EP, Split Thread From "What shall we sing?"
- Thread starter panta dokimazete
- Start date
- Status
Davidius
Inactive User
And how does one determine how much (or little) of a Psalm is acceptable to sing? I am thinking Psalm 119 - I assume no one actually sings the the whole thing at one time.
Well, since ministers are commanded to preach the Word and this doesn't entail reading entire chapters or entire books at a time (even though this obviously can be done), I would infer that the command to sing Psalms does not require singing the entire Psalm every time.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
So, based on your logic - a contemporary praise and worship song that contains some portion of the text of a Psalm is an appropriate expression of Psalmody?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
And how does one determine how much (or little) of a Psalm is acceptable to sing? I am thinking Psalm 119 - I assume no one actually sings the the whole thing at one time.
Well, since ministers are commanded to preach the Word and this doesn't entail reading entire chapters or entire books at a time (even though this obviously can be done), I would infer that the command to sing Psalms does not require singing the entire Psalm every time.
I think Davidus has just pointed out the difference between a circumstance of worship (how much of a psalm is sung) and an element of worship (what is sung).
Davidius
Inactive User
No, according to my argument it would be as wrong to mix a portion of a Psalm with our own song as it would be to mix in a passage of Joe Schmoe with the book of Hebrews.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
To follow your logic - then preaching the Word of God should be exclusively the Word of God - no mixture of Joe Schmoe's interpretation of the Word?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
That is not what he is saying; God has established different rules for the different parts of worship. EP people do not believe that only inspired words should be used in worship, but that only inspired words should be used in singing. Why do we believe that uninspired words may be used in preaching and prayer? Because we believe that there is Biblical warrant for this in these elements of worship. However, we do not believe the there is Scriptural warrant for uninspired words in the elements of reading the word and singing.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Thanks, Daniel - I am fairly familiar with the tenets of EP , just continuing to poke at the logic/rationale.
To wit: There are 3 forms of verbal expression in worship -
Preaching - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words
Praying - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words
and...
Singing
I have trouble following the logical progression that God allows 2 elements to be expressed with uninspired words and not the third.
, just continuing to poke at the logic/rationale.To wit: There are 3 forms of verbal expression in worship -
Preaching - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words
Praying - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words
and...
Singing
I have trouble following the logical progression that God allows 2 elements to be expressed with uninspired words and not the third.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Thanks, Daniel - I am fairly familiar with the tenets of EP
To wit: There are 3 forms of verbal expression in worship -
Preaching - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words
Praying - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words
and...
Singing
I have trouble following the logical progression that God allows 2 elements to be expressed with uninspired words and not the third.
What about reading? May we blend uninspired words with inspired word when reading the Scriptures?
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Good question! I have heard it done to add clarity to the Scripture being read or to draw particular attention to a certain portion of the reading. Is there a positive command requiring the uninterrupted reading of Scripture?
I have heard it done to add clarity to the Scripture being read or to draw particular attention to a certain portion of the reading. Is there a positive command requiring the uninterrupted reading of Scripture?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Good question!
Moreover, if you read the account of Christ preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30) reading and preaching are distinguished. Indeed, in the passage Christ hands back the scroll which he was reading from to the attendant, and then starts preaching, thus clearly distinguishing between these two elements of worship.
And how does one determine how much (or little) of a Psalm is acceptable to sing? I am thinking Psalm 119 - I assume no one actually sings the the whole thing at one time.
I think I remember an EPer saying that they do sing 119 in entirety. I cannot remember who it was...
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
I may be mistaken but I don't think the temple worship included a full singing (or chanting) of Psalm 119 in its entirety. It is originally broken up into sections.
J.D.,
I've certainly read Psalm 119 in its entirety in one sitting several times. It took less than the 45 minutes it used to take to sing about 5 songs in a Contemporary worship service. Seriously, I attended a Charismatic Church in Manassas where I used to think: "When are we going to stop singing this song." We would dwell on a single song with about 5 verses for about 10 minutes. It drove me nuts.
In reference to your original question and follow on points, I think you need to reckon with something that you're not noticing about Contemporary Worship songs and their use of the Psalms. They are tremendously imbalanced. Now this is not an argument for EP per se or an argument against the idea that a Contemporary rendition of the Psalms is possible but it is something you need to think about.
