPW from the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition is Exclusive Psalmody. It appears that you (?) are disagreeing with the normative understanding of the RPW by this list "The Puritanboard" (see the irony). I'm just disappointed that's all. I had great hopes that you might come around on EP as you did on baptism.

Plus, so many of these objections are well beneath you brother. 

Argument:
Uninspired music is an illogical counterpart to inspired singing.

Argument:
The Hebrew text of the psalms do not fit a metrical pattern, thus creating a pattern for them as uninspired would not be lawful.

come on!


----------



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

JO - 

Brother - You misunderstand. I _have_ switched to EP. 
I asked the board as a whole to list for me all the "best" arguments against EP. Thus the list. I am just adding to it as they get posted. I'm not saying the arguments are good or bad at this point, but I'm just listing them.

 Back at ya.


----------



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

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> What is the significance of the red arguments?
> 
> [Edited on 7-28-2005 by sastark]



It means I've covered them in rebuttals in writing at home. I just keeping track as I go. Many of them are "repetitive" in many ways as well with arguing the same core ideas.


----------



## JOwen (Jul 28, 2005)

Yahoo! My apologies.:bigsmile:


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> Yahoo! My apologies.:bigsmile:



Yeah, don't worry brother. He's joined the Empire.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 28, 2005)

You guys seriously make me want to . And I don't say that lightly.

I thought this was an excellent board where most everyone was at least moving in the right direction. But then the very person who runs this board drops the ball. 

I love Covenant Theology, Paedobaptism, Calvinism, etc. And the discussions on this board in those regards are generally pretty good. So I don't plan to leave the Puritanboard.

But this EP junk is a serious stain on what was a great forum, in my opinion. 

I am very disappointed in all of you EPers. But I am most disappointed of all in you, Matt. You are just a whole lot smarter than that. It's not as if you grew up being blindly taught it. How in the world could you actually put so much time into _studying_ it, and yet still change _in favor_ of it? I am very shocked and surprised. Maybe you're just determined to be a "Puritan", right or wrong. Maybe Puritan doctrine has become infallible by default in your eyes. Who knows.

But then again I guess we all go through our bad times. I myself was a premillenialist and a baptist for years. So I am certainly not immune to theological difficulties. But at least I moved in the right direction. . . .away from both. That is the same direction everyone should move regarding EP . . . AWAY from it.

You guys put singing in an entirely different class from speaking, which the Bible simply does not do. If I am speaking truth in worship, it doesn't suddenly morph into sinful non-worship because my speaking is done with musical notes. It would take a blind person to miss that simple fact.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 28, 2005)

Something tells me ad hominems won't change Matt's mind anytime soon...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2005)

Has anybody listened to Jerry Falwell's "Old Timey Gospel Hour and Hymn singing"? I haven't but I am sure it is inspirational. That's probably I am experiential argument. Exp. arguments don't always work, but hey, its worth a shot.


----------



## Peter (Jul 28, 2005)

Joseph, have you ever actually read anything about EP other than what's on this board? I urge you to read a complete explanation of the EP position before forming an opinion, not just the objections ofa few irately anti-psalmody biased members and our answers. See: http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/psalm.htm

[Edited on 7-28-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 28, 2005)

I really dont see the problem if some want to use only Psalms and Songs from Scripture then why is that so bad? 

Blade


----------



## JohnV (Jul 28, 2005)

Argument:

Since EP is an assertion pertaining to Biblical ordinance, it carries an automatic burden of proof. Biblical necessity must be proven. And there can be no room for margin of error or dependency upon any man's input. That is, all premises must be strictly revelational for the conclusion to be revelational. 

e.g.: The doctrine of the Trinity leaves a lot that is unexplained and/or unexplainable; but non of that undermines the necessity of the doctrine, which is necessitated from the revelation of the distinction without confusion of the persons of the Trinity and the revelation of only one God. The "unexplained" areas are in our understandings, not in revelation. 

So also with EP, it must be revelational and necessitated. 

I would also argue that all these objections are not just to be answered as objections, but they also need to be explained as to where the do fit in worship. 

For example, how do you fit giftedness in music, verse, composition, expression, etc., into worship if not in songs of praise? Or are they excluded altogether? If so, why? Where then do gifts from God fit into the worship of Him? And where do you fit the expression of such amazing grace, how sweet the sound, a very real and authentic expression of praise in each one of us, and a very real and authentic response of the heart in hearing the gospel, into the worship of God? Etc., Etc.


----------



## Bryan (Jul 28, 2005)

> I really dont see the problem if some want to use only Psalms and Songs from Scripture then why is that so bad?



It is not an issue if they simply perfer them. I myself have perfered the time I have worshiped at CanRC becasue they used psalms while my church doesn't. The issue is that Exlusives believe that only psalms are allowed by scripture to be used in the worship of God. 

Bryan
SDG


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> You guys seriously make me want to . And I don't say that lightly.
> 
> I thought this was an excellent board where most everyone was at least moving in the right direction. But then the very person who runs this board drops the ball.
> ...



Joseph,

This is a highly offensive, arrogant and mean-spirited post. This is in part what I was referring to earlier in a different thread. By impugning the intelligence and faithfulness of EP'ers, your unwarranted attack is a discredit to the Puritan Board and its Christian witness to the world, not to mention an affront upon many who love the Lord and who seek to worship Him in spirit and in truth. I am saddened by your comments and not in the least drawn to your position by the manner in which you choose to express yourself. This is not "speaking the truth in love." We do not all agree on certain issues on this Board, but the word of God requires us to be charitable to one another. I urge you to think hard about that.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 28, 2005)

JohnV,
I didnt mean to be dogmatic baout my statement. Course like all doctrine its serious. Im not ep or non ep I havent studied up on it enough. I just dont ssee the warrant in getting upset over it. 

