Are the Psalms Prescriptive for Worship Praxis?

[AV1611]

Not really - Christ through Paul points to the Psalms - the Psalms point to new songs - we are his chosen people, a royal priesthood - we are to sing new songs to His praise as the Psalms direct.

I have already asked for exegetical work to substantiate such an assertion yet none has been forthcoming.

Contextually (Ps. 96) it is YHWH speaking through Israel to the gentiles exhorting them to convert to YHWH. Hence it is an exhortation to the heathens to sing a new song, a song they have not sung before, i.e. a song in praise to YHWH.

Notice the parallelism here?

O sing unto the LORD a new song:
sing unto the LORD, all the earth.

Notice the parallelism here? Notice how it is developing what they are to do?

Sing unto the LORD, bless his name;
shew forth his salvation from day to day.
Declare his glory among the heathen,
his wonders among all people.

Now the reason.

For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised:
he is to be feared above all gods.
For all the gods of the nations are idols:
but the LORD made the heavens.
Honour and majesty are before him:
strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.

Back again to exhortation.

Give unto the LORD, O ye kindreds of the people,
give unto the LORD glory and strength.
Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name:
bring an offering, and come into his courts.
O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness:
fear before him, all the earth.
Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth:
the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved:
he shall judge the people righteously.

Back again to exhortation. Notice the repetition of judgment?

Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad;
let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof.
Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein:
then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice
Before the LORD: for he cometh,
for he cometh to judge the earth:
he shall judge the world with righteousness,
and the people with his truth.

 

[panta dokimazete]

AV1611 - brother - I am working now and then into the night at church - stay calm, I'll answer when I get time - silence is not capitulation.

Pax.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I have never heard that there was an office of Song Writer for the Church in either testament. This in no way takes away from the gift of being able to praise God or write theologically sound music and rhyme to praise God with. I would be interested in hearing more about this.

1 Chron 25:1, "Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the
service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should
prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals," &c.

"Separated to the service" -- that is an office. It also indicates what the
true nature of sung praise is, namely, prophetic.

But it is true that no such office existed in the New Testament church, and that is because the apostles simply received the New Testament songs which were delivered to the Old Testament church in the inspired words of David and Asaph.

another Matthew disagrees with your interpretation:

1 Chronicles 25
Number and Services of Musicians

1Moreover, David and the commanders of the army set apart for the service some of the sons of Asaph and of Heman and of Jeduthun, who were to prophesy with lyres, harps and cymbals; and the number of those who performed their service was:

The singers and musicians.

to David put those in order who were appointed to be singers and musicians in the temple. To prophesy, in this place, means praising God with great earnestness and devout affections, under the influences of the Holy Spirit. In raising these affections, poetry and music were employed. If the Spirit of God do not put life and fervour into our devotions, they will, however ordered, be a lifeless, worthless form.

About this commentary:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible is available in the Public Domain.

Back later with more!

 

[MW]

I have never heard that there was an office of Song Writer for the Church in either testament. This in no way takes away from the gift of being able to praise God or write theologically sound music and rhyme to praise God with. I would be interested in hearing more about this.

1 Chron 25:1, "Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the
service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should
prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals," &c.

"Separated to the service" -- that is an office. It also indicates what the
true nature of sung praise is, namely, prophetic.

But it is true that no such office existed in the New Testament church, and that is because the apostles simply received the New Testament songs which were delivered to the Old Testament church in the inspired words of David and Asaph.

another Matthew disagrees with your interpretation:

I fail to see how the better Matthew disagrees with the lesser Matthew's interpretation of this passage. He states in the full version of his masterpiece, "the psalms they sang were composed by prophets, and many of them were prophetical; and the edification of the church was intended in it, as well as the glory of God." Hence he understood the Psalms to be prophetic by nature. Secondly, he understood the Psalms to be written by men divinely appointed to the task: "The order of the king is likewise taken notice of, v. 2, and again v. 6. In those matters indeed David acted as a prophet."

 

[panta dokimazete]

I have already asked for exegetical work to substantiate such an assertion yet none has been forthcoming.

hoookay - got a minute

Does anyone disagree that we, as believers, have superseded the Levitical priesthood in that we are all priests of God through our birthright in Christ?

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

...and that these verses help us understand that each one of the royal priesthood does not have the same gifting or calling?

Romans 12:4
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,

1 Corinthians 12:29-31
29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

But what about singing? Well, as Rev. Winzer has pointed out, singing has the characteristic of prophesy - but to what degree?