What do I mean?
Well, they leave the Psalms of lament relatively untouched. They leave Psalms like Psalm 2 untouched by and large except to pull out the parts they like. It's sort of like modern hymn singing of certain songs where the Cantor ahead of time says: "We're singing verse 1,2, and 4." Surprise, verse 3 is the verse that has the information about Sin and the Curse.
Even the Psalms that modern praise choruses pick out are imbalanced in their presentation. They sing Law essentially. I am indebted to Mike Horton for pointing this out on WHI once and he is spot on.
What do they quote:
"I will praise you...."
"I will worship...."
"I will bow down...."
Are those bad ideas? No. But the choruses leave out the introduction to the Psalm where the works of God for His people are being called to mind. They leave out all the "Gospel indicatives" of the mighty arm of the Lord and prefer to just sing about the response of the person to them.
Why? Because in doing so, most praise chorus writers are reflecting the "purpose driven" culture that ignore the Promises of God and the deeds of God and want to focus on what we will do for Him. They want to sing of the Law we we will be performing. Thus, Praise Choruses actually end up changing the theology of the Psalms themselves in some cases during the response of Gospel into the deeds of the flesh.
I've certainly read Psalm 119 in its entirety in one sitting several times. It took less than the 45 minutes it used to take to sing about 5 songs in a Contemporary worship service. Seriously, I attended a Charismatic Church in Manassas where I used to think: "When are we going to stop singing this song." We would dwell on a single song with about 5 verses for about 10 minutes. It drove me nuts.
In reference to your original question and follow on points, I think you need to reckon with something that you're not noticing about Contemporary Worship songs and their use of the Psalms. They are tremendously imbalanced. Now this is not an argument for EP per se or an argument against the idea that a Contemporary rendition of the Psalms is possible but it is something you need to think about.
What do I mean?
Well, they leave the Psalms of lament relatively untouched. They leave Psalms like Psalm 2 untouched by and large except to pull out the parts they like. It's sort of like modern hymn singing of certain songs where the Cantor ahead of time says: "We're singing verse 1,2, and 4." Surprise, verse 3 is the verse that has the information about Sin and the Curse.
Even the Psalms that modern praise choruses pick out are imbalanced in their presentation. They sing Law essentially. I am indebted to Mike Horton for pointing this out on WHI once and he is spot on.
What do they quote:
"I will praise you...."
"I will worship...."
"I will bow down...."
Are those bad ideas? No. But the choruses leave out the introduction to the Psalm where the works of God for His people are being called to mind. They leave out all the "Gospel indicatives" of the mighty arm of the Lord and prefer to just sing about the response of the person to them.
Why? Because in doing so, most praise chorus writers are reflecting the "purpose driven" culture that ignore the Promises of God and the deeds of God and want to focus on what we will do for Him. They want to sing of the Law we we will be performing. Thus, Praise Choruses actually end up changing the theology of the Psalms themselves in some cases during the response of Gospel into the deeds of the flesh.
Davidius
Inactive User
Thanks, Josh. I have only a coupe things to add/modify. It's not that we're rejecting "human logic" against some "divine logic" that works differently, unless by "human logic" one merely means man's tainted faculty which wants to do things its own way. The fact of the matter is that there's nothing illogical about God regulating the several elements of worship differently.
There is no formal "logical progression" involved in saying that God regulates singing differently from preaching or reading. No one arrived at this conclusion by making three deductions which all rely on each other. Each conclusion (i.e. regulations for each element of worship) is deduced individually from the premise of the RPW. We sing the Psalms, we read the Word, and we preach a sermon because these are the commands given in scripture. JD is certainly free to say that he just doesn't like this. Indeed, it is natural for man to not like God's way of doing things. But that's something different from saying that some kind of logical fallacy is involved.
Last edited:
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Josh brings up a good point here. In the case where reading, preaching, and praying are done in worship, these are done by the ordained minister who is in fact speaking on behalf of Christ Himself (although not inspired). See Luke 10:16, Romans 10:14, 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Hebrews 2:11.
