Praise Worship

[panta dokimazete]

Please show me in Scripture where the 150 psalms to the exclusion of all other songs are commanded.

God is creative. (Gen 1:1)

We are to be imitators of God. (Ephesians 5:1)

We have a mandate to sing new songs. (just look through the psalms and this in Isaiah ~200 years after David)

New songs will even be sung in Heaven. (Rev 5:9 & 14:3)

Here is a search on "new song" for your convenience.

 

[elnwood]

It may be an accurate of what Frame says. But by "adding latitude for good and necessary inferences" he's admitting things into the worship of God that you cannot require men to do them because it goes against conscience that is guided by the word of God. What is not commanded or authorized is not to be done.

What's being described is de facto normative. That disrupts the unity of the church, because some of us will be required to abstain from doing certain things that Dr. Frame advocates. So much for the unity of believers at worship.

I think part of unity is being charitable to different views within Christian orthodoxy. We all have our views on what constitutes a "good and necessary inference."

For example, I don't see infant baptism commanded in the New Testament, so in my mind that violates the Regulative Principle. But a paedo's view of "good and necessary inference" has more latitude than mine on this particular point. If we must restrict worship to whatever all Christians can do in good conscience, then we must get rid of infant baptism too.

 

[AV1611]

Please show me in Scripture where the 150 psalms to the exclusion of all other songs are commanded.

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

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

 

[panta dokimazete]

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

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

Sorry - been there and done that - these refer contextually to 3 different song forms commonly utilized by the culture and early church.

 

[Davidius]

Sorry - been there and done that - these refer contextually to 3 different song forms commonly utilized by the culture and early church.

Commonly utilized by the early church? The early church that condemned anything other than the 150 Psalms at the Synod of Laodicea and Council of Chalcedon?

Those in favor of EP have shown, using the analogy of faith, that the three terms could easily be referring to the Psalms of David by citing the same Greek words in the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint. I'm sure you've heard that before, but how would you, using the same method and letting scripture interpret scripture, define a "hymn" and a "spiritual song" if the two are, as you say, to be distinguished from the inspired Psalms?

 

[panta dokimazete]

No - the early Gentile churches that Paul was Christianizing - with the breadth of their music heritages and doctrine he taught.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Those in favor of EP have shown, using the analogy of faith, that the three terms could easily be referring to the Psalms of David by citing the same Greek words in the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint. I'm sure you've heard that before, but how would you, using the same method and letting scripture interpret scripture, define a "hymn" and a "spiritual song" if the two are, as you say, to be distinguished from the inspired Psalms?

Please take a look at this thread.

This is an area I truly believe Paul would utilize his same rationale:

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

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Frame's handling of the RPW boarders on the dishonest; I prefer RJ Gore's and others' who simply deny the principle, though Gore misrepresents Calvin, and is taken to the woodshed for it by David Lachman. See The Confessional Presbyterian volume 1 (2005) for the Smith/Lachman critical survey of Frame and Gore. See also the survey of 60 years of RPW literature in volume 2 (2006) and volume 3 (2007 forthcoming). Views of others such as Steve Schlissel are dealt with there.

John Frame's thinking in this book on the RPW guts the historical meaning of the RPW, redefines it, then passes it on as his "perspective". He would have won many more over if he stiffened his backbone a little and just flat out denied the RPW as each and every Reformed church has understood it to be.

 

[Davidius]

Please take a look at this thread.

This is an area I truly believe Paul would utilize his same rationale:

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

Worship is not comprised of Adiaphora. If what you're saying is true, we can throw the RPW out the window and scratch our heads as to why Nadab and Abihu were consumed with fire. If the EP position is correct, then offering anything to God through worship in song other than the Psalms is sin and if your position is correct, then those who hold to EP are sinning by their failure to obey the command to sing what you interpret as "hymns and spiritual songs." Please correct me if it is not so.

 

[satz]

This might have been answered before, so sorry if I missed it.