Is singing prophetic in the sense that the singer is one of God's oracular prophets? No. See earlier commentary from Matthew Henry.

Is singing prophetic in the same sense as preaching or teaching God's Word? No.

Is singing something different than preaching or oracular prophesying? Of course it is - no one in their right mind would sing a sermon and we all know that oracular prophesy has ceased!

Well, let's go to the Psalms, as we are commanded, to discover what the people of God may do concerning song:

Psalm 149:1
Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise in the assembly of the godly!

How about that - we can sing new songs to the Lord's praise in the assembly!

How will we get these new songs - who will write them?

Romans 12:5-7
5so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching;

Since we have already drawn the correlation between prophesy and singing, it is fairly plain to see that those who have been gifted to write new songs should use the gift according to the proportion given them. And I think we will all agree that some new songs are better than others, just as some sermons and some prayers, but we all partake in the assembly to the praise and glory of God.

 

[Coram Deo]

Disagree... But not sure the point in arguing about it again... Circular!!

I have already asked for exegetical work to substantiate such an assertion yet none has been forthcoming.

hoookay - got a minute

Does anyone disagree that we, as believers, have superseded the Levitical priesthood in that we are all priests of God through our birthright in Christ?

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

...and that these verses help us understand that each one of the royal priesthood does not have the same gifting or calling?





But what about singing? Well, as Rev. Winzer has pointed out, singing has the characteristic of prophesy - but to what degree?

Is singing prophetic in the sense that the singer is one of God's oracular prophets? No. See earlier commentary from Matthew Henry.

Is singing prophetic in the same sense as preaching or teaching God's Word? No.

Is singing something different than preaching or oracular prophesying? Of course it is - no one in their right mind would sing a sermon and we all know that oracular prophesy has ceased!

Well, we let's go to the Psalms, as we are commanded, to discover what the people of God may do concerning song:

Psalm 149:1
Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise in the assembly of the godly!

How about that - we can sing new songs to the Lord's praise in the assembly!

How will we get these new songs - who will write them?

Romans 12:5-7
5so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching;

Since we have already drawn the correlation between prophesy and singing, it is fairly plain to see that those who have been gifted to write new songs should use the gift according to the proportion given them. And I think we will all agree that some new songs are better than others, just as some sermons and some prayers, but we all partake in the assembly to the praise and glory of God.

 

[AV1611]

Well, let's go to the Psalms, as we are commanded, to discover what the people of God may do concerning song:

Psalm 149:1
Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise in the assembly of the godly!

How about that - we can sing new songs to the Lord's praise in the assembly!

How will we get these new songs - who will write them?

You still have not provided exegetical evidence that the phrase "new song" means produce new songs i.e. construct your own songs. Hence there is a major logical flaw with your whole argument.

Psalm 96 and 98 both contain the phrase "new song" and neither refers to constructing new songs. What is being exhorted is the singing of songs that are new to that person. Psalm 96 is a core missionary psalm and is eschatological looking forward to the gospel dispensation. Here, Israel is sounding forth the encouragement to gentiles to forsake their idols and turn to Jehovah. God is, through Israel, calling upon the gentiles to sing a new song, a song that as heathen, and strangers to the covenants and commonwealth, they have never sung before. The gentiles are being urged to sing unto Jehovah, i.e. to submit to the king (note these psalms fall in the block of Psalms 90-100 where the focus is on God's kingship over all nations) and take his praise upon their lips.

Simply: the phrase "new song" is "repent, have faith in Christ" in poetic form. All the earth is exhorted to be converted and so "sing unto the LORD a new song".

Psalm 96​

O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth. Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day. Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people. For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. Honour and majesty are before him: strength and beauty are in his sanctuary. Give unto the LORD, O ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come into his courts. O worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth. Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously. Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof. Let the field be joyful, and all that is therein: then shall all the trees of the wood rejoice Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.

 

[panta dokimazete]

You still have not provided exegetical evidence that the phrase "new song" means produce new songs i.e. construct your own songs. Hence there is a major logical flaw with your whole argument.

I am sorry, but this is exegesis vs. eisegesis - the plain and revealed meaning vs. driving a beloved presupposition into the text. Ask a child what "sing to the Lord a new song" means. This is not some sophisticated major doctrinal complexity that is a mystery of God. That is why so little is said of it in the NT. It is, at its heart, a simple doctrine that falls under the same regulative principle as preaching and prayer for public worship.

Christ and the Apostles understood what new song was in the most complete way possible. Yes, sing the old songs with new meaning, but moreover, be taught and admonished by them to sing new songs that "proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light"!

