Are the Psalms Prescriptive for Worship Praxis?

Are the Psalms prescriptive for worship praxis?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 48.4%
  • No

    Votes: 10 32.3%
  • Maybe, or not sure

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • Other - I will explain

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Total voters
    31
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is 1 Chronicles 25:1 something that David did under the specific instruction of some command by God or something he did in wisdom. Remember how Moses listened to the wisdom of this father-in-law? It was wisdom given but not necessarily commanded by a specific command of God. Is this the same thing?

1st Chronicles and Nehemiah both attest that David's provisions for temple worship were divine regulations.


But where did God command it?
 
How in the world would an NT believer follow this prescription taught by the Psalms without singing of the finished work of Jesus Christ, blessed be His name?

Quid novi? The singer, not the song. The ends of the earth, and not simply the people of Israel, are now to sound the victory of God's salvation and summons all nations to the bar of divine judgment.

:) - The singer is all the redeemed of the earth - what's new is clearly described - a new song, not a new singer.
 
Hi, Matthew! :wave: Was wondering when you would show up! :)

Concerning the composition of song, Christ claims this privilege for Himself alone, Heb. 2:12

saying,
"I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN,
IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE."

1 - thanks for weighing in on the original premise - if your assertion is correct, then the premise is false and all subsequent conclusions.

2 - How does this Scripture reveal an exclusivity claim by Christ?

(BTW - no contest that he is the Chief Songwriter! :) Just as he is the Chief Preacher and Prayer!)


The verse quoted in Hebrews is Psalm 22:22.

Read on further in Psalm 22. Verse 25 states literally "From you comes my praise in the great congregation."

Can it be more clearer? Jesus is stating that the praise sung in the worship comes from the Father! It is INSPIRED. Otherwise, one must adopt a robotic control of praise during worship, which would be an ultra charismatic interpretation that we are all filled with the Spirit and utter praise coming directly from Him.

If you hold to that latter view, then you are on the wrong website.
 
KJV

Luke 20:41-44

And He said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is the Son of David? Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms:


‘ The LORD said to my Lord,


“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’

Therefore David calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?

CEV

Jesus asked, "Why do people say that the Messiah will be the son of King David? In the book of Psalms, David himself says, `The Lord said to my Lord,

Sit at my right side

until I make your enemies

into a footstool for you.'

David spoke of the Messiah as his Lord, so how can the Messiah be his son?"


Christ and David tell us we are singing the name if Jesus when we sing the Psalms because Lord in the Psalms means Christ the Messiah and we sing the Name of Christ everytime we sing Lord.....




*Sigh*

How many times do we have to go over this..... We argued over this a few months ago....

Read Psalm 22.... The complete Work of Christ on the Cross...


How in the world would an NT believer follow this prescription taught by the Psalms without singing of the finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ, blessed be His name?

so...where exactly does that sing the blessed name?
 
Christ and David tell us we are singing the name if Jesus when we sing the Psalms because Lord in the Psalms means Christ the Messiah and we sing the Name of Christ everytime we sing Lord.....

So the name Lord is the name we are going to all bow to as indicated in Philippians. I don't buy it.
 
I buy it....

but let me indulge you for a minute.... It won't be the name Jesus either.... For that is just a transliteration of English from Greek (a anglicization) which is just a Hellenization of The Messiah's name in Hebrew......

So if it is not Lord, or Christ, or Messiah, then it will be Yehoshua which is the name of Christ in Hebrew and the name given to him at birth....



Christ and David tell us we are singing the name if Jesus when we sing the Psalms because Lord in the Psalms means Christ the Messiah and we sing the Name of Christ everytime we sing Lord.....

So the name Lord is the name we are going to all bow to as indicated in Philippians. I don't buy it.
 
The verse quoted in Hebrews is Psalm 22:22.

Read on further in Psalm 22. Verse 25 states literally "From you comes my praise in the great congregation."

Can it be more clearer? Jesus is stating that the praise sung in the worship comes from the Father! It is INSPIRED. Otherwise, one must adopt a robotic control of praise during worship, which would be an ultra charismatic interpretation that we are all filled with the Spirit and utter praise coming directly from Him.