But when it comes to the part of the worship service where the nonordained speak, they speak verbatim from the word of God. Only those who God calls to such offices to speak on His behalf may part from scripture in order to guide the flock.
R Harris
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hmmmmm . . . interesting points, I had not seen this presented in all of my studies of EP. If it has been presented, I obviously glossed over it.
Davidius
Inactive User
Makes sense to me! Don't force me to sing some overly sentimental praise chorus with questionable doctrinal content.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Did we ever get an answer to the question about how much of a Psalm must be sung to be considered Psalmody?
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What if a minister or officer wrote the song?
Did we ever get an answer to the question about how much of a Psalm must be sung to be considered Psalmody?
An observation; this is a question but really it only an issue for very very long psalms of which there are relatively few.
Psalm 119 has been divided up into stanzas by the Spirit of God and the minister would be free to choose as many or as few of these for his congregation to sing.
That there are questions to be answered here on how much of a psalm ought be sung I hope you will agree that psalms are to be sung. I think Daniel explained well that the difference is one of elements (psalm singing) and circumstances (which strophes / stanzas of the psalms).
This is 
but to follow up on this just a bit.
I was on another discussion forum and someone raised the point that Presbyterians were long resistant to things like responsive readings. So I made the point that the Westminster Standards limit the pubic reading of the Word of God in Worship to pastors and teachers and the divines never envisioned responsive readings and their doctrine precludes it (In other words, they don't mention any special element of responsive reading so such would have to go under reading of the scriptures, but they limit who may do that). That was a bit more than he wanted to say, but after I made the case from the DfPW and LC156, he decided he had another exception to the Standards to take. See the proof texts on the first clause of LC156 and "Of the Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures" in the Westminster Directory for Public Worship.
but to follow up on this just a bit.I was on another discussion forum and someone raised the point that Presbyterians were long resistant to things like responsive readings. So I made the point that the Westminster Standards limit the pubic reading of the Word of God in Worship to pastors and teachers and the divines never envisioned responsive readings and their doctrine precludes it (In other words, they don't mention any special element of responsive reading so such would have to go under reading of the scriptures, but they limit who may do that). That was a bit more than he wanted to say, but after I made the case from the DfPW and LC156, he decided he had another exception to the Standards to take. See the proof texts on the first clause of LC156 and "Of the Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures" in the Westminster Directory for Public Worship.
Yes; well evidently it is easier to convince them the Westminster divines preclude it than that the standards are correct in doing so.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
At the least all non-inspired songs should be written or approved by the ministers of the word if they are to be used in worship; however, in this case the EP proponent can argue that even if a Minister is to write a sermon or a prayer, that does not mean that the laity can read it in the assembly. The same holds true with song.
If you wish to respond about responsive readings, see this new thread.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/res...estminsterian-they-biblical-29792/#post362287
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/res...estminsterian-they-biblical-29792/#post362287
Here is a thought or two. When one preaches or prays, no "form" is followed, because these are individual actions; the congregation judges what is being said and adds their Amen as they see fit. When the congregation sings, all sing, and so a "form" is unavoidable; there is no opportunity to judge what is being sung, and so the congregation should be convinced beforehand that what is sung is true (an argument in itself that the material sung should be inspired). From this it will be seen that singing is by very nature a different element from praying or preaching by virtue of the fact that it includes the whole congregation. If God made provision for individuals to sing, then a case might be made for following the same pattern in singing as is done for praying and preaching. As it stands, there is no such instruction to be found in the Word of God, and therefore singing must follow the specific rules provided for singing, and cannot incorporate the extempore provision made for preaching and prayer.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
unless the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, in which case a new song is prescribed and may follow the rules for preaching and prayer...
1 Corinthians 14:26
26What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification.
1 Corinthians 14:26
26What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification.
Croghanite
Puritan Board Sophomore
JD,
You do not believe the singing of Psalms are prescribed in Scripture?
You do not believe the singing of Psalms are prescribed in Scripture?
First, this is what was happening in the church of Corinth -- descriptive. But Paul tells them what to do in order to rectify this mess -- prescriptive. Secondly, Paul's measures were adapted to the continuing use of extraordinary revelation, and therefore only applicable for that situation -- the use of an extraordinary gift is no rule to an ordinary situation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