I have already qualified the appropriate regulative principle to whom should write the new songs for the assembly, so your critique fails. The logic of EP is in error.

 

[AV1611]

this is exegesis vs. eisegesis

Correct, and in my post you will find the former. My exegesis is founded upon the Psalm's place in the psalter, its grammatical construction, and its message.

John Gill

This psalm was written by David, as appears from 1 Ch 16:7 to whom it is ascribed by the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions. This and part of Psalm 105 were first composed and sung at the bringing of the ark from the house of Obededom to the city of David; and here it is detached from that with a new introduction to it, and applied to the times and kingdom of the Messiah, and; with great propriety, since the ark was an eminent type of him. The inscription in the Syriac version is, "a Psalm of David, a Prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, and of the calling of the Gentiles that believe in him:'' and very rightly, since express mention is made of them in it, and of the publication of the Gospel among them; and clear reference is had to Christ, who is the Jehovah all along spoken of Jarchi well observes, that wherever a "new song" is mentioned, it is to be understood of future time, or the times of the Messiah; and the end of the psalm shows it, he cometh to judge, &c.​

Matthew Henry

This psalm is part of that which was delivered into the hand of Asaph and his brethren (1Ch 16:7), by which it appears both that David was the penman of it and that it has reference to the bringing up of the ark to the city of David; whether that long psalm was made first, and this afterwards taken out of it, or this made first and afterwards borrowed to make up that, is not certain. But this is certain, that, though it was sung at the translation of the ark, it looks further, to the kingdom of Christ, and is designed to celebrate the glories of that kingdom, especially the accession of the Gentiles to it. Here is, I. A call given to all people to praise God, to worship him, and give glory to him, as a great and glorious God (Psa 96:1-9).
II. Notice given to all people of God's universal government and judgment, which ought to be the matter of universal joy (Psa 96:10-13). In singing this psalm we ought to have our hearts filed with great and high thoughts of the glory of God and the grace of the gospel, and with an entire satisfaction in Christ's sovereign dominion and in the expectation of the judgment to come.​

O sing unto the LORD a new song:
sing unto the LORD, all the earth. ​

Maybe you would like to explain this parellelism?

 

[panta dokimazete]

What is to disagree with?

wherever a "new song" is mentioned, it is to be understood of future time, or the times of the Messiah;

ok - the time of Messiah has come, the prophesy fulfilled, we are a royal priesthood - let's sing the Psalms with understanding and some new songs!

 

[R Harris]

Does anyone disagree that we, as believers, have superseded the Levitical priesthood in that we are all priests of God through our birthright in Christ?

I Peter 2:19

...and that these verses help us understand that each one of the royal priesthood does not have the same gifting or calling?"


Here is another quote of Scripture,from Exodus 19:6:

"and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."

Note that ALL the people of Israel are being called priests; this is not the same thing as the Levitical priesthood, which did not even begin until shortly thereafter, with Nadab and Abihu being the first priests, and also being the first to die in that function, since they did not do as the Lord commanded them to do in their function (Leviticus 10).

So, Peter is simply applying that verse to believers in I Peter 2:19 - the TRUE ISRAEL. He is NOT implying that they are also Levitical priests, nor is he stating that they can now simply do whatever they want to do in a worship service. A major stretch, to say the least.

With regard to the psalms teaching us as we sing them - if you would read Colossians 3:16 carefully, this is exactly what it says:

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God."

The word of Christ (the Psalms) are to teach and admonish us, in all wisdom.

Can you honestly say that even a majority of uninspired hymns perform this function? I would venture to say that you cannot even get a double digit count of all the uninspired hymns out there that do any kind of admonishment.

With the Psalms, we have that guarantee - that sure word of prophecy. With uninspired hymns, we do not.

 

[Davidius]

You still have not provided exegetical evidence that the phrase "new song" means produce new songs i.e. construct your own songs. Hence there is a major logical flaw with your whole argument.

I am sorry, but this is exegesis vs. eisegesis - the plain and revealed meaning vs. driving a beloved presupposition into the text. Ask a child what "sing to the Lord a new song" means. This is not some sophisticated major doctrinal complexity that is a mystery of God. That is why so little is said of it in the NT. It is, at its heart, a simple doctrine that falls under the same regulative principle as preaching and prayer for public worship.

Christ and the Apostles understood what new song was in the most complete way possible. Yes, sing the old songs with new meaning, but moreover, be taught and admonished by them to sing new songs that "proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light"!