Is it possible to prove that hymns and spiritual songs refer to psalms by staying within the bible and not having to go to any external sources, including the originals or Septuagint?

 

[Davidius]

JD,

You have also yet to offer anything other than an assertion as to why "hymns" and "spiritual songs" are not the Psalms of David. The Apostles, the only ones with the authority to write songs that would have the same authority as the Psalms, didn't write any other songs to be sung by the Church. If so, where are they? In fact, from what I've read, the earliest hymns were written by heretics. Early church councils rejected the use of such uninspired works. Your claim that uninspired hymnody was common and accepted during the earlier church seems unfounded, unless you wish to become a Gnostic. On top of that, you have not used the analogy of faith to define hymns and spiritual songs.

 

[Davidius]

This might have been answered before, so sorry if I missed it.

Is it possible to prove that hymns and spiritual songs refer to psalms by staying within the bible and not having to go to any external sources, including the originals or Septuagint?

Hi Mark,

I'm not sure whether you meant to include the "originals" and the Septuagint with "external sources" or with the "bible" but the original copies no longer exist and the Septuagint is the bible. Using the analogy of faith and letting scripture interpret scripture, the supporters of EP have shown that Paul could easily be referring to the Psalms of David with all three terms since Paul, who wrote in Greek and often quoted from the Septuagint, used terms in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 which appear multiple times as headings of Psalms in the Septuagint.

 

[satz]

Hi David,

I meant to include the originals and Septuagint as external sources.

I guess my question was, can we define hymns and spiritual songs by comparing with other places in our english bibles?

 

[CDM]

Frame's handling of the RPW boarders on the dishonest; I prefer RJ Gore's and others' who simply deny the principle, though Gore misrepresents Calvin, and is taken to the woodshed for it by David Lachman. See The Confessional Presbyterian volume 1 (2005) for the Smith/Lachman critical survey of Frame and Gore. See also the survey of 60 years of RPW literature in volume 2 (2006) and volume 3 (2007 forthcoming). Views of others such as Steve Schlissel are dealt with there.

I found the article in the CPJ on Frame to be spot on and very gracious. It was so well done that halfway through it I became embarrassed for Frame and his slight of hand antics.

At least Gore had the courage of his convictions.

 

[Davidius]

Hi David,

I meant to include the originals and Septuagint as external sources.

I guess my question was, can we define hymns and spiritual songs by comparing with other places in our english bibles?

Certainly arguments could be made from the English translation of the bible and be acceptable in the forum of debate. However, I'm sure you'd agree that referring to the original languages is always the most helpful. Are you going anywhere specific with this line of thought?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Worship is not comprised of Adiaphora. If what you're saying is true, we can throw the RPW out the window and scratch our heads as to why Nadab and Abihu were consumed with fire.

Nope - Nadab and Abihu were obviously not filled with the Holy Spirit. That is the root cause of their sin and thus their punishment.

If the EP position is correct, then offering anything to God through worship in song other than the Psalms is sin and if your position is correct, then those who hold to EP are sinning by their failure to obey the command to sing what you interpret as "hymns and spiritual songs." Please correct me if it is not so.

I think you paint a more constrictive definition of sin than Paul did.

If it is sin to you to sing anything other than the Psalms, then it is sin. For you. Just as if it were a sin to drink anything other than wine with communion. Just as if it were a sin to you to pray anything other than the Lord's prayer when you pray.

It is a definitive sin to not worship God.

There are definitive elements for worship.

Scripture is not definitive on the musical format.

(BTW: Ich reiste nach Deutschland und studierte Musik, aber ich hatte viel meines deutschen grammer vergessen! )

 

[panta dokimazete]

You have also yet to offer anything other than an assertion as to why "hymns" and "spiritual songs" are not the Psalms of David.

I included the link where I relayed my reasoning. There is historical context for it.

The Apostles, the only ones with the authority to write songs that would have the same authority as the Psalms, didn't write any other songs to be sung by the Church. If so, where are they?