Blade


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 28, 2005)

Attn: Biblelighthouse:

Joseph,

Consider yourself warned. Belittling those who disagree with you will not be tolorated on this forum. Disagree with charity or refrain from posting on the subject. 

Thank you.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Argument:
> 
> Since EP is an assertion pertaining to Biblical ordinance, it carries an automatic burden of proof. Biblical necessity must be proven. And there can be no room for margin of error or dependency upon any man's input. That is, all premises must be strictly revelational for the conclusion to be revelational.



JohnV, the exact same thing can be said about singing songs outside of the Psalms. There is no Biblical ordinance for us to write songs of praise. To do so, we must have express Biblical warrant proving that this is required or permitted of us, according to basic Reformed principles on worship (i.e. the RPW).


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 28, 2005)

Interesting. I'm struggling to understand what the big deal is all about. I've noticed that it's not just Joseph who is very upset over Matt going EP. There are several who are very distressed. Hey, we've always had other EPers on the board. So now there's one more. Big deal. I've witnessed Matt and others go in various directions over the years with which I strongly disagree, but I don't lose any sleep over it. Of course, if everyone who participates here were to suddenly come round and agree with me on every point of doctrine, I can't say that I'd complain.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 28, 2005)

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



 The RPW limits our worship to that which God has commanded. There is no controversy over the fact that God has commanded us to sing inspired psalms. The controversy is over whether God has commanded us to inspired psalms _and uninspired hymns_. Thus, as I see it, the burden of proof rests not on the EP position but on the non-EP position to demonstrate clearly that God intended us to sing uninspired hymns in addition to inspired psalms.


----------



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

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Something tells me ad hominems won't change Matt's mind anytime soon...



True. But I was disappointed with the lack of charity in that post. I concur with Andrew there, and appreiacte Dan's warning Jospeh that we should be charitable always even when we disagree.

Doulos -

I think it is hard that when we are like-minded, and then find out that on an issue we are not, and there was before a sense of unity, and then that seems broken, there is cause for some frustration. But it should never lead us to a lack of charity.


[Edited on 7-29-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Interesting. I'm struggling to understand what the big deal is all about. I've noticed that it's not just Joseph who is very upset over Matt going EP. There are several who are very distressed. Hey, we've always had other EPers on the board. So now there's one more. Big deal. I've witnessed Matt and others go in various directions over the years with which I strongly disagree, but I don't lose any sleep over it. Of course, if everyone who participates here were to suddenly come round and agree with me on every point of doctrine, I can't say that I'd complain.



I agree with Gregory (except for the baptism thing). I might not agree with Matt's position but I don't lose sleep over it. In fact, by asking for the best contra arguments, he is going about it in a good way.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 28, 2005)

The key here everyone needs to come to grips with is that all of us are endeavoring to do what is correct in Gods eye's; we all want to Glorify Christ and be obedient to God. 

As I have clearly stated to Matt today, if doing anything other than singing the Psalms in worship creates the possibility to break the RPW and sin, I am all for doing away with old habits, thus reducing the chance of sinning.

For me, it's that simple.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 28, 2005)

True.

And if you read up a few posts from Joseph's unfortunant and ill conceived diatribe, we find the old "WE EP are the _only_ defenders of the RPW. Why don't you lot just go back to Rome where you belong."

Frankly that kind of attitude repulses me.


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 28, 2005)

Scott,



> As I have clearly stated to Matt today, if doing anything other than singing the Psalms in worship creates the possibility to break the RPW and sin, I am all for doing away with old habits, thus reducing the chance of sinning.



This could go both ways. For example, I will quote you and insert changes for the other side:

_if ... singing [only] the Psalms in worship [in exclusion of hymns and spiritual songs] creates the possibility to break the RPW and sin, I am all for doing away with old habits, thus reducing the chance of sinning._

See the point? There may not only be the sin of commission, there may also be the sin of omission. Either the non-EP is sinning by commission, or the EP is sinning by omission.

I hope that made sense.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 28, 2005)

> As I have clearly stated to Matt today, if doing anything other than singing the Psalms in worship creates the possibility to break the RPW and sin, I am all for doing away with old habits, thus reducing the chance of sinning.



Scott, this is quite a statement that you are making and I find it a bit troubling. I hope you are not saying that if the church is not EP then it is forcing its congregants to sin. You and Matt are members in good standing of a PCA church that is not EP. If you truly believe that that not singing the Psalms exclusively is breaking the RPW and causing you to sin, I hope that both of you have taken this issue up with your Session.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> True.
> 
> And if you read up a few posts from Joseph's unfortunant and ill conceived diatribe, we find the old "WE EP are the _only_ defenders of the RPW. Why don't you lot just go back to Rome where you belong."
> ...



Perhaps a weak attempt on my part at throwing some wisdom into the mix, but......

I was going to say something similar to this, but Bruce beat me to it. The EP side has been just as uncharitable, if not more so. I have no emotional attachment to this either way, and am not fully comitted to either side's view at this time, but as a "nuetral" observer, I am seeing a double standard of conduct for the EP crowd.

The EP side may be right, but frankly the way it is being presented has been less than pastoral, considering that the seeming necessary conclusion of the EP side has more potential to wound weak consciences, those new to the issue, etc. I don't think this is a burden the non-EP side shares since it is by its nature more inclusive of those they disagree with. EP side, right or wrong on its position, does have this burden though and should keep that in mind.

back to the sidelines....

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by RAS]


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 28, 2005)

> Dan, for my dense head to get some clarification, are you implying the sin of omission would be NOT including uninspired hymns in the mix?



Correct. The apostle did not say "psalms, hymns, *or* spiritual songs". He says "and". (At least he does in English. I don't know about the Greek. If the "and" can rightly be translated "or" then someone please let me know ).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> True.
> 
> And if you read up a few posts from Joseph's unfortunant and ill conceived diatribe, we find the old "WE EP are the _only_ defenders of the RPW. Why don't you lot just go back to Rome where you belong."
> ...



