EP Split Thread

[kceaster]

1 That man hath perfect blessedness,
who walketh not astray
In counsel of ungodly men,
nor stands in sinners' way,

Nor sitteth in the scorner's chair:
2 But placeth his delight
Upon God's law, and meditates
on his law day and night.

3 He shall be like a tree that grows
near planted by a river,
Which in his season yields his fruit,
and his leaf fadeth never:

And all he doth shall prosper well
4 The wicked are not so;
But like they are unto the chaff,
which wind drives to and fro.

5 In judgment therefore shall not stand
such as ungodly are;
Nor in th' assembly of the just
shall wicked men appear.

6 For why? the way of godly men
unto the Lord is known:
Whereas the way of wicked men
shall quite be overthrown.

1 ¶ Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night.
3 He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper.
4 ¶ The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Now, if y'all will permit me. I'll start to point out some REAL differences in how the metrical psalm is a paraphrase and why it can't be considered inspired.

Are these equivalent:

having perfect blessedness - the man is blessed?
placeth his delight UPON God's Law - delight is IN the law of the Lord?
meditates ON his law - IN his law he meditates?
near planted by a river - planted by the rivers of water?
the wicked are not so - the ungodly are not so?
chaff which the wind drives to and fro - chaff which the wind drives away?
the way of godly men - the way of the righteous?
the way of wicked men shall quite be overthrown - the way of the ungodly shall perish?

No offense to John Brown of Haddington, but there are glaring differences between these phrases. And yes, they really do matter. We don't translate the bet preposition as on or upon. It is in, at, by, with, against.

To me, I think there would be plenty of people who would decry a Bible version that had taken such liberties. I know that in my Hebrew classes we discussed some of the translations that were very far from the original language. In my estimation, this psalm takes liberties just to be metrical and singable.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this. How could I? I agree with dynamic equivalent in worship songs.

But for EP'ers to say that they're singing only inspired psalms, is at best blissfully ignorant, and at worst disingenuous.

In Christ,

KC

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by pastorway
he will be lookinng for a while I think...........

Something tells me that the can was opened quite a while ago and all of the worms escaped and are currently being stepped on and running for cover...

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

he is looking for the inspired injunction to sing only inspired songs only recorded in the Book of Psalms.........
he will be lookinng for a while I think...........

Actually, if we step aside from stupid posts, its not hard to find.

What line of argument are you waiting for, for it to become interesting? You know...to get the ball rolling in your direction.

Listen, I don't want to get in a shooting match, but consider this a nudge for now...

The core of the argument surrounds the duty of praise and what that means and is. No one really has touched on that or began there. (NO ONE HAS DONE THAT)

That would be a really good place to go. Its not about "should we sing psalms." That is a totally immaterial question to the primary question. Its second, third, fourth down the list really. The arguments start much further back and cover a lot of Genesis-Malachi ground. Then, as I continue to beat the drum, as Fred would say, the dispensational arguments through this thread are almost gagging. Those need to be tossed as well.

What is happening on the thread (like the old ones) is that you are arguing about secondary issues before you set down the fundamentals. Its not strictly about RPW, perse, but the duty of praise (not the idea of worship). [Just as a side note, which I know all of you know, worship does not = singing. That's a contemporary goof up that really misses the mark overall.]

I don't think it would be good to begin with "what is the RPW". Most on the board seem to understand its basic tenants, but thier application of it is what might be wanting. Rather, for this particualr "debate topic" the course should shift. And hosestly, after reading through ALL the posts in ALL the threads on this, I would wonder who might be able to put forth a really good argument for the topic of praise on either side as a doctrinal matter.

So I would say that the thread should start over, and that the duty of praise ("whatever that is") be expounded in its progressive nature, assuming we all agree on the RPW.

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by webmaster]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

KC, we could have the same argument about Bible translations in English. To say we must translate Hebrew literally is, in itself, a difficult thing to do ... most Hebrew words have more than one meaning, often times several meanings, and getting them into English isn't really an exact science. Still, we have God's Word and can understand it and be edified by it in English. Singing and reading from a copy we can understand in our native tongue is a commandment for New Covenant worship as well, don't forget that (1 Cor 14). This is not at enmity with the EP/RPW position.