If you hold to that latter view, then you are on the wrong website.

Now, now, Randy - no need to cast aspersions or go ad absurdum. We all agree that the Father is the source of praise, and Christ helps us understand that we do worship in spirit and in truth, but I also praise God when I pray, so unless you apply the same reasoning to prayer, then we must look to Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Scripture tells us to be taught and admonish one another through the Psalms and the Psalms guide us how we should create new songs that may be sung in the assembly and tell of Christ's great salvation. Through the guidance of God's Word and the Holy Spirit we can have confidence that we are singing in the proper context and with the proper content in an orderly way.

Blessings!
 
I understand the differences between the languages brother. But the name we are told we are saved by and will bow to is not Adonai or lord. The possessor of the name is who we will bow to and it is at His name we will bow.

(Php 2:10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

I like singing His name and specifically declaring the grace of God in the propitiating sacrifice Jesus Christ. It is theologically sound and glorifying to God.


I buy it....

but let me indulge you for a minute.... It won't be the name Jesus either.... For that is just a transliteration of English from Greek (a anglicization) which is just a Hellenization of The Messiah's name in Hebrew......

So if it is not Lord, or Christ, or Messiah, then it will be Yehoshua which is the name of Christ in Hebrew and the name given to him at birth....



Christ and David tell us we are singing the name if Jesus when we sing the Psalms because Lord in the Psalms means Christ the Messiah and we sing the Name of Christ everytime we sing Lord.....

So the name Lord is the name we are going to all bow to as indicated in Philippians. I don't buy it.
 
It does not say anything about singing..... Talks about Bowing every knee but the passage speaks not about singing.....

But Lord in the Psalms are referring to Christ so we so singing about Christ...... and about his propitiating sacrifice.......

But lets read this in passage in proper literal translation...

that in the name of Yehoshua every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth --



Or if a proper english translation of Yehoshua:

that in the name of Joshua every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth --




Still does not speak of singing and singing Lord is singing Christ...


I understand the differences between the languages brother. But the name we are told we are saved by and will bow to is not Adonai or lord. The possessor of the name is who we will bow to and it is at His name we will bow.

(Php 2:10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

I like singing His name and specifically declaring the grace of God in the propitiating sacrifice Jesus Christ. It is theologically sound and glorifying to God.


I buy it....

but let me indulge you for a minute.... It won't be the name Jesus either.... For that is just a transliteration of English from Greek (a anglicization) which is just a Hellenization of The Messiah's name in Hebrew......

So if it is not Lord, or Christ, or Messiah, then it will be Yehoshua which is the name of Christ in Hebrew and the name given to him at birth....



So the name Lord is the name we are going to all bow to as indicated in Philippians. I don't buy it.
 
But where did God command it?

God commanded it by virtue of the fact that David was a man of God, appointed to rule God's house and prescribe laws for it, so that what David prescribed is God's own regulation. Consider Gen. 49:10, the lawgiver comes from Judah. Ps. 108:8, the Lord says "Judah is my lawgiver." 1 Chron. 5:2, It was Judah's inheritance to rule his brethren. So to say that something was "the commandment of David" was equivalent to saying it was "the commandment of the Lord." E.g., 2 Chron. 29:25, "And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king’s seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets." And again, Neh. 12:24, "to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward."
 
The verse quoted in Hebrews is Psalm 22:22.

Read on further in Psalm 22. Verse 25 states literally "From you comes my praise in the great congregation."

Can it be more clearer? Jesus is stating that the praise sung in the worship comes from the Father! It is INSPIRED. Otherwise, one must adopt a robotic control of praise during worship, which would be an ultra charismatic interpretation that we are all filled with the Spirit and utter praise coming directly from Him.

If you hold to that latter view, then you are on the wrong website.

Now, now, Randy - no need to cast aspersions or go ad absurdum. We all agree that the Father is the source of praise, and Christ helps us understand that we do worship in spirit and in truth, but I also praise God when I pray, so unless you apply the same reasoning to prayer, then we must look to Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Scripture tells us to be taught and admonish one another through the Psalms and the Psalms guide us how we should create new songs that may be sung in the assembly and tell of Christ's great salvation. Through the guidance of God's Word and the Holy Spirit we can have confidence that we are singing in the proper context and with the proper content in an orderly way.