They also did not compose the melodies to go with the Psalms and only uttered them in writing as prooftexts. Maybe we should only speak the Psalms since we have lost the tunes?

In fact, from what I've read, the earliest hymns were written by heretics. Early church councils rejected the use of such uninspired works. Your claim that uninspired hymnody was common and accepted during the earlier church seems unfounded, unless you wish to become a Gnostic.

Oy, now with the ad hominum - unless I submit to your narrow interpretation, I become a heretic. I guess Luther was, too?

On top of that, you have not used the analogy of faith to define hymns and spiritual songs.

Do you disagree with Augustine's definition?

 

[Davidius]

Oy, now with the ad hominum - unless I submit to your narrow interpretation, I become a heretic. I guess Luther was, too?

I merely meant to point out that your position on the practice of the early church was misinformed by pointing to the lack of orthodox hymnals from the time and the judgements of church councils. However, you are right in calling me out on my last comment, "unless you wish to become Gnostic," and I apologize for saying it. ?


Most of our non-historical disagreements seem to be based on different understandings of the RPW. For instance, you mentioned that only saying the Psalms is a logical conclusion to my argument but I disagree. The RPW requires commands from scripture and the command we have commands that we sing Psalms. Since singing by definition requires rhythm and pitch, and since Paul doesn't command a certain tune, we can consider the tune a circumstance. I'm willing to let the discussion rest as it is because we have presuppositions that are going to continue causing us to talk past one another.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Vielen dank! Tschüss!

And I hope you understand that I do try and engage the RPW in all areas and ways that are reasonably applicable, as I am sure you do, as well.

-JD

 

[panta dokimazete]

The RPW requires commands from scripture and the command we have commands that we sing Psalms. Since singing by definition requires rhythm and pitch, and since Paul doesn't command a certain tune, we can consider the tune a circumstance.

Just to present my RPW rationale on the subject (and this is just a recapitulation for myself):

1. We are commanded to sing psalms (not the Psalms, btw) and hymns and spiritual songs in worship - the historical-cultural context of the time is of 3 separate forms.

2. We are commanded to sing to the Lord a new song and we are given non-Psalmic references in Isaiah and Revelation.

3. We know the text of the Psalms, but not the musical form, so musical form is circumstantial for Psalms.

4. We have at least one church father that spoke briefly on the format of hymns as segregated from psalms, so there is a bit more "circumstantiality" to hymns.

5. We have some historical/cultural context for a "spiritual song" as differentiated from a Psalm or hymn, so there is a bit more "circumstantiality" than either of the previous 2 song types.

6. If we write music for the Psalms, and words and music for hymns and spiritual songs and these activities are drenched and affirmed by Scriptural principles and even text as well as guided by the Holy Spirit - God will honor, perfect and accept it through Christ, since worship is a component of faith and Christ is the author and perfecter of our faith.

For instance:

This spiritual song in praise of Man's freewill.

One can certainly challenge this song as appropriate or guided by the Holy Spirit in the light that it is certainly not Scriptural in it's doctrine since it ultimately glorifies Man as opposed to God. So while it may take on the "likeness" of a spiritual song that Paul references - it is not.

 

[Davidius]

Thank you for taking the time to write that all out. I think I understand your position better now.

Just to present my RPW rationale on the subject (and this is just a recapitulation for myself):

3. We know the text of the Psalms, but not the musical form, so musical form is circumstantial for Psalms.

I'm glad we agree on at least one thing!

oh oh! you said:

Vielen dank! Tschüss!

kannst du Deutsch?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Ich reiste nach Deutschland und studierte Musik, aber ich hatte viel meines deutschen grammer vergessen!

 

[elnwood]

Every time the New Testament refers to the 150 Psalms that we know, it makes it very clear. Luke 20:42 says, "the book of Psalms," Luke 24:44 says "everything written about me in ... the Psalms must be fulfilled," and Acts 1:20 says "For it is written in the book of Psalms." Note the definite articles. There is no dispute whatsoever that these passages are referring to the Psalter.