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
KC, we could have the same argument about Bible translations in English. To say we must translate Hebrew literally is, in itself, a difficult thing to do ... most Hebrew words have more than one meaning, often times several meanings, and getting them into English isn't really an exact science. Still, we have God's Word and can understand it and be edified by it in English. Singing and reading from a copy we can understand in our native tongue is a commandment for New Covenant worship as well, don't forget that (1 Cor 14). This is not at enmity with the EP/RPW position.

My question then Gabe, is just as it was before. What makes a metrical version of a psalm different than "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty"? How far should we go in making it metrical? How far is too far?

In Christ,

KC

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

How far is too far? When the meaning is radically changed, lost, and twisted beyond the clear intention of God's Word.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The DUTY of Praise!

Okay, I am going to bite.

What is the duty of praise in light of the RPW?

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.


Is all Psalm singing Praise?

What is the idea of worship in light of this question?


New Thread Started with Matt's Question.

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Then say, "Save us, O God of our salvation, And gather us and deliver us from the nations, To give thanks to Thy holy name, And glory in Thy praise." (1 Chr 16:35)

"He is your praise and He is your God, who has done these great and awesome things for you which your eyes have seen. (Deut 10:21)

"The people whom I formed for Myself, Will declare My praise. (Isa 43:21)

There are several OT verses (and various Hebrew words) that describe praise as giving thanks to the Lord, confessing the name of the Lord, rejoicing in the Lord, exalting or extolling the glory of the Lord, adoring the Lord for His attributes and deeds, etc.

I'm not exactly sure what you're thinking of Matt.

 

[kceaster]

Matt, good points.

I was writing this a while ago, but I decided not to post it. But now that you mention it.....

It seems as though the why of worship is getting lost on this topic to me, as well. It almost becomes the how, to where, if we're not careful, we end up doing the same thing pagans do. We're not trying to appease God. We should know that this kind of thing is not possible.

Rather, the Spirit is the operative of our worship and He sees to it that our worship is acceptable to God. It is always in concert with the Word of God as well. So, isn't it a bit nitpicky to say that we are not worshipping God correctly if we sing hymns? God is looking for true worshipers not true worship. I already said that.

It may seem then, that EP is looking to fulfill true worship. And that is something only the Spirit can do.

GRANTED, the Spirit's job is much easier when we are in concert with the Word of God. And I've already said that the psalter is perfectly fine in the way it is presented. But the way it's being billed is that we are singing the psalms because they're inspired. To what end, well, we would say that we are doing our duty in praise to God. However, as confused as we get about these things, I think it is easy to lose sight of what we're doing so that we concentrate on how we're doing it. If how comes into the picture, we've just crossed over to paganism and we're trying to appease God.

I want to be careful because I'm not saying that there is no manner to what we do. There most certainly is manner. But manner is not always how, but the proper attitude, reverence, and respect. This is not how, per se, but lends itself to the requirement that God is looking for. He's looking for true worshipers, In other words,, he's looking for people with the manner by which to praise Him. But this does not include the mechanics of the praise, but the attitude of the praise. The focus is not on the instrument of praise, but the one being praised.

EP may be getting the focus wrong. Just by drawing a line in the sand, they may be concentrating too much on their own performance of God's worship and how they worship, instead of on the who of worship and the manner by which it occurs.

In Christ,

KC

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh"” (Phil 3:3)

Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. (Heb 13:15)