Blessings!


What is absurd about that interpretation? It is a common reformed interpretation, and makes perfect sense when one does not cast upon it one's own presuppositional bias.

As I am sure this has been mentioned hundreds of times where the regulative principle has been discussed, prayer and praise are not the same thing and are not regulated in the same way. Each prescribed element of acceptable worship has its own set of criteria which are, of course, prescribed by God Himself.

Do you believe that you or anyone else is a better hymn writer than the Holy Spirit? I know you know the correct answer to this question. Tragically, it is one people don't even think about.

Back in 1990, G.I. Williamson asked the question at a psalmody conference which should give us serious cause for consideration: if the psalms of the OT were not longer sufficient for NT worship, then why isn't there a NT book of Psalms? Did God "mess up" and make a mistake by forgetting to do this?

There is NO command in the NT to compose hymns. I have been waiting for 17 years for someone to show me this. Do you really want uninspired men, tainted with sin, composing hymns for solemn worship of Him?

Look at all the hymns today that have questionable or even heretical doctrine in them. Yet, the people who wrote those hymns think they are just fine. And from a relativistic perspective, how could you argue with them? After all, it is just your opinion against theirs.

That is why Peter tells us we have something more sure, the prophetic word, which we can trust. The words of men, we cannot always trust.
 
Brother - I cannot accept your logic (non sequitur) because I hear the word of men pray and preach all the time and the pulpits and pews are full of heretics singing, praying and preaching.

If this is truly your concern, we should only sing, preach and pray the unadulterated, unblended Word of God at every assembly.

It's not though - because we have the Word and the Spirit to guide us into all truth.
 
:) - The singer is all the redeemed of the earth - what's new is clearly described - a new song, not a new singer.

Well, if the writer of the Psalm is not permitted to clarify what he means by "song," then no one will be able to stand against the force of imagination. I personally would never entertain the idea that the Psalmist was referring to a salvation of which he himself was ignorant as a true Israelite.
 
I never said Philippians said anything about singing. I was making mention that that is the name we will declare. I will sing praise and declare it.

Hebrews 2:12 was mentioned. And Christ makes mention of declaring His name and singing praise in the congregation.

Well I want to image that in declaring his name and singing praise (or thanksgiving) to Him to the glory of God the Father.


(Joh 16:13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

(Joh 16:14) He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.



This discussion is senseless for me. I mainly entered it to ask Rev. Winzer a few questions. I wanted clarification from him.

I have belonged to a Covenanter Congregation and denomination. I have always found their arguments lacking and short sighted. And the arugments just seem go in circles about definitions of what psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are. I have seen the arguments from all sides. I like asking questions to reveal wholes sometimes. But presups always seem to cloud the arguments in my estimation.

Have fun debating this issue if it is near and dear to your hearts. I am mainly wanting Rev. Winzer to disclose to me where David received specific instruction to make an office of song writer for the Church in the OC. I also want to know how that relates to the book of Psalms.

It does not say anything about singing..... Talks about Bowing every knee but the passage speaks not about singing.....

But Lord in the Psalms are referring to Christ so we so singing about Christ...... and about his propitiating sacrifice.......

But lets read this in passage in proper literal translation...

that in the name of Yehoshua every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth --



Or if a proper english translation of Yehoshua:

that in the name of Joshua every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth --




Still does not speak of singing and singing Lord is singing Christ...


I understand the differences between the languages brother. But the name we are told we are saved by and will bow to is not Adonai or lord. The possessor of the name is who we will bow to and it is at His name we will bow.

(Php 2:10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

I like singing His name and specifically declaring the grace of God in the propitiating sacrifice Jesus Christ. It is theologically sound and glorifying to God.


I buy it....

but let me indulge you for a minute.... It won't be the name Jesus either.... For that is just a transliteration of English from Greek (a anglicization) which is just a Hellenization of The Messiah's name in Hebrew......