Who said that? From my review of this thread, no one has ever said that.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> > Dan, for my dense head to get some clarification, are you implying the sin of omission would be NOT including uninspired hymns in the mix?
> ...



Dan, the Greek backs you up. We are commanded to sing all three. Either EPers are sinning or non-EPers are sinning. Either the verses mean "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" or they mean "inspired psalms from the psalter, inspired hymns from the psalter, and inspired songs from the psalter." The latter translation, in my estimation, is a gaping -- even laughable -- stretch.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...



Note: Allan, I am responding to your post, but addressing various matters beyond your post as well. 

I think everyone discussing this issue could benefit from stepping back and taking a deep breath. As I mentioned before, when this issue was discussed at great length in the fall of 2004, I and others were greatly impressed by the charity shown on all sides. It was a very edifying discussion. I frankly think that _some_ on the non-EP side in the present discussion have been incredibly insulting, and I have not seen anything comparable coming from the EP side. But I am well aware that we are all prone to be blind to our own faults. It has been my aim to speak the truth in love in the course of this and other discussions on the Board. That is part of the witness that we must all bear to the gospel. 

I disagree that the non-EP position is "more inclusive" than the EP position. Either we are commanded to sing inspired psalms and uninspired hymns/songs in which case the EP side is sinning by forbidding that which God has commanded, or else we are commanded to sing only inspired psalms/hymns/songs and thus the non-EP side is sinning by allowing that which God has not commanded _and forcing EP'ers in the same worship service to sing such against their conscience or else abstain from singing altogether_. "Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Rom. 14.22 If uninspired hymns are not commanded, and a church makes provision for them to be sung in worship, this is not optional, it is tyranny of conscience. Therefore, to sum up, one side or the other is at fault and is either excessively strict or excessively permissive. But both impose something on the other side. The question is which is Biblical. 

I assume in the course of this discussion that everyone here holds to the RPW. I also assume that everyone here is a brother in the Lord, dearly beloved. 

As I said before, I think the burden of proof lies with the non-EP position because everyone (hopefully) agrees that inspired psalms are commanded, but the crux of the matter is whether non-inspired hymns are commanded and that is the controversy. Therefore, the non-EP side must prove that uninspired hymns are commanded to be sung.

I remember very well my sense of shock and outrage when I first heard about exclusive psalmody. How dare someone say that we can't sing hymns! I _love_ hymns. I love guitars in the worship service. Well, I won't elaborate on my own journey. We all have our different experiences and mine is merely mine. I just want folks to know that I personally can empathize with how foreign-sounding it must be to hear about this strange doctrine if one has not heard it before. 

However, I would encourage folks who are exploring this issue with an open mind to also give the benefit of the doubt to the Puritans. This is the _Puritan_ Board, and I would imagine that many have respect for the Puritans in soteriology and systematic theology. The theology and application of worship -- what William Young refers to as the "Puritan principle of worship" -- should not be lightly dismissed. The Puritans were not alone. The historic witness of the Church at her best through the ages is in favor of psalmody, yea, even exclusive psalmody. Ultimately, the deciding factor in this controversy is not what the Puritans did, but rather what Scripture teaches. Yet, the witness of church history is not without great benefit and it is not without good reason that we are generally partial to the Puritans on this Board. 

I personally will now step back (again) and pray about this matter. I am saddened by the harsh rhetoric. Would everyone agree that 1) worship is the highest duty of man and 2) Christians ought to be united about worship? Our differences must grieve the Holy Spirit. My brethren, let us strive towards unity. Those who disagree will find fault, but I truly believe the Psalter ought to unite us not divide us. May God bless us all with wisdom, charity and grace in our speech and may we come to a right understanding about that which he has commanded in worship for his glory and our good.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 28, 2005)

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



Aye, and you all should try to refute my earlier argument:



> Has anybody listened to Jerry Falwell's "Old Timey Gospel Hour and Hymn singing"? I haven't but I am sure it is inspirational. That's probably I am experiential argument. Exp. arguments don't always work, but hey, its worth a shot.



Tick, tock, tick, tock


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ...



Does that have to be true? Even if hymns and spiritual songs _can_ be uninspired hymns and songs, surely that doesn't mean they _have_ to be uninspired hymns and songs.

I'm not EP, but I don't think that EPers are sinning by not singing hymns from outside the Psalms, at least not on the basis of this passage.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 28, 2005)

Andrew-

Thanks for making clear you were not singling me out. 

One clarification though...

When I said "more inclusive", I did not mean it as you took it in a practical sense pertianing to differing members in a local church. What I meant was that the non-EP position itself allows for psalms and non-inspired hymns, while the EP side does not. The non-EP side allows two "options" if you will, while the EP side allows only one. The EP side says that non-EP's are sinning. That is exclusive. The non-EP side does not say that EP's are sinning, but allows it as a matter of difference within the faith. That is inclusive. The only time the non-EP thinks the EP side is sinning is if the EP side were to bind the conscience of the non-EP in a local church. The non-EP side seems to be more accepting of those who differ on this issue (more inclusive), the EP position has no room for difference on this issue (exclusivism) This is all I meant. As for the example you gave, I agree with you, in practice one side in some circumstances will always exclude the other. But again, I was simply referring to the nature of the positions themselves.