I have already qualified the appropriate regulative principle to whom should write the new songs for the assembly, so your critique fails. The logic of EP is in error.

No, JD. As usual, your "logic" is in error. You have merely asserted that "new song" is meant to be taken in the most literal sense.

I'll use the same tired argument to which you have yet to give a real response: how did the Israelites who heard the phrase "new song" understand it? That is the question which must be answered, and you have yet to show me why every Israelite with a lyre didn't go out and start writing his own worship songs. The Psalms of the divinely appointed prophets, David, Asaph, the Sons of Korah, et al., were still the songs actually used. Where is the evidence to the contrary? According to the RPW, you need positive evidence to reinforce your claim. Stop making assertions.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Here is another quote of Scripture,from Exodus 19:6:

"and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."

Note that ALL the people of Israel are being called priests; this is not the same thing as the Levitical priesthood, which did not even begin until shortly thereafter, with Nadab and Abihu being the first priests, and also being the first to die in that function, since they did not do as the Lord commanded them to do in their function (Leviticus 10).

The NT church has supplanted the Levitical priesthood - as you well know. Which also answers David's charge, above.

 

[AV1611]

What is to disagree with?

wherever a "new song" is mentioned, it is to be understood of future time, or the times of the Messiah;

ok - the time of Messiah has come, the prophesy fulfilled, we are a royal priesthood - let's sing the Psalms with understanding and some new songs!

I am not sure whether to really bother anymore. Now you have taken Gill's comment out of context and imbued it with a meaning foreign to what he was arguing and who himself believed that there was no exegetical need to sing anything other than Psalms.

The point is that the psalm is looking forward to the gospel dispensation (times of the Messiah) when the gentiles will be brought into the kingdom and will be urged to sing a new song, a song they have never sung before, a song of redemption, of mercies before unknown. There is no hint within the psalm whatsoever of any future creation of new songs being created as you seem intent in arguing. The exhortation "sing a new song" needs to be understood in the context of the psalm, and even on a very basic linguistic level all it is exhorting is the singing of a new song not "write a new song" or "create a new song".

Your whole argument is highly speculative, a complete innovation, and wholly divorced from a sound hermeneutical method (though one may be tempted to ask if you have a hermeneutic more substantive than "I make it up as I go along to prove a position I already hold").

 

[CDM]

JD:

Does anyone disagree that we, as believers, have superseded the Levitical priesthood in that we are all priests of God through our birthright in Christ?

You've mentioned this several times. I asked you a question about it earleir that you probably missed with all the posting going on:

Since we are a royal priesthood then why don't you or anyone else that "feels led" (or otherwise) preach, teach, administer the sacraments?

Also, you are ignoring the explicit commands to preach and pray *uninspired*. You can't put the CORPORATE singing of praises in the same category as one praying or one preaching (as God ordains).

 

[panta dokimazete]

JD:

Does anyone disagree that we, as believers, have superseded the Levitical priesthood in that we are all priests of God through our birthright in Christ?

You've mentioned this several times. I asked you a question about it earleir that you probably missed with all the posting going on:

Since we are a royal priesthood then why don't you or anyone else that "feels led" (or otherwise) preach, teach, administer the sacraments?

Also, you are ignoring the explicit commands to preach and pray *uninspired*. You can't put the CORPORATE singing of praises in the same category as one praying or one preaching (as God ordains).

I think I gave my rationale here

 

[panta dokimazete]

Your whole argument is highly speculative, a complete innovation, and wholly divorced from a sound hermeneutical method (though one may be tempted to ask if you have a hermeneutic more substantive than "I make it up as I go along to prove a position I already hold").

And so we are done - thanks for the discussion.

 

[AV1611]

Your whole argument is highly speculative, a complete innovation, and wholly divorced from a sound hermeneutical method (though one may be tempted to ask if you have a hermeneutic more substantive than "I make it up as I go along to prove a position I already hold").

And so we are done - thanks for the discussion.

Please take it as a warning as opposed to an insult; and yes, we are done.

 

[panta dokimazete]

...and I, of course, would give you the same warning from the opposing perspective.

 

[R Harris]

My final word on the matter. My, how Van Til would be exonerated with this thread!

Regarding strict control by God of how His worship was conducted, II Chronicles 29:25-30:

"25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king’s seer and of Nathan the prophet, for the commandment was from the LORD through his prophets. 26The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. 27Then Hezekiah commanded that the burnt offering be offered on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song to the LORD began also, and the trumpets, accompanied by the instruments of David king of Israel. 28The whole assembly worshiped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded. All this continued until the burnt offering was finished. 29When the offering was finished, the king and all who were present with him bowed themselves and worshiped. 30 And Hezekiah the king and the officials commanded the Levites to sing praises to the LORD with the words of David and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed down and worshiped."