But in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, you don't have that. You have "addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," and "singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." There are no definite articles. Paul could have easily written "addressing one another from the Psalms," or "singing the book of Psalms." But he doesn't. So I think from a basic reading, "psalms" in those passages means songs of that type in general, and not exclusive to the Psalter. The burden of proof is on the EP view to show that "psalms" in those passages must refer to the 150 inspired, canonical Psalms that we have today.

 

[satz]

Certainly arguments could be made from the English translation of the bible and be acceptable in the forum of debate. However, I'm sure you'd agree that referring to the original languages is always the most helpful. Are you going anywhere specific with this line of thought?

Hi David,

Not really, just curious to if I missed something.

Although, I would respectfull argue that arguments from the internal consistency and context of the bible are better than having to go back to the originals.(Which is sort of why I asked the question.)

Thanks for the help!

 

[jaybird0827]

Every time the New Testament refers to the 150 Psalms that we know, it makes it very clear. Luke 20:42 says, "the book of Psalms," Luke 24:44 says "everything written about me in ... the Psalms must be fulfilled," and Acts 1:20 says "For it is written in the book of Psalms." Note the definite articles. There is no dispute whatsoever that these passages are referring to the Psalter.

But in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, you don't have that. You have "addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," and "singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." There are no definite articles. Paul could have easily written "addressing one another from the Psalms," or "singing the book of Psalms." But he doesn't. So I think from a basic reading, "psalms" in those passages means songs of that type in general, and not exclusive to the Psalter. The burden of proof is on the EP view to show that "psalms" in those passages must refer to the 150 inspired, canonical Psalms that we have today.

No, the burden of proof is on those who insist that God has commanded the identification of other "psalms" and the subsequent singing of them by the church. We know that the book of Psalms consists of psalms. We cannot be absolutely certain what other passages qualify as psalms. Who decides that? Where do they get the authority to make that call? You still have not proved that this is authorized, required, or commanded by God. Therefore you cannot bind men's conciences to sing them. That would be implicit faith.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Forgive me for intruding a brief article that I just wrote a couple days ago, but it seemed germaine to the subject under discussion.

On Biblical Hymns

And for another interesting quote from St. Augustine, see his Letter to Januarias, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 314, 315:

In such a case we ought by all means to adopt it, especially if it be something in defence of which Scripture can be alleged: as in the singing of hymns and psalms, for which we have on record both the example and the precepts of the Lord and of His apostles. In this religious exercise, so useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God, there is diversity of usage, and in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it; on which account the Donatists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches, while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition, which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field.

Here, St. Augustine refers to the songs which they sing as "hymns and psalms," and also as "divine songs" (all three terms found in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16) -- but note that he says that these are "of the prophets," and contrasts them with the "psalms" sung by the Donatists, which were "of human composition." I would argue that, since Augustine reproved the Donatists for their "singing of psalms of human composition," and contrasted this with the practice of the African churches, the "grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches," that Augustine was opposed to uninspired hymns, and that he at least sang only inspired songs, if not only Psalms.

 

[panta dokimazete]

No, the burden of proof is on those who insist that God has commanded the identification of other "psalms" and the subsequent singing of them by the church. We know that the book of Psalms consists of psalms. We cannot be absolutely certain what other passages qualify as psalms. Who decides that? Where do they get the authority to make that call? You still have not proved that this is authorized, required, or commanded by God. Therefore you cannot bind men's conciences to sing them. That would be implicit faith.

nope - God commands new songs very plainly - not only in the Psalms, but by the prophet Isaiah and even references new songs in Heaven - if we are filled with the Holy Spirit and guided by Scripture, then the new song is acceptable worship.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Forgive me for intruding a brief article that I just wrote a couple days ago, but it seemed germaine to the subject under discussion.