I sent you a u2u (not about this)


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



That one group is sinning has to be true for 1) those who believe that all three terms refer to compositions within the psalter and 2) those who believe that the first term refers to the 150 psalms within the psalter and the final two terms refer to compositions beyond the psalter. I suppose there is a sort of middle view.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



Well, my view was that the final two terms (or perhaps even all three) could refer to both compositions inside the psalter and compositions outside the psalter. In maintaining that hymns and spiritual songs are not _necessarily_ part of the psalter, I don't think the non-EPer has to hold that these terms refer _only_ to compositions outside the psalter. That's why I don't see a sin of omission in EP as far as this passage is concerned.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

I still stand behind the fact that the burden of proof is on non-EP'ers. The Bible 100% approves the singing of Psalms. Non-EP'ers must prove it 100% approves the replacement of Psalms in worship with non-inspired, man-written songs (and singing them IS a replacement of Psalms, no matter how many you sing, you are excluding a Psalm and replacing it with a man-made song). God bless you all.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 29, 2005)

The Bible says we are to sing Psalms, hymns (literally in the Gk: songs of praise), and spiritual songs (literally in the Gk: sacred songs). It says this in at least 2 places. We are also told from books of poety and prophecy to sing new songs. And God finds new songs that are not in the Book of Psalms acceptable and pleasing to Him from Genesis to Revelation.

So, no, the proof is not really on non-EPers. It is on you to prove that the Bible excludes any songs but from the Book of Psalms.

Phillip

PS - singing a song other than a Psalm does not replace singing a Psalm, it coincides with it, just as Paul tells us to do.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

Well, this subject has certainly generated a lot of interesting discussion. I hope from this point on it can all be done in a charitable spirit, standing firm by our own convictions and yet mutually recognizing everyone else's intentions of pleasing God, and keeping an open mind.

There are several trends that seem to come up in debates about this subject. Unfortunately, one such thing is often the use of unwarranted, and frankly unhelpful, accusations from either side. From the non-EP side, that is often done by accusing the adherants to EP of being "narrow-minded," "extreme" or "impractical." I largely see that as a perfect mirror of how many Arminians react when they first hear of our doctrine of predestination, in that they immediately dismiss it without really studying it or thinking about all the possibilities, simply because it is so foreign to their current notions on the issue. On the other hand, from the EP side, it would be equally wrong to claim or imply that those who reject EP simply don't _really_ care about the RPW, or just aren't willing to take it to its obvious logical end. That shows a failure to realize that for the non-EP, the EP adherant is in just as much violation of the RPW as the EP views the non-EP as being...which brings me to my next point:

With this issue, as with others (e.g. baptism), there are sometimes tendencies by some to try and deny that either side is really in sin because of their view, and that we have no right to make such judgments regarding this issue. For instance, Wayne, do you really believe that _if_ the doctrine of EP is true, and there is in fact no biblical command to sing beyond the Psalms, hymnody would not be a sinful practice on the part of churches that practice it?



> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



I can understand where you're coming from here, especially since it seems like a legitimate consideration of sin's place (or the lack thereof) in the issues, rather than a mere attempt to sugar-coat the issue by avoiding any making of the difficult charge of sin. Even so, I still don't think I agree with your conclusion in light of your reasoning: Even if the non-EPer doesn't hold that the latter two terms refer solely to compositions outside the Psalter, he or she still has to hold that they refer to _some_ compositions outside the Psalter, else they have no biblical warrant to sing such compositions at all. And since the non-EPer as such must hold that at least _some_ of the songs in the latter two categories refer to non-Psalter songs, he or she must then view the EPer as being in sin for neglecting to sing those songs, even if they are only "some" of the all. Am I understanding what you mean?



> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Either the verses mean "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" or they mean "inspired psalms from the psalter, inspired hymns from the psalter, and inspired songs from the psalter." The latter translation, in my estimation, is a gaping -- even laughable -- stretch.



Greg, forgive me if I'd like some more support than that for the claim that such an interpretation is fallacious. If it was a "psalms, psalms and psalms" issue, I would be significantly more inclined to agree with you on this particular point being a valid objection to EP. But as Gabriel pointed out in an exchange (beginning about two-thirds down the page, since I can't get the post-specific URL to work with the search function) I had with him in another thread, that is not the nature of the issue. When the LXX was the widely-used Bible of the day, and Paul's various letters repeatedly refer his readers back to Old Testament passages as a foundation for the faith he is building upon, what would have been "unnatural" at the time about him referring to different types of songs in the Psalter using _the very three terms_ that were also used by the LXX's Psalter itself to describe its different songs?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

I have a question and a comment. I have been laying back a bit on these threads just trying to relearn this stuff. 

How does Verbal Plenary Inspiration play into the LXX being quoted as inspired when it was originally written in Hebrew?

One of the problems I have with the EP side is based upon this text.

(Luk 18:9-14) And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

This guy was doing everything a righteous person should do? We would be proud if our daughters were to marry such an outward apperance of obedience. But God was more glorified and pleased with the wretch who poured out his heart in honesty and humility. 

I would caution everyone to be careful of our attitudes and become loving. God would rather we sing in truth with a correct spirit. 

Jacob,
Falwell is okay for some, but give me the Cathedrals any day over his stuff.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

How do you define "replace", Phillip?

If you have the choice between reading the Bible and reading the Koran, and you choose to read the Koran, are you not making a choice and replacing the reading of the Bible with the reading of the Koran? Yes, you absolutely are.

In same fashion, if you sing a hymn written by a sinner, when you have the option to sing a song written by God's Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, you are replacing the singing of a psalm with the singing of a man-written, fallible hymn.

And, all three of those Greek words (psalmos, humnos, and ode) you pointed out are used over 100 times in the titles of the songs contained within the Book of Praise, the Book of Psalms, in the LXX (the Bible quoted by Jesus and all the writers of the New Testament a great deal of the time, as God's Word). In many cases, they are used to describe the same song, as has been already pointed out in all of this discussion and interaction on worship.

The burden of proof is, really, still on non-EP'ers, Phillip, because Paul commands us to sing psalms for sure, and he commands us to sing songs classified as humnos and ode, both of which are found in the titles of dozens of psalms within the Psalter of the OT. Nowhere do we find a glimmer of hope for the non-EP'er in proving that we are commanded to author new, uninspired worship songs (something that was at enmity with the clear practice of the apostles, the early church fathers, several ecumenical Church councils, etc. and again retained by many faithful servants of Christ at the Reformation time period).