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Brian Schwertley on the "translation" argument:
IV. The Metrical Psalms Argument
A rather common argument against exclusive psalmody is based on the assumption that metrical versions of the Psalms for singing (i.e., the Psalms are translated in a manner so they can be set to music and thus are made to rhyme, etc) are really not translations of the Psalms but are at best gross paraphrases of the original Hebrew. Thus, it is argued that the singing of metrical Psalms is little or no different than singing uninspired hymns which are based on Scripture or which teach redemptive history. In other words, both are human compositions and if one is permissible then so is the other.
While this argument is common, it is refuted in a number of ways. First, note that the whole argument is based on an unbiblical, immoral analogy. The argument assumes that if a group of people distort the original meaning of the Psalms with a bad or faulty translation this somehow permits other people to use man-made hymns. In other words, if group A does something wrong, group B can also do something wrong. If it is indeed true that some Reformed believers are using sloppy, poorly translated metrical versions of the psalms, then our response as Christians should never be "œLet us do likewise" or even worse "œLet us go a step further by ignoring the inspired psalms altogether." Rather it must be, "œBrother, repent! There are excellent, faithful Psalters available. You do not need to use a defective translation!" To those brothers who use this argument we ask one simple question, "œDoes the fact that some churches use terrible paraphrases of the Bible for the Scripture reading in public worship justify the use of non-inspired Christian writings instead of the Scripture?" No, of course not. Then, poor translations of the Psalms do not justify man-made hymns.
Second, many who use the metrical Psalm argument assume that metrical versions of the Psalms (by virtue of the fact that they must be phrased to rhyme and fit music) are of necessity bad translations. In other words, it is impossible to be faithful to Scripture while using a metrical Psalter. This argument must be rejected because it is based on a false assumption. Metrical Psalms can and have been faithfully and accurately translated from the original tongue. Further, even if it were true it would not justify the use of man-made hymns. If a Reformed believer holds that metrical Psalms are inherently defective and thus unfaithful to the scriptural command to sing Psalms in worship, then instead of turning to uninspired compositions he should chant the Psalms in their original phrasing (i.e., out of one of the more literal translations of the Bible) during worship.
Third, the metrical Psalms argument, in order to be consistent, would ultimately require the Scripture reading in public worship to be done in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). Anyone familiar with Bible translation understands that a strictly word for word, absolutely literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek text is impossible. Even the best, most literal translations in use today (e.g., KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB) must at times resort to a phrase or multiple words to accurately convey the meaning of a single Hebrew or Greek word. Further, it is important that a translation pursue as best as possible the majesty of style and elegance of the original language. God commands His people to read the Scriptures and to sing the Psalms. This requires translation.[82] In the case of singing this may at times require a metrical translation. What is important is that Christ´s church be as faithful as possible to the original language as it translates God´s word. Once again, if a translation of the Bible or the Psalms is inaccurate, defective or sloppy in any manner the solution is not to discard the Holy Scriptures but rather to do a better, more faithful job of translation. Accuracy is not an option, but a requirement. While we commend our brothers for pointing to the need for accurate translations of the Psalms, we must reject their attempt to circumvent God´s requirement of the singing of inspired songs in public worship.

 

[kceaster]

Gabe,

I can see his points, but he's still coming from a certain presupposition that I do not share. I do not believe that God has only commanded that psalms be sung.

Additionally, I am not arguing that we should not use the psalter. I use it regularly in both public and private worship.

In Christ,

KC

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster
The core of the argument surrounds the duty of praise and what that means and is. No one really has touched on that or began there. (NO ONE HAS DONE THAT)

That would be a really good place to go. Its not about "should we sing psalms." That is a totally immaterial question to the primary question. Its second, third, fourth down the list really. The arguments start much further back and cover a lot of Genesis-Malachi ground. Then, as I continue to beat the drum, as Fred would say, the dispensational arguments through this thread are almost gagging. Those need to be tossed as well.

You mean like the dispensational argument that there was NO duty of praise before David?

Or the dispensational argument that what occurs in the eschaton has no relevance for today?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Peter
BTW excellent defense of the MT in that thread Fred.

Thanks. I appreciate the kind words.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Paper:
submitted for requirements of completing the course:
Reformed Worship
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Spring 2000
Instructor, Dr. J.A.Pipa
Title: A Fresh Look at the Debate on the Content of Song in New Testament Worship
Major heads:
I) Main question--Scripture imposes what extent of liberty on the form of singing praise?
II) Foundational Premise--The Psalms are the foundation of all singing in worship
III) Both non-extreme EPs and non-EPs have the responsibility of showing that the non-EP position is biblically defiensible (because both must use the same arguments)
IV) What does it mean to sing the Book of Psalms in a New Testament context?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by webmaster
The core of the argument surrounds the duty of praise and what that means and is. No one really has touched on that or began there. (NO ONE HAS DONE THAT)

That would be a really good place to go. Its not about "should we sing psalms." That is a totally immaterial question to the primary question. Its second, third, fourth down the list really. The arguments start much further back and cover a lot of Genesis-Malachi ground. Then, as I continue to beat the drum, as Fred would say, the dispensational arguments through this thread are almost gagging. Those need to be tossed as well.

You mean like the dispensational argument that there was NO duty of praise before David?

Or the dispensational argument that what occurs in the eschaton has no relevance for today?

Nope.


This thread should be closed, and everyone jump to the new one on praise. It would be much more helpful for everyone to dig into demonstrating a basic hermeneutic of progressive revelation in the duty of praise.

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by webmaster]

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Peter
BTW excellent defense of the MT in that thread Fred.

