Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For those of you who are EP:
I suspect that their understanding of the regulative principle doesn't differ at all. Scott's definition is clear enough. Some who are non EP would hold to a normative principle. Others (like myself) would strongly affirm the Regulative principle as he has stated it. Which underlines a common mistake people make about the regulative principle of worship (not by any means unique to EP): that the RPW in itself commands a particular form of worship. The RPW is simply a preliminary commitment: that every aspect of our worship must be according to Biblical commands (explicit or good and necessary inference). It does not in itself tell us the content of those scriptural commands. For that, exegesis of specific texts is necessary. Wide differences in worship among those who affirm the RPW are no more surprising than wide differences in theology among those who affirm the inerrancy of the Scriptures. The difference flows from the exegesis (and underlying hermeneutics), not from the preliminary principle.Singing inspired songs
For those of you who are EP:
Please explain how your understanding of the regulative principal differs from those who are non-EP?
Singing inspired songs
For those of you who are EP:
Please explain how your understanding of the regulative principal differs from those who are non-EP?
I suspect that their understanding of the regulative principle doesn't differ at all. Scott's definition is clear enough. Some who are non EP would hold to a normative principle. Others (like myself) would strongly affirm the Regulative principle as he has stated it. Which underlines a common mistake people make about the regulative principle of worship (not by any means unique to EP): that the RPW in itself commands a particular form of worship. The RPW is simply a preliminary commitment: that every aspect of our worship must be according to Biblical commands (explicit or good and necessary inference). It does not in itself tell us the content of those scriptural commands. For that, exegesis of specific texts is necessary. Wide differences in worship among those who affirm the RPW are no more surprising than wide differences in theology among those who affirm the inerrancy of the Scriptures. The difference flows from the exegesis (and underlying hermeneutics), not from the preliminary principle.
I am not trying to be argumentative. Just informative. This is a hard topic. There is a lot of emotion concerning the topic because it has to do with our affections and desiring to please the God we Love. Look, I understand that emotion. It is hurtful and hard to understand. The first murder took place because God didn't accept Cain's offering. That had to do with Worship. This was a hard topic for me to understand and listen to for many years as was the topic concerning pictures of Christ. I understand the frustration. I have no condemnation for anyone here. I just want to help be informative and encouraging.
First, regarding the validity of translations, the Bible itself acknowledges that translations may properly be considered the Word of God when NT writers quote the Septuagint translation of the OT.For those of you who are EP:
What are your thoughts on the following argument: "My position is that we must sing only what is biblical. But by the term “biblical” I mean what is biblical in content. We do not need to sing only the very words of Scripture. Otherwise we would have to sing in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. We need to sing the content of Scripture."?
Many who accept the RPW do not accept exclusive Psalmody. If they believe that God regulates his worship according to Scriptural prescription alone, then I wholeheartedly agree. The difference comes when seeking to ascertain what God has prescribed.Singing inspired songs
For those of you who are EP:
Please explain how your understanding of the regulative principal differs from those who are non-EP?
For those of you who are EP:
Please explain how your understanding of the regulative principal differs from those who are non-EP?
Has your church become EP since your realization ? If the answer is affirmative, how did the transition from non-EP, to EP go ?I'm someone who went from non-EP to EP while pastoring a non-EP church.
Has your church become EP since your realization ? If the answer is affirmative, how did the transition from non-EP, to EP go ?
Sorry to hear that. I didn't notice the current status. Thanks for the clarification.Dear brother, if only. My personal, gradual transition to EP only compounded a host of other issues already straining the relationship between myself and the session. We mutually agreed that I could no longer serve there as pastor and my call was dissolved (hence my current signature block).
For those of you who are EP:
What are your thoughts on the following argument: "My position is that we must sing only what is biblical."
No, it doesn't. Anyone who argues that the three terms are strictly synonymous is weakening his case. The terms can be used in different ways. Here, I would argue, they function as synonyms, though they can be used to draw distinctions.What are your thoughts on the following argument?
Does this argument correctly represent the EP position?
Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 clearly point to singing in worship that is more than just only singing Psalms. I have yet to see any convincing exegetical treatment of this that can get around what the text is saying here, that we should sing songs of multiple genres, and not just psalm-only. It is three different words in the Greek here that get translated as psalms, hymns, spiritual songs. These words aren’t just strict synonyms. Paul isn’t saying, “Singing psalms, psalms, psalms.” Paul is thinking of worship of God that involves the psalms, but not just strictly and only singing the psalms.
Paul isn’t saying, “Singing psalms, psalms, psalms.” Paul is thinking of worship of God that involves the psalms, but not just strictly and only singing the psalms.
Will requote Jeri here. https://puritanboard.com/threads/si...non-ep-answers-only.93520/page-4#post-1141658What are your thoughts on the following argument?
Does this argument correctly represent the EP position?
Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19 clearly point to singing in worship that is more than just only singing Psalms. I have yet to see any convincing exegetical treatment of this that can get around what the text is saying here, that we should sing songs of multiple genres, and not just psalm-only. It is three different words in the Greek here that get translated as psalms, hymns, spiritual songs. These words aren’t just strict synonyms. Paul isn’t saying, “Singing psalms, psalms, psalms.” Paul is thinking of worship of God that involves the psalms, but not just strictly and only singing the psalms.
“Paul uses “Psalms” as the rest of the NT uses it, to refer to the canonical book of Psalms. The word “hymn” in the NT is also used in reference to the canonical book of Psalms: see Matthew 26:30, where Christ and the apostles’ singing of the Hallel Psalms is referred to as “hymning”; and Acts 16:25, where Paul and Silas’s praise in jail is referred to as “hymning.” (There is absolutely no reason to think that Paul and Silas sang anything other than the canonical Psalms.)
Another consideration re: your last sentence: the Hebrew name for the book of Psalms is “Tehilliam,” “praise.” It was “the Book of Praises.” Yes, the church before David always sang the praises of God and they were always and only prophetically inspired songs. The Holy Spirit guided the process of canonizing the final songbook for the church in the book of Tehilliam (or Psalms as the Greek translates it).”
Faced each other. Which goes to show that singing the psalms can be done in an unworthy cause.Covenanters, and Cromwellians faced
If the Trinity is so iron-clad, why replace it?
Dearly beloved brethren and sisters, if we hold that the Psalms are not suitable to be sung in NT worship, then they are not suitable to be read or preached.
Yes, you hear this all the time about the "Messianic Psalms," when in reality they are all about Him (and Andrew Bonar's comments on the Psalms are eye-opening!).There is a false division made by emphasising that there are Messianic Psalms and others. Whereas I would agree with the Rev Andrew Bonar who held that every Psalm is about Him.