God bless.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

One more thing....
I also understand Joseph's attitude. You EP guys are telling him he is not pleasing to God. You guys are pleasing to God of course, in your insight. I am not condoning uncharitableness. Joseph has been glorifying God using very Godly Hymns. They are Godly Hymns I am sure. He has a lot of respect for you and now you are telling him he hasn't been glorify God correctly when he is standing in the same seat the publican was in. I do want to caution everyone not to have the attitude of the pharisee. 

I want you all to know that I am not so easily offended. I have my faith before God and He will judge me. Thankfully he is merciful. I hope we will examine the issue more in the light of Romans 14. I understand the RPW is an important issue. Please Read Romans 14 prayerfully. Understand the concept that everyman stands before his master alone. Remember we still all have different abilities and we are not able to understand things on the same level. God will make all things complete. 

Getting off the soapbox now.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy Martin Snyder

For Christ's Crown and Covenant


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

By the way GABE, I am glad to see Calvin and Hobbes again.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> By the way GABE, I am glad to see Calvin and Hobbes again.



:bigsmile:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> One of the problems I have with the EP side is based upon this text.
> 
> (Luk 18:9-14) And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
> ...



The thing is, if that passage in any way lessens whatever weight EP may have, people could use that passage in that very same way to supposedly refute the precise study of doctrine altogether. And while I certainly know you are not using it in such a gross way, I have seen many people cite that passage as "proof" that particular of doctrine don't matter past a very basic level, and only a sincere heart does past that point. And even though you are not using it to try and claim that, the same misinterpretation of the passage is likewise the only interpretation that could lessen whatever weight EP may possess.

That is because the passage is completely irrelevant to the question of whether we should diligently study doctrine, but rather sheds light on the manner in, and spirit with which, we do so. The Pharisees in the parable "trusted in themselves that they were righteous," and as a result of his supposed doctrinal precision, he "exalteth himself." Thus, _that_ is the thing we must beware of, and it is true that that tendency may easily come up when studying the fine points of doctrine, and we should thus heed the parable's wisdom and always be sure to remember the nature of our own wicked hearts and of God's infinite mercy toward us as we study that doctrine - but it would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater to under-emphasize the importance of that doctrine we are studying as a result, for it is not the problem, which is rather the pride that can potentially result from our study of it if we do not study with our hearts as well.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

Now don't forget my question, please? Inquiring minds must know.



> How does Verbal Plenary Inspiration play into the LXX being quoted as inspired when it was originally written in Hebrew?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> One more thing....
> I also understand Joseph's attitude. You EP guys are telling him he is not pleasing to God. You guys are pleasing to God of course, in your insight. I am not condoning uncharitableness. Joseph has been glorifying God using very Godly Hymns. They are Godly Hymns I am sure. He has a lot of respect for you and now you are telling him he hasn't been glorify God correctly when he is standing in the same seat the publican was in. I do want to caution everyone not to have the attitude of the pharisee.



I do appreciate your caution to continually keep reminding ourselves not to ever take on that mindset when dealing with _any_ doctrine. As I noted above, the EP issue is not about self-righteousness or self-exaltation by being "more right," it is about both sides striving to glorify God by discerning and obeying His commands as faithfully as possible, all the while keeping self-credit for such obedience out of the picture.

In light of that, and of the nature of the RPW, do you agree that _if_ the doctrine of EP is true, and that there is actually no biblical command to, _then_ those who worship using songs outside the Psalter, however good their intentions may be, are sinning by doing such, for the exact same reason we all view someone who performs drama in a worship service as sinning? (Of course, I naturally view the reverse as true as well, in that if the non-EPer is correct, and there is a biblical command to worship with songs outside the Psalter, the EPer is thus in sin for neglecting a biblical command for worship. As of yet, I do not know which side I view as being biblical as which one in sin, but hopefully the coming discussion and reading will further me and everyone else in the continual understanding of that issue.)


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Now don't forget my question, please? Inquiring minds must know.
> 
> 
> ...



Some significant and interesting light was shed on that issue in this thread.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

If the LXX was not sufficient as God's Word, Jesus sinned by quoting from it as such, did He not?

Yes, that is a serious charge/question and hugely significant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

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



That question is a bit more complex for me than for others. I am not sure that the two mentions of Psalm, Hymns, and Spiritual songs are an order of worship as much as an admonition to sing the Psalms and be filled with the Spirit. I also believe a lot of the older hymns are very Godly and Glorifying to God and that we can be filled with the spirit in singing them also. In light of the last two statements I made what do you think?

Ephesians 5:19 seems to be an adomonition to live in the spirit. Not an order of worship or a command of how to worship in the congregation.

(Eph 5:17-20) Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

On one hand if we are accusing a brother of sin when he is not we are in the place of Jobs friends. On the other hand if this is a command of how we are to order our service much care needs to be taken. 

As I said, I am not so sure Paul is giving us an order of worship in the congregation as much as I am convinced he is admonishing us to walk in the light or be filled with the spirit. Put on the New Man. Put off the Old.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

> As I said, I am not so sure Paul is giving us an order of worship in the congregation as much as I am convinced he is admonishing us to walk in the light or be filled with the spirit. Put on the New Man. Put off the Old.



I don't think he is giving us an 'order of worship' either. I think he is telling us how we can be filled with the spirit and walk in the light - singing God's praises found in the Book of Praise (in turn, teaching one another sound doctrine through the Word of Christ).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If the LXX was not sufficient as God's Word, Jesus sinned by quoting from it as such, did He not?
> 
> Yes, that is a serious charge/question and hugely significant.