On Biblical Hymns

And for another interesting quote from St. Augustine, see his Letter to Januarias, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 314, 315:
Here, St. Augustine refers to the songs which they sing as "hymns and psalms," and also as "divine songs" (all three terms found in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16) -- but note that he says that these are "of the prophets," and contrasts them with the "psalms" sung by the Donatists, which were "of human composition." I would argue that, since Augustine reproved the Donatists for their "singing of psalms of human composition," and contrasted this with the practice of the African churches, the "grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches," that Augustine was opposed to uninspired hymns, and that he at least sang only inspired songs, if not only Psalms.

Funny how 2 people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.

We are not, however, to be restrained by this, if more good is to be expected from our consenting with those who are zealous for the ceremony, than loss to be feared from our displeasing those who protest against it. In such a case we ought by all means to adopt it, especially if it be something in defense of which Scripture can be alleged: as in the singing of hymns and psalms, for which we have on record both the example and the precepts of the Lord and of His apostles. In this religious exercise, so useful for inducing a devotional frame of mind and inflaming the strength of love to God, there is diversity of usage, and in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it; on which account the Donstists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches, while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition, which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field. But when brethren are assembled in the church, why should not the time be devoted to singing of sacred songs, excepting of course while reading or preaching is going on, or while the presiding minister prays aloud, or the united prayer of the congregation is led by the deacon's voice? At the other intervals not thus occupied, I do not see what could be a more excellent, useful, and holy exercise for a Christian congregation.

When he says the Donstists reproach us - I think he is saying in context that "they put us to shame" - note what he says about his African brethren "in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it".

I think he is rather complimentary of the Donstists' musical worship - contrasting the African "grave chanting" with the Donstists whose songs "rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field".

 

[Kaalvenist]

Funny how 2 people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions.



When he says the Donstists reproach us - I think he is saying in context that "they put us to shame" - note what he says about his African brethren "in Africa the members of the Church are rather too indifferent in regard to it".

I think he is rather complimentary of the Donstists - contrasting the African "grave chanting" with the Donstists whose songs "rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field".

1. I doubt that "reproach" can be as easily interpreted or translated as "shame" as you understand it. I haven't yet seen the Latin in which he originally wrote the epistle, but I would like to see your interaction with that before you try to change stuff.

2. His remark concerning the indifference of his brethren in Africa seems to be the cause to which he is attributing the gross errors in practice of the Donatists. If they had not been indifferent regarding this ordinance, the singing of human compositions never would have arisen to profane the ordinance.

3. I think that, given the admittedly universal belief and practice of the early church fathers regarding musical instruments -- and Augustine is no exception -- I cannot see his remarks regarding "the stirring notes of the trumpet on the battle-field" as being "rather complimentary."

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Just saw this posted;
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/r-f-w/message/9551

<<Dear All I thought folk might be interested in the following published on the James Begg Society Website.http://www.jbeggsoc.org.uk/

Best regards
Matthew member FPCS Inverness
website: www.holdfast.co.nr

In Spirit and in Truth: An Anthology on Christian Worship

(PDF files, requiring Adobe Acrobat Reader)

Introduction
Reasons wherefore Christians ought to Worship God in Singing
His Praises not with the Matter and Sense of Dr. Watts’ Psalms
and Hymns, but with the Matter and Sense of David’s Psalms;
Because God has Commanded the Latter, but not the Former.
1759

Singing of Psalms, The Duty of Christians under the New
Testament - Thomas Ford 1652

A Gospel Ordinance concerning the Singing of Scripture Psalms,
Hymns and Spiritual Songs - Cuthbert Sidenham 1653

Reasons for and against Singing of Psalms in Private or Publick
Worship - David Rees 1737

An Essay on Psalmody - William Romaine 1775

The Psalmody of the Church - Josias Chancellor 1873

The Pattern on the Mount - Walter Scott 1877

Inspired Psalmody - H. C. R. Bazely 1878

The Psalms of David the only Inspired and Authorized Service of Praise - Rev. S. P. Stewart 1893

Extract from “The Character of a Godly Man” - Thomas Watson
1666
>>