EP Split Thread
- Thread starter NaphtaliPress
- Start date
- Status
summertime and livin is easy...might want to change that.
(so as not to offend of course...)
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
We haven't even started on the filthyness of the human mouth. What was it that Isaiah said when he saw the unveiled glory of God.
"œ Woe is me, for I am undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The LORD of hosts."
Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
You cannot enter the temple if you are unclean. When you cannot know the heart of a person, how can you know if the person who wrote a song you are singing was regenerate? If they were not then you are profaning God's worship on the Sabbath when you are commanded by the 4th commandment to keep it Holy. The only way to be sure it is kept holy is to sing the inspired psalms.
"œ Woe is me, for I am undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The LORD of hosts."
Matthew 15:11
What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
You cannot enter the temple if you are unclean. When you cannot know the heart of a person, how can you know if the person who wrote a song you are singing was regenerate? If they were not then you are profaning God's worship on the Sabbath when you are commanded by the 4th commandment to keep it Holy. The only way to be sure it is kept holy is to sing the inspired psalms.
to Fred's last post.Think about it. To embrace EP is to embrace EXTREME DISCONTIUNUITY between the Old and New Covenants specifically in the area of worship. The only other option is to add to the Biblical record by arguing from silence.
Phillip
[Edited on 7-26-05 by pastorway]
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
We enter the "temple" not on our own cleanness but with Christ's righteousness anyhow...singing psalms alone will not ensure that I am coming with the right heart. I'm sure there are people every Sunday somewhere singing a psalm and sinning at the same time.
As far as unregenerate people penning a hymn...I don't see the weight of that argument. Are the words true to God's Word?
Again, not arguing for or against EP just saying that these 2 arguments are non-arguments. I'm sure there are more convincing ones out there.
I'm sorry you feel that's extreme Fred but I dont see what reason there is to reject one thing God had previously given for worship but insist on the perpetuity of another. I think the problem must be your imagination then, because the confession and the puritans clearly could imagine song and prayer as two seperate elements of worship
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Patrick....
But where are we told to translate the Psalms into a different language so that they can be sung? If God commanded that we sing the psalms, why would it be left up to us to interpret whether or not we should sing them in Hebrew? Remember if the RPW restricts to psalms only in worship of God, then we must also have a positive command to sing psalms in a translated tongue, mustn't we? Otherwise we have competing logic. We must do only what is commanded, and if there is no command inferred or otherwise, then we must only sing psalms in Hebrew.
However, if the same is true for psalm singing as is for the translation of God's Word, then we must apply a looser interpretation of the RPW when it comes to singing psalms. We must be able to paraphrase and essentially make hymns and spiritual songs from the words of Scripture. Just like "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty."
I know EP was the position of the WCF. But whether it should be lasting or whether other things can be done, I think is clearly spelled out in the words, "Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." WCF 1:6.
Why would they include the worship of God if there was not a bit of latitude in the RPW?
Again, God is not looking for true worship, but true worshipers. The moment that we say that we worship more true than someone else, we have elevated our own actions and glorified ourselves. We can hold fast to the RPW and still have latitude between ourselves. It should not preclude our worshipping together, yet it does.
In Christ,
KC
But where are we told to translate the Psalms into a different language so that they can be sung? If God commanded that we sing the psalms, why would it be left up to us to interpret whether or not we should sing them in Hebrew? Remember if the RPW restricts to psalms only in worship of God, then we must also have a positive command to sing psalms in a translated tongue, mustn't we? Otherwise we have competing logic. We must do only what is commanded, and if there is no command inferred or otherwise, then we must only sing psalms in Hebrew.
However, if the same is true for psalm singing as is for the translation of God's Word, then we must apply a looser interpretation of the RPW when it comes to singing psalms. We must be able to paraphrase and essentially make hymns and spiritual songs from the words of Scripture. Just like "Praise to the Lord, the Almighty."
I know EP was the position of the WCF. But whether it should be lasting or whether other things can be done, I think is clearly spelled out in the words, "Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." WCF 1:6.
Why would they include the worship of God if there was not a bit of latitude in the RPW?