Why would that be sin? And when did Jesus quote the LXX? I thought he spoke Jewish.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 29, 2005)

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



No, because the non-EPer doesn't need to require the EPer to sing _particular_ hymns and odes, as Paul is not (from an non-EP perspective) give a list of particular songs but of particular categories of songs. Yes, there would be hymns and songs outside the psalter that the EPer didn't sing, but provided the EPer was singing _some_ hymns and songs (the ones in the psalter), I don't see how this could be a sin of omission unless you interpret Paul's command to mean that we must sing ALL hymns and songs that are in existence... which I don't think you are saying.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



I see more of where you're going now, and I think the issue is the meaning of "hymns and psalms." Under your interpretation of "hymns and spiritual songs" (that they equally refer both to uninspired songs _as well as_ choruses in the Psalter with those titles), I can see how you could logically hold the EPer as being not in sin while holding a non-EP position yourself. Even so, that is certainly the minority position in the non-EP camp, as most hymnists I have interacted with here and elsewhere understand the "hymns and spiritual songs" to definitely be requiring non-Psalter hymns, a requirement that cannot be fulfilled by the "hymns" in the LLX's Psalter. Your interpretation of "hymns and spiritual songs" as referring to hymns either inside or outside the Psalter is somewhat of a mix between the EP interpretation and the traditional hymnist interpretation, and while I may not agree with that "middle interpretation," I acknowledge that it does at least allow you to be _consistent_ with your present conclusion of neither side being in sin.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> I see more of where you're going now, and I think the issue is the meaning of "hymns and psalms." Under your interpretation of "hymns and spiritual songs" (that they equally refer both to uninspired songs _as well as_ choruses in the Psalter with those titles), I can see how you could logically hold the EPer as being not in sin while holding a non-EP position yourself. Even so, that is certainly the minority position in the non-EP camp, as most hymnists I have interacted with here and elsewhere understand the "hymns and spiritual songs" to definitely be requiring non-Psalter hymns, a requirement that cannot be fulfilled by the "hymns" in the LLX's Psalter. Your interpretation of "hymns and spiritual songs" as referring to hymns either inside or outside the Psalter is somewhat of a mix between the EP interpretation and the traditional hymnist interpretation, and while I may not agree with that "middle interpretation," I acknowledge that it does at least allow you to be _consistent_ with your present conclusion of neither side being in sin.




Thanks! To be honest, I'm not entirely settled on the issue. I think I was just responding to what I believed was a false dichotomy that hymns and songs were either all inspired or all uninspired. I'm not sure I advocate the middle ground or not, but I wanted to work through it and see if it was a logically consistent third option.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> You guys put singing in an entirely different class from speaking, which the Bible simply does not do. If I am speaking truth in worship, it doesn't suddenly morph into sinful non-worship because my speaking is done with musical notes.


Joseph brings up a point here that I've been wondering about with regard to the EP issue, especially as to how the singing of hymns can be regarded as sin.

Not all, but many hymns are doctrinally sound. Over the course of time, they have been scrutinized, in a Berean way, and found to be in agreement with the scriptures. (scrutinized much more closely than many sermons that are preached) If a pastor were to speak the words from the pulpit, they would (in my opinion) be acceptable, glorifying to God, and might even get a hearty AMEN! from one or two in the congregation. 

The words give glory to God, often speaking of his majesty and how/why he is so worthy of our praise. I don't see how these same words somehow become sinful when they are sung. Does singing the words somehow break one of the 10 commandments? The words when spoken are in agreement with the 3rd commandment not to take God's name in vain, in that they speak of God reverentially. Does the singing of these words somehow break one of the other commandments?


----------



## blhowes (Jul 29, 2005)

On two side notes:

*1) * I think its interesting how the singing of hymns is spoken against at both ends of the spectrum, for different reasons. EPers speak against them based on the RP. I've also heard a pastor, who seemed to favor the singing of modern choruses, speak against them (and seem to ridicule them) because of their 'flowery sound' - to him they expressed in very vague terms what could be expressed much more succinctly.

*2) * I've visited quite a few churches these last couple of years and its amazing how absent the Psalter is in the majority of churches. I've only been to one church that even used the Psalter (and the Trinity Hymnal). I can't help wondering historically if the introduction of the singing of hymns started a trend in the churches toward what we see today, where the Psalter is not used at all in worship. Though I don't know yet if I'm for EP, I don't think its a good thing that the singing of the Psalms has been totally replaced in modern churches with the singing of hymns and choruses.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

Randy writes:



> They are Godly Hymns



What makes a hymm _Godly_?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Scott,
> 
> 
> ...



Dan,
I do see your point; However, I do not feel the conviction of _ommission_, based upon my studies on the subject. This is not to say that tomorrow I won't, but today I do not!

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > As I have clearly stated to Matt today, if doing anything other than singing the Psalms in worship creates the possibility to break the RPW and sin, I am all for doing away with old habits, thus reducing the chance of sinning.
> ...



Wayne,
I thank you for the exhortation; I am meeting with my pastor next Thursday to discuss a couple of items. One of the items will be the RPW. My position is everyone breaks the RPW; every Lords day. It's can be contrasted with the table; who _really_ comes to the table _worthy_? However, our goal should be to reduce our unworthiness as much as we can, to reduce the possibility of breaking the RPW as much as we can. This should be the heart of every believer; for Gods glory.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> *2) * I've visited quite a few churches these last couple of years and its amazing how absent the Psalter is in the majority of churches. I've only been to one church that even used the Psalter (and the Trinity Hymnal). I can't help wondering historically if the introduction of the singing of hymns started a trend in the churches toward what we see today, where the Psalter is not used at all in worship. Though I don't know yet if I'm for EP, I don't think its a good thing that the singing of the Psalms has been totally replaced in modern churches with the singing of hymns and choruses.



This is an important point. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "Wherever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian church. With its recovery will come unexpected power." -- _Psalms, The Prayer Book of the Bible_, p. 26


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 29, 2005)

> As I said before, I think the burden of proof lies with the non-EP position because everyone (hopefully) agrees that inspired psalms are commanded, but the crux of the matter is whether non-inspired hymns are commanded and that is the controversy. Therefore, the non-EP side must prove that uninspired hymns are commanded to be sung.