So if it is not Lord, or Christ, or Messiah, then it will be Yehoshua which is the name of Christ in Hebrew and the name given to him at birth....
 
Anent the question of singing the name of Jesus, or Yeshua, please open your Hebrew Testaments and you will see the name Yeshua is constantly praised in the book of Psalms. It is translated Salvation.
 
So, there was no specific Command where God first told David to do it?

But where did God command it?

God commanded it by virtue of the fact that David was a man of God, appointed to rule God's house and prescribe laws for it, so that what David prescribed is God's own regulation. Consider Gen. 49:10, the lawgiver comes from Judah. Ps. 108:8, the Lord says "Judah is my lawgiver." 1 Chron. 5:2, It was Judah's inheritance to rule his brethren. So to say that something was "the commandment of David" was equivalent to saying it was "the commandment of the Lord." E.g., 2 Chron. 29:25, "And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king’s seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets." And again, Neh. 12:24, "to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over against ward."
 
:) - The singer is all the redeemed of the earth - what's new is clearly described - a new song, not a new singer.

Well, if the writer of the Psalm is not permitted to clarify what he means by "song," then no one will be able to stand against the force of imagination. I personally would never entertain the idea that the Psalmist was referring to a salvation of which he himself was ignorant as a true Israelite.

I have no doubt the Psalmist could understand that salvation was of the Lord and his song in his "now" is still contextually relevant to our "now" - but there is also the element of the "not yet" he was not calling the redeemed of the earth to, because the blessed name was not revealed - Jesus Christ is the true reason for the new song, just as He is the reason for the New Covenant, so we can sing with the Psalmist (where is David "now" anyway?:)) and rejoice with all the redeemed with a new song of the revealed blessed name and His completed work without succumbing to the imaginations of men.
 
So, there was no specific Command where God first told David to do it?

Granted, as long as it is understood the same applies to apostolic precept in the NT epistles. It suffices for a divine regulation that these men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
 
I am sorry Rev. Winzer. I didn't read the 2 Chronicles reference closely enough. It does say. "for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets."

My point in bringing this out was that conventional wisdom was used by God in some cases as in the Case with Moses and His Father-in-Law.
 
I have no doubt the Psalmist could understand that salvation was of the Lord and his song in his "now" is still contextually relevant to our "now" - but there is also the element of the "not yet" he was not calling the redeemed of the earth to, because the blessed name was not revealed - Jesus Christ is the true reason for the new song, just as He is the reason for the New Covenant, so we can sing with the Psalmist (where is David "now" anyway?:)) and rejoice with all the redeemed with a new song of the revealed blessed name and His completed work without succumbing to the imaginations of men.

Brother, the blessed name is in the very Psalm which calls upon us to sing a new song: "The Lord hath made known His Jesus," Ps. 98:2. It is apparent therefore that the Psalmist knew Jesus very well, and that his intention was not to suggest that Israel was ignorant of Jesus, but that Jesus would soon be proclaimed to and known by the ends of the earth. It is the singer, not the song, which is new.
 
So, there was no specific Command where God first told David to do it?

Granted, as long as it is understood the same applies to apostolic precept in the NT epistles. It suffices for a divine regulation that these men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I wouldn't even argue against this point. Even if God didn't first prescribe something specifically, I would have to acknowledge that he used other means such as the case with Moses and his Father-in-Law in appointing Elders to help rule. It just gets a little cloudy when the specific prescription isn't seen and it is assumed. And sometimes I think that assumptions lead off the path as well as ignorance.
 
Brother, the blessed name is in the very Psalm which calls upon us to sing a new song: "The Lord hath made known His Jesus," Ps. 98:2. It is apparent therefore that the Psalmist knew Jesus very well, and that his intention was not to suggest that Israel was ignorant of Jesus, but that Jesus would soon be proclaimed to and known by the ends of the earth. It is the singer, not the song, which is new.

