I've been thinking about EP for the past couple of days, and thought I'd throw some thoughts out for feedback. I lean towards EP, mainly due to the weight of Reformed tradition behind. Its currently a small "stresser" for me, as I would really like to understand it. But anyway, here are the thoughts I've been having.
1. The burden lies on the one who does not adhere to EP. I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the burden of "debate", i.e., on these boards, falls on the non-EP group. But when it comes to actually instituting worship in the church, then Psalmody has a very clear command prescribing it, as compared to other compositions, whose warrant is less clear.
That is, however you take "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs", it certainly is at least referring to the Psalter. That's clear. It might very well, at the end of the day, be referring to other compositions as well. But it isn't perspicuous that other compositions are intended, and since it's not perspicuous, I would think that the burden lies on the non-EP person when it comes to instituting worship in the church.
2. I'm not as convinced by the lexical arguments as I used to be. That is, that the Greek words for hymns or songs would have had entirely different connotations to Gentile readers.
I used to see that as a pretty convincing argument. However, I think it fails to take into account that many churches would have had a copy of the Septuagint, and, at the very least, they would have had ordained elders who were familiar with the Scriptures, and who would have understood the reference.
Its not as if the epistle was sent to a group of laity. It was sent to a church that had ordained leadership. And apparently Paul thought they were conversant enough with the Psalter to quote from it when talking about Christ's ascension in chapter 4. Certainly that's a more obscure reference than the simple song headings would be.
And, though I suppose this is speculation, it seems that the early church was, demographically, largely (though not solely) composed of many slaves, women, children, artisans, whatever. I mean I'm generalizing, but you get the point. God has always chosen the weak things of the world to shame the strong, and apparently that was the state of things by the time that Celsus critiqued Origen for running after slaves, women, and children. I doubt they would be thoroughly conversant in Herodotus, Homer, et al.
Also, one other thought. I'm not an expert on the particular etymology of baptizo. Well I'm not an expert on anything; but I've really only skimmed the arguments that touch on mode.
However, do not Presbyterians who affirm sprinkling or effusion say that the use of "baptizo" in the Septuagint and what not should be normative in our understanding of how it is used in the New Testament? I.e., how the word is used in Scripture is a better indication of New Testmanent intent than the raw "lexical" meaning of the word, or how someone outside of the church, unacquainted with the Scriptures, might happen to understand it.
If so, how is that any different from taking the ambiguous language in Colossians and Ephesians and drawing on the Septuagint's meaning. What is the difference between this, and how we treat baptizo when it comes to mode?
To summarize that point though, if the epistle was written to the church, and we know that they had elders in place, and I think its safe to assume that these elders would have had to be conversant with the Old Testament, that the reference to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, *if* referring to the Psalter, wouldn't have been "lost" on the congregation.
3. I'm glad this thread has stated away from beating the "inspired" drum. I don't mean to be irreverent; I just don't think its the main issue. Kaalvenist was right to treat it in terms of authorization, and I think Puritansailor rightly diagnosed its use in these particular online debates as rhetoric, or jargon (whichever word he used).
Namely, if you make "inspiration" the issue, you automatically start going into sidebar discussions about the Song of Moses, Revelation, etc. Now, perhaps your view of corporate singining might end up being "inspired songs only", but even people who adhere to that base it on their belief that only inspired songs are authorized songs. Hence, even for that position, it ultimately comes down to authorization. So to always type "UH" or set up an "Inspired is clearly better" sign really doesn't further along the discussion.
4. Its not helpful when the EP side accuses the non-EP side of not holding to the RPW. I don't even see how that can be arrived at. Non-EP'ers still believe worship is regulated, and that we can only give the worship that God demands; they just disagree on what is, indeed, demanded. To act as if their position boils down to their right to offer God whatever they want is irresponsible and inaccurate.
5. I know a lot of focus is paid to the adjective "spiritual" in Ephesians, and the "word of Christ" reference in Colossians. But I've always skipped over the "teaching and admonishing" part for some reason. Does that have any significance relative to this issue? In other words, if the songs we sing are truly intended to teach and admonish, would that point to them being inspired texts? I know that's not a "lock", but does it point in that direction?
6. Personally, I don't really see Revelation 5 as relevant to this topic. I used to. I just came to change my mind on that in the past couple days. Now, I'm sure that I'll say a whole lot of eschatological, glorified error here, but someone smarter than I am can hopefully glean what I'm trying to say and rephrase it.
Regardless of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, and Jesus saying he'll drink of the vine with the disciples in his kingdom, I think it would be tenuous to say that the Lord's Supper is going to continue in heaven as a regular ordinance. Maybe it will, who knows. Baptism surely won't. I figure people even debate on whether or not we will have Bibles. I would assume the majority view is that we have a more unmediated encounter with God. Well, certainly mediated through the Logos, but perhaps not via word and sacrament. Regardless, if we don't expect the teaching of the word, overseers, deacons, corporate prayers for those in authority, the Lord's Supper, and baptism to continue in the eternal state, and we don't make that continuance or lack thereof normative in our understanding of current church worship, then why would we treat the issue of song any different? I guess I don't see the relevance; but I understand why some might.
Anyway. I'm still undecided. I lean EP, and pray that I'll gain more clarity soon. I need to do some weightier reading on it, beyond sermons and articles, when I have the time.
But those are the thoughts I've been having.
...but since you brought it up...