I would disagree. Almost all the major Reformed Churches are non-EP. In fact it has been that way for over 100 years.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



I am glad you are meeting with your Pastor about this. I hope Matt does the same thing. When we start believing that the Church is sinning by worshipping incorrectly or some other reason, we need to go to the Session for they are responsible for overseeing the worship service as well as other aspects of the Church.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 29, 2005)

Ok. How's this: *In light of the regulative principle, it is the burden of proof on everyone to justify their practices in worship.*


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

Wayne,
Keep in mind, everyone is breaking the RPW in one way or the other; to God we are all sinning in this regard. Our worship is always tainted. My position on EP is to minimize the assault. To conclude I am pronouncing all the churches whom are not EP anathema would be stretching it a bit.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ...



Just wanted to throw in my . And this may have already been pointed out; I haven't made it that far through the thread. Has anyone discussed the "hymns" of the NT?

For instance Php. 2:6-11 is widely believed to have been an early Christian hymn. While I'm sure EP'ers would debate the point, what is to be done with Rev. 5:9-14? No one can debate that the latter is a hymn of praise sung to God, in His throne room no less(!) and yet it is not to be found in the Psalms. Surely God would not receive sinful worship in His very presence, if such it were.

I will be the first to admit that this need to get added to the end of a long list of Reformed issues I need to study. But I still cannot get past my discomfort with the Puritan penchant for seeing commands in the Bible when none are present.

Now back to my corner where I shall eagerly await the beatings.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Now don't forget my question, please? Inquiring minds must know.
> 
> 
> ...



 I for one do not believe translations are inspired (in the sense that the original authors were), rather God's Word is preserved providentially through the ages. But that was discussed ad nauseum on other threads.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 29, 2005)

Kevin - 

"Now back to my corner where I shall eagerly await the beatings."

Please don't feel this way. No one should think about getting beaten.

For all of us - 

We should all be stirivng to run the race in a way which wins the prize. Sanctification is hard. But that does not give us the right to make others feel like they are getting "beaten." I know we have disagreements, but let's not beat one another to death or make others feel that way. God wants us to think perfectly about His Word. That's impossible given our fallen minds. And oftentimes those minds can be less charitable that we would like. From either side of the fence, let's speak to one another with love.

1 Thessalonians 4:9, "Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another."


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Wayne,
> Keep in mind, everyone is breaking the RPW in one way or the other; to God we are all sinning in this regard. Our worship is always tainted. My position on EP is to minimize the assault. To conclude I am pronouncing all the churches whom are not EP anathema would be stretching it a bit.



I thought the Regulative Principal was based in a PRINCIPAL not an actual list of "do's and don'ts". The principal being that the elements of worship need to be there in order for a worship service to be considered a true worship service. As long as the elements are there, then the service can be considered a proper worship service.

How do you know that God believes the Church is sinning in regards to the RPW? Did you get a Word of Knowledge?  Unless you want to go back to the Levitical laws, there is nothing that I have read in Scripture that spells out exactly what a truly RPW service looks like. Needless to say, all we do is tainted by sin and whatever we do is only accepted by God for the sake of Christ. We do not even pray as we ought and need the Spirit to help us.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

{quote]I thought the Regulative Principal was based in a PRINCIPAL not an actual list of "do's and don'ts". The principal being that the elements of worship need to be there in order for a worship service to be considered a true worship service. As long as the elements are there, then the service can be considered a proper worship service.[/quote]

It is more than just principal. You say that as long as the _elements_ are there then it is acceptable. What about additional stuff addes to these primary elements; could not these things taint the RPW?



> How do you know that God believes the Church is sinning in regards to the RPW?



If the church is offering up worship contrary to Gods command, then it is sinning; simple. Nothing mystical. 

THE
WESTMINSTER
CONFESSION OF FAITH
CHAP. XXI. - Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day. 

1. The light of nature sheweth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture. 

2. Religious worship is to be given to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to Him alone; not to angels, saints, or any other creature: and, since the fall, not without a Mediator; nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone. 

3. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of His Spirit, according to His will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue. 

4. Prayer is to be made for things lawful; and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter: but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death. 

5. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. 

6. Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed: but God is to be worshipped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or willfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by His Word or providence, calleth thereunto. 

7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath. 

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. 


CHAPTER 47



The Principles and Elements of Public Worship



47-1. Since the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the principles of public worship must be derived from the Bible, and from no other source.

The Scriptures forbid the worshipping of God by images, or in any other way not appointed in His Word, and requires the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in His Word (WSC 51, 50).



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



47-3. The end of public worship is the glory of God. His people should engage in all its several parts with an eye single to His glory. Public worship has as its aim the building of Christ´s Church by the perfecting of the saints and the addition to its membership of such as are being saved -- all to the glory of God. Through public worship on the Lord´s day Christians should learn to serve God all the days of the week in their every activity, remembering, whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, to do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).



47-4. Public worship is Christian when the worshippers recognize that Christ is the Mediator by whom alone they can come unto God, when they honor Christ as the head of the Church, who rules over public worship, and when their worship is an expression of their faith in Christ and of their love for Him.



47-5. Public worship must be performed in spirit and in truth. Externalism and hypocrisy stand condemned. The forms of public worship have value only when they serve to express the inner reverence of the worshipper and his sincere devotion to the true and living God. And only those whose hearts have been renewed by the Holy Spirit are capable of such reverence and devotion.



47-6. The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given His Church a large measure of liberty in this matter. It may not be forgotten, however, that there is true liberty only where the rules of God´s Word are observed and the Spirit of the Lord is, that all things must be done decently and in order, and that God´s people should serve Him with reverence and in the beauty of holiness. From its beginning to its end a service of public worship should be characterized by that simplicity which is an evidence of sincerity and by that beauty and dignity which are a manifestation of holiness.