The new song contains the name and the completed work. That's why the song is new - it can speak explicitly - otherwise why have a new song (or new songs) in the first place? Just keep singing the same old song... :)
 
I have no doubt the Psalmist could understand that salvation was of the Lord and his song in his "now" is still contextually relevant to our "now" - but there is also the element of the "not yet" he was not calling the redeemed of the earth to, because the blessed name was not revealed - Jesus Christ is the true reason for the new song, just as He is the reason for the New Covenant, so we can sing with the Psalmist (where is David "now" anyway?:)) and rejoice with all the redeemed with a new song of the revealed blessed name and His completed work without succumbing to the imaginations of men.

Brother, the blessed name is in the very Psalm which calls upon us to sing a new song: "The Lord hath made known His Jesus," Ps. 98:2. It is apparent therefore that the Psalmist knew Jesus very well, and that his intention was not to suggest that Israel was ignorant of Jesus, but that Jesus would soon be proclaimed to and known by the ends of the earth. It is the singer, not the song, which is new.


This is not a proper noun is it? Such as in a specific name of a person. This is speaking of an action.... Salvation. God's name is salvation but this is refereing to Jehovah making known His act of saving or deliverance. This is not a revealing of a person.


To me this is where the arguments get silly.
 
The new song contains the name and the completed work. That's why the song is new - it can speak explicitly - otherwise why have a new song (or new songs) in the first place? Just keep singing the same old song... :)

That's merely a matter of personal perception; it's not something which can be established by sound exegesis of the passage.
 
To me this is where the arguments get silly.

It's not silly. It is a simple observation based on the practice of biblical characters deriving their proper names from abstract concepts associated with God's dealings with His people. Just as the singing of the name of "Israel" brings home the thought that the church is a "prince with God," likewise the singing of "salvation" turns the eyes towards "Jesus," who was so named because He would save His people from their sins.
 
But to suggest as you did that this passage is proof that they knew Jesus the Christ in person just is not a reality. At least that is what I took as your implication to be in your post. If I misinterpreted your implication then what was your implication?

Brother, the blessed name is in the very Psalm which calls upon us to sing a new song: "The Lord hath made known His Jesus," Ps. 98:2. It is apparent therefore that the Psalmist knew Jesus very well, and that his intention was not to suggest that Israel was ignorant of Jesus, but that Jesus would soon be proclaimed to and known by the ends of the earth. It is the singer, not the song, which is new.

(Psa 98:2) The LORD hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen.

As I stated before.....
This is not a proper noun is it? Such as in a specific name of a person. This is speaking of an action.... Salvation. God's name is salvation but this is refereing to Jehovah making known His act of saving or deliverance. This is not a revealing of a person.
 
But to suggest as you did that this passage is proof that they knew Jesus the Christ in person just is not a reality. At least that is what I took as your implication to be in your post. If I misinterpreted your implication then what was your implication?

We in the NT are not said to know Jesus in person, "kathws estin," or "proswpon pros proswpon." We behold Him as in a glass, 2 Cor. 3:18. The OT fathers beheld Him by faith in the glass of promise, and we behold Him by faith in the glass of fulfilment. We must await a further revelation to know Him in person, as He is, face to face, 1 John 3:2. Hence "salvation" showed them Jesus to come just as the name of Jesus shows us salvation is come, Acts 4:12.

Brother, the blessed name is in the very Psalm which calls upon us to sing a new song: "The Lord hath made known His Jesus," Ps. 98:2. It is apparent therefore that the Psalmist knew Jesus very well, and that his intention was not to suggest that Israel was ignorant of Jesus, but that Jesus would soon be proclaimed to and known by the ends of the earth. It is the singer, not the song, which is new.

(Psa 98:2) The LORD hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen.

As I stated before.....
This is not a proper noun is it? Such as in a specific name of a person. This is speaking of an action.... Salvation. God's name is salvation but this is refereing to Jehovah making known His act of saving or deliverance. This is not a revealing of a person.

The point is, that the Person is named specifically on account of the abstract quality which He was to bring to His people. Jesus is God's salvation. See Isa. 49:6. Hence it is a baseless claim that Psalm singers do not sing the name of Jesus. The name of Jesus is Yeshua, and Yeshua is known throughout the Psalms by the salvation which He brings His people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top