Specific commands, specific prophets, specific orders. Now note the following warning in Amos 6:4-5:

"4"WOE to those(K) who lie on beds of ivory
and stretch themselves out on their couches,
and eat lambs from the flock
and calves from the midst of the stall,
5 who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp
and like David invent for themselves instruments of music"

God did not approve of the idle songs nor of any instrument he did not command through David.

So we come to the NT. Since God does not change in His nature, how are we to now assume that we can introduce any songs we want, any musical instruments we want, or any other innovation unknown to Scripture we want, and think that God is completely unconcerned? For 17 years, I have received no clear answer from those who would oppose the regulative principle.

Regarding Romans 12:

"3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity;the one who leads,with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness."


Again, I think it is a massive leap of logic to take this passage talking about gifts of the Spirit which could be employed at any time and place, and then say that we can introduce scores of uninspired hymns (some with questionable or even heretical doctrine) and all sorts of musical instruments without question into congregational worship - which frankly, is not mentioned here, and in verse one only as it relates to one's spiritual condition (and even at that, it has to be acceptable!)

Sorry, I just don't see it.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Ok - i am going to pop in for hopefully one last response:

My final word on the matter. My, how Van Til would be exonerated with this thread!

Regarding strict control by God of how His worship was conducted, II Chronicles 29:25-30:

"25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king’s seer and of Nathan the prophet, for the commandment was from the LORD through his prophets. 26The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. 27Then Hezekiah commanded that the burnt offering be offered on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song to the LORD began also, and the trumpets, accompanied by the instruments of David king of Israel. 28The whole assembly worshiped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded. All this continued until the burnt offering was finished. 29When the offering was finished, the king and all who were present with him bowed themselves and worshiped. 30 And Hezekiah the king and the officials commanded the Levites to sing praises to the LORD with the words of David and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed down and worshiped."

This absolutely does not invalidate the rationale I gave earlier, so not sure what point your making except to prop up the EP fallacy.

Specific commands, specific prophets, specific orders. Now note the following warning in Amos 6:4-5:

"4"WOE to those(K) who lie on beds of ivory
and stretch themselves out on their couches,
and eat lambs from the flock
and calves from the midst of the stall,
5 who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp
and like David invent for themselves instruments of music"

God did not approve of the idle songs nor of any instrument he did not command through David.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here either - who said anything about idle songs? The songs of the bride have purpose, so once more - irrelevant application.

So we come to the NT. Since God does not change in His nature, how are we to now assume that we can introduce any songs we want, any musical instruments we want, or any other innovation unknown to Scripture we want, and think that God is completely unconcerned? For 17 years, I have received no clear answer from those who would oppose the regulative principle.

No one is arguing the validity of the RPW, just the error of EP and the primacy of the Psalms to regulate worship practice unless abrogated by the NT. The Levitical priesthood has been abrogated, so even if it were exclusive in the OT, that bloodlined priesthood and their rights have passed to the holy priesthood of believers.

Regarding Romans 12:

"3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity;the one who leads,with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness."


Again, I think it is a massive leap of logic to take this passage talking about gifts of the Spirit which could be employed at any time and place, and then say that we can introduce scores of uninspired hymns (some with questionable or even heretical doctrine) and all sorts of musical instruments without question into congregational worship - which frankly, is not mentioned here, and in verse one only as it relates to one's spiritual condition (and even at that, it has to be acceptable!)

Sorry, I just don't see it.

Right, you reject the clear teaching of Scripture that the body has many parts with many purposes to prop up a beloved presupposition and deny the church's inheritance through the finished work of Our Savior and the clear teachings of His beloved Psalms.

You know as well as I that there has been plenty of heresy introduced through the office of preaching - way more than the heresies introduced from psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, so your evidentialist position is weak also.

Blessings!

 

[Amazing Grace]

JD:

Along the lines of your thinking, I thought of a question regarding only being commanded to sing the insored word. What if a song was penned by me or anyone that just repeated scripture? For instance, I enjoy singing :I am the Bread of Life:

I Am the Bread of Life

I am the bread of life.
You who come to me shall not hunger;
You who believe in me shall not thirst.
No one can come to me,
Unless the Father beckons.

And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up on the last day.