47-7. Public worship differs from private worship in that in public worship God is served by His saints unitedly as His covenant people, the Body of Christ. For this reason the covenant children should be present so far as possible as well as adults. For the same reason no favoritism may be shown to any who attend. Nor may any member of the church presume to exalt himself above others as though he were more spiritual, but each shall esteem others better than himself.



47-8. It behooves God´s people not only to come into His presence with a deep sense of awe at the thought of His perfect holiness and their own exceeding sinfulness, but also to enter into His gates with thanksgiving and into His courts with praise for the great salvation, which He has so graciously wrought for them through his only begotten Son and applied to them by the Holy Spirit.



47-9. The Bible teaches that the following are proper elements of worship service: reading of Holy Scripture, singing of psalms and hymns, the offering of prayer, the preaching of the Word, the presentation of offerings, confessing the faith and observing the Sacraments; and on special occasions taking oaths.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

to Scott. I really do not see what is so hard about the sin issue. Most of us who disagree on baptism have no problem acknowledging that one side is in sin for either going beyond God's command or ignoring part of it. The exact same principle applies here, since we all believe in the RPW. Can it be shown that there is a biblical command, either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence, to sing songs outside the Psalter after its completion? The answer to that question is the crux of which side is in sin, and I fail to understand what is so hard about that.



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Just wanted to throw in my . And this may have already been pointed out; I haven't made it that far through the thread. Has anyone discussed the "hymns" of the NT?
> 
> For instance Php. 2:6-11 is widely believed to have been an early Christian hymn. While I'm sure EP'ers would debate the point, what is to be done with Rev. 5:9-14? No one can debate that the latter is a hymn of praise sung to God, in His throne room no less(!) and yet it is not to be found in the Psalms. Surely God would not receive sinful worship in His very presence, if such it were.



The former is being discussed in this thread. Regarding the latter, a lot hinges on one's interpretation of Revelation as a whole (e.g. historicist, preterist, idealist, futurist). As I see it, the futurist interpretation (and possibly the partial-preterist interpretation as well, as I am not very familiar with which specific prophecies they hold as fulfilled) is largely the only one that could make that passage potentially relevant to the EP issue; and even if one does have that interpretation, it is still questionable whether or not that passage challenges EP, which I started this thread partially to discuss, among other things.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 29, 2005)

> It is more than just principal. You say that as long as the elements are there then it is acceptable. What about additional stuff addes to these primary elements; could not these things taint the RPW?



Consider the chapter you quoted from the PCA DoW:

47-6. The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given His Church a large measure of liberty in this matter. It may not be forgotten, however, that there is true liberty only where the rules of God´s Word are observed and the Spirit of the Lord is, that all things must be done decently and in order, and that God´s people should serve Him with reverence and in the beauty of holiness. From its beginning to its end a service of public worship should be characterized by that simplicity which is an evidence of sincerity and by that beauty and dignity which are a manifestation of holiness.

Note that it states that Christ did not give the Church a fixed form for public worship but has given His Church a large measure of liberty. But of course this liberty must be tempored by the Scriptures. The RPW is a guide for the Church, and establishes certain basic principals to follow. 

Can a Worship Service be tainted? Sure can. But how much of this goes to the elements of worship or the circumstances of worship or just plain personal taste?




> If the church is offering up worship contrary to Gods command, then it is sinning; simple. Nothing mystical.



Did God command for an offering to be taken up during the worship service? How about creeds? or corporate confessions of sin? Not mystical but also not simple.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Randy writes:
> 
> 
> ...



Scott, Do you deny that God is glorified in some of the Hymns that we have sang in our hearts to him?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I'll look at those threads (the PB is quite the tar baby, isn't it?) but I fail to see how one's interpretive view of Revelation comes to bear in this case Even if the song was song in the past (preterist)--before 70 AD even (for all the hyper-preterists out there)--the present (idealist???), or future (futurist), the point remains the same: the saints around the throne are depicted as worshipping God in song *that is not a Psalm!* I think the "good and necessary consequence" principle would make one stop and go "hmmmmmmm" at that point.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

The Idealist interpretation would certainly keep it from having any relevance, since it essentially takes Revelation to be completely metaphorical, hence the song would not be literally sung. The partial-Preterist interpretation, as I perceive it, understands a lot of the prophecies to have been fulfilled in a metaphorical way as well, hence the song _may_ not have been literally sung. The Historicist interpretation is somewhat similar to the preterist position in that it sees a lot of the prophecies being fulfilled metaphorically, the difference being all throughout history instead of in 70 A.D.

Thus, the Futurist position is really the only one that interprets a great deal of the prophecies in a literal fashion. And with that interpretation, the song being referenced would be being sung in the eschaton, rather than any time within the Church age, and that does not necessarily challenge EP, which is what I talk about in the thread linked above that I started on "The Psalter in redemptive history."


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> The Idealist interpretation would certainly keep it from having any relevance, since it essentially takes Revelation to be completely metaphorical, hence the song would not be literally sung. The partial-Preterist interpretation, as I perceive it, understands a lot of the prophecies to have been fulfilled in a metaphorical way as well, hence the song _may_ not have been literally sung. The Historicist interpretation is somewhat similar to the preterist position in that it sees a lot of the prophecies being fulfilled metaphorically, the difference being all throughout history instead of in 70 A.D.
> 
> Thus, the Futurist position is really the only one that interprets a great deal of the prophecies in a literal fashion. And with that interpretation, the song being referenced would be being sung in the eschaton, rather than any time within the Church age, and that does not necessarily challenge EP, which is what I talk about in the thread linked above that I started on "The Psalter in redemptive history."



OK, I'll grant you that the language may be metaphorical. But even if it is, so what? The fact is the non-Psalm is still sung before the throne. To me this puts a knife to the throat of the EP position, unless one wants to argue that that God would use metaphor in a deliberately misleading way.


----------