Thanks. I appreciate the kind words.

Its an important doctrine (PP), rivaling even EP.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

As to public prayers, there are two kinds: the one consists of words alone; the other includes music. And this is no recent invention. For since the very beginning of the church it has been this way, as we may learn from history books. Nor does St. Paul himself speak only of prayer by word of mouth, but also of singing. And in truth, we know from experience that song has a great power and strength to move and inflame the hearts of men to invoke and praise God with a heart more vehement and ardent. One must always watch lest the song be light and frivolous; rather, it should have weight and majesty, as St. Augustine says. And thus there is a great difference between the music that is made to entertain people at home and at table, and the Psalms which are sung in church, in the presence of God and His angels. Therefore, if any wish rightly to judge the kind of music presented here, we hope he will find it to be holy and pure, seeing that it is simply made in keeping with the edification of which we have spoken, whatever further use it may be put to. For even in our homes and out of doors let it be a spur to us and a means of praising God and lifting up our hearts to Him, so that we may be consoled by meditating on His virtue, His bounty, His wisdom, and His justice. For this is more necessary than one can ever tell.

Among all the other things that are proper for the recreation of man and for giving him pleasure, music, if not the first, is among the most important; and we must consider it a gift from God expressly made for that purpose. And for this reason we must be all the more careful not to abuse it, for fear of defiling or contaminating it, converting to our damnation what is intended for our profit and salvation. If even for this reason alone, we might well be moved to restrict the use of music to make it serve only what is respectable and never use it for unbridled dissipations or for emasculating ourselves with immoderate pleasure. Nor should it lead us to lasciviousness or shamelessness.

But more than this, there is hardly anything in the world that has greater power to bend the morals of men this way or that, as Plato has wisely observed. And in fact we find from experience that it has an insidious and well-nigh incredible power to move us whither it will. And for this reason we must be all the more diligent to control music in such a way that it will serve us for good and in no way harm us. This is why the early doctors of the church used to complain that the people of their time were addicted to illicit and shameless songs, which they were right to call a mortal, world-corrupting poison of Satan's.

Now in treating music I recognize two parts, to wit, the word, that is the subject and text, and the song, or melody. It is true, as St. Paul says, that all evil words will pervert good morals. But when melody goes with them, they will pierce the heart much more strongly and enter within. Just as wine is funnelled into a barrel, so are venom and corruption distilled to the very depths of the heart by melody.

So what are we to do? We should have songs that are not only upright but holy, that will spur us to pray to God and praise Him, to meditate on His works so as to love Him, to fear Him, to honour Him, and glorify Him. For what St. Augustine said is true, that one can sing nothing worthy of God save what one has received from Him. Wherefore though we look far and wide we will find no better songs nor songs more suitable to that purpose than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit made and imparted to him. Thus, singing them we may be sure that our words come from God just as if He were to sing in us for His own exaltation. Wherefore, Chrysostom exhorts men, women, and children alike to get used to singing them, so as through this act of meditation to become as one with the choir of angels.

Then, too, we must keep in mind what St. Paul says, that devotional songs can be sung well only by the heart. Now the heart implies intelligence, which, says St. Augustine, is the difference between the singing of men and that of birds. For though a linnet, a nightingale, or a parrot sing ever so well, it will be without understanding. Now it is man's gift to be able to sing and to know what it is he is singing. After intelligence, the heart and the emotions must follow, and this can happen only if we have the hymn engraved in our memory so that it will never cease.

And therefore the present book needs little recommendation from me, seeing that in and of itself it possesses its own value and sings its own praise. Only let the world have the good sense henceforth to leave off singing those songs-in part vain and frivolous, in part stupid and dull, in part foul and vile and in consequence evil and destructive"”which it has availed itself of up to now, and to use these divine and heavenly canticles with good King David. As for the melody, it has seemed best to moderate it in the way we have done, so as to lend it the gravity and majesty that befits its subject, and as might even be suitable for singing in church, according to what has been said.

(From Calvin's Preface to the Geneva Psalter of 1543)

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

For what St. Augustine said is true, that one can sing nothing worthy of God save what one has received from Him. Wherefore though we look far and wide we will find no better songs nor songs more suitable to that purpose than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit made and imparted to him. Thus, singing them we may be sure that our words come from God just as if He were to sing in us for His own exaltation.

Could this be a referecne to the duty of praise?

I love that quote.

Okay, nuff said. You guys keep on it. Its a great read.