The bread that I will give
Is my flesh for the life of the world,
And if you eat of this bread,
You shall live forever,
You shall live forever.

And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up on the last day.

Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of Man
And drink of his blood,
And drink of his blood,
You shall not have life within you.

And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up on the last day.

I am the resurrection, I am the life.
If you believe in me, even though you die,
You shall live forever.

And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up on the last day.


Or is the arguement from the EP side beyond this and says that only the inspired word, penned by David?

 

[JBaldwin]

JD:

Along the lines of your thinking, I thought of a question regarding only being commanded to sing the insored word. What if a song was penned by me or anyone that just repeated scripture? For instance, I enjoy singing :I am the Bread of Life:

I Am the Bread of Life

I am the bread of life.
You who come to me shall not hunger;
You who believe in me shall not thirst.
No one can come to me,
Unless the Father beckons.

And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up on the last day.

The bread that I will give
Is my flesh for the life of the world,
And if you eat of this bread,
You shall live forever,
You shall live forever.

And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up on the last day.

Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of Man
And drink of his blood,
And drink of his blood,
You shall not have life within you.

And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up on the last day.

I am the resurrection, I am the life.
If you believe in me, even though you die,
You shall live forever.

And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up,
And I will raise you up on the last day.



Or is the arguement from the EP side beyond this and says that only the inspired word, penned by David?

If I understand the EP argument correctly, you can't sing this because it is not in the Psalms. If they were arguing for only Psalms by David, then they would have to eliminate some of those as well, because not all the Psalms were penned by David.

 

[MW]

No one can come to me,
Unless the Father beckons.

The text is, Except the Father draw him. Such examples further the contention of the exclusive Psalmodist that it is not safe to admit uninspired compositions into the worship of God, because the worst form of error is that which has taken hold of men's devotions.

 

[Amazing Grace]

No one can come to me,
Unless the Father beckons.

The text is, Except the Father draw him. Such examples further the contention of the exclusive Psalmodist that it is not safe to admit uninspired compositions into the worship of God, because the worst form of error is that which has taken hold of men's devotions.

Matthew, I have seen it penned draws. I did not notice this when i pasted it. IF it said exactly as the writ then what?

 

[MW]

Matthew, I have seen it penned draws. I did not notice this when i pasted it. IF it said exactly as the writ then what?

If it is exact, and doesn't contain repetititions, then a case might be made that this inspired material is worthy to be sung alongside of the Psalms. A question now arises over the suitability of singing material which was not inspired for the purpose of singing. But this becomes an intramural question for those who have already accepted the "inspired-praise" position, and does not add anything to the original question concerning the introduction of uninspired material.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Matthew, I have seen it penned draws. I did not notice this when i pasted it. IF it said exactly as the writ then what?

If it is exact, and doesn't contain repetititions, then a case might be made that this inspired material is worthy to be sung alongside of the Psalms. A question now arises over the suitability of singing material which was not inspired for the purpose of singing. But this becomes an intramural question for those who have already accepted the "inspired-praise" position, and does not add anything to the original question concerning the introduction of uninspired material.

concur with the rationale

(it does happen, folks! )

 

[J. Forrest]

Hmmmm.....

The question remains as in the so-called NT hymns, were they hymns or just poetic poems... Where they ever sung or set to music... No evidence exist they were ever set to music..... All mortal flesh keep silent was part of a liturgy in the 3rd? century but was not sung and was not set to music until the 1800s......

A lot of poetry existed in the early church that monks read or recited but never existed in the worship of God...

Also if even it was proven that one or two were set to music, could it be proven that they ever were allowed in the worship of God or just sung by the lay people through out their day.....

No proof exist they were ever used in worship and no proof exist they were set to music but remain a form of poetry...

[/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure I agree. Am I missing the point or something? Are we discussing whether the early Christians sang hymns or just recited psalms and poetry? I'm not really sure where you are getting your information from if you maintain that there is no proof they were set to music. Did Paul and Silas not sing hymns after they were beaten and thrown in prison?

Historically also, was it not Pliny the Younger who recorded the practice of the early Christians and their singing of hymns? I reckon this is about 110AD or so. But I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. You will note the antiphony mentioned which is the first use of the voice as a musical instrument and musical style used in worship.
So imhu.... I say the early church did sing.... here is the quote" I discovered nothing more than an innocuous superstition. They don't really do all that much. They meet before daybreak. They sing hymns antiphonally and they worship Christ as if he were a god,"
Did they use musical instruments...yes their voices!
That's my tuppence worth.