Again, God is not looking for true worship, but true worshipers. The moment that we say that we worship more true than someone else, we have elevated our own actions and glorified ourselves. We can hold fast to the RPW and still have latitude between ourselves. It should not preclude our worshipping together, yet it does.
In Christ,
KC
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
So what do you think Paul was telling them with "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs"? And how would the Jewish believers among them have understood Paul too?
Also, perhaps you could provide some insight why the septuagint writers used the Greek words they did to label the psalms as "psalm, hymns, and songs" rather than just "psalms"?
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Calvin on Colossians 3:16
Calvin on Ephesians 5:19
This doesn't sound like accapella EP.
[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Calvin on Ephesians 5:19
19. To psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. These are truly pleasant
and delightful fruits. The Spirit means "œjoy in the Holy Ghost,"
(<451417>Romans 14:17
alludes to deep drinking, with which it is indirectly contrasted. Speaking to
themselves, is speaking among themselves. Nor does he enjoin them to
sing inwardly or alone; for he immediately adds, singing in your hearts; as
if he had said, "œLet your praises be not merely on the tongue, as
hypocrites do, but from the heart." What may be the exact difference
between psalms and hymns, or between hymns and songs, it is not easy to
determine, though a few remarks on this subject shall be offered on a future
occasion. F58 The appellation spiritual, given to these songs, is strikingly
appropriate; for the songs most frequently used are almost always on
trifling subjects, and very far from being chaste.
This doesn't sound like accapella EP.
[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, and what do we do once we get there. Right now we are only there "in Christ" but are also still here in time and we still war with the flesh. We are prone, as the OT and modern day Christians show us, to idolatry. What better way is there for us to keep idolatry out of the worship of God than with the psalms that He gave us and commands us to sing. I see the wisdom of God in EP.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Again, not taking a pro/con stance but with that logic, pastors are prone to sin so why not just read scripture aloud and not preach?
I see wisdom in EP as well in other matters...don't get me wrong. Just trying to see which arguments hold up to reductios and which ones don't. I may be completely off here. I'm actually really interested in seeing Matt's articles that are forthcoming...
Originally posted by Peter
Yes indeed! Though, advocates for uninspired hymnody (on the PB anyway) wont try to show from scripture where hymns are commanded instead they'll critique nuances of inspired Psalmody.
[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Peter]
Go up the thread a bit and read the Calvin quotes from his commentaries on Epehsians and Colosians.
there is much too much weight given to what the readers of the New Testament might have "heard" instead of what the apostles and other "said" and "wrote."
It is clear from the Bible itself that Paul wrote multiple letters to Corinth because they did not understand what he said to them in the first letter he sent. He also had to write several letters to clarify things he had preached while in the churches that they messed up after he left.
We cannot and should not interpret a text based on what the crowd that day heard. We should interpret what the Holy Spirit was SAYING through the writer. Culture bias and preconceived notions all aside.
It is not what you hear that matters - it is what was said.
Phillip
It is clear from the Bible itself that Paul wrote multiple letters to Corinth because they did not understand what he said to them in the first letter he sent. He also had to write several letters to clarify things he had preached while in the churches that they messed up after he left.
We cannot and should not interpret a text based on what the crowd that day heard. We should interpret what the Holy Spirit was SAYING through the writer. Culture bias and preconceived notions all aside.
It is not what you hear that matters - it is what was said.
Phillip
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Preaching of the Word is regulated differently than the singing of Praise. You cannot confuse the regulations for each specific element of worship.
For preaching, we have guidelines. For sacraments, we have guidelines. For singing, we have guidelines, etc.
You don't bake a cake using the instructions for fixing a riding lawnmower.
Originally posted by Peter
Yes indeed! Though, advocates for uninspired hymnody (on the PB anyway) wont try to show from scripture where hymns are commanded instead they'll critique nuances of inspired Psalmody.
[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Peter]
It is actually pretty simple:
Paul said sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. We are commanded to sing a "new song." We are commanded to sing in worship. No one has shown how that is possible BEFORE the psalms were written. The only thing that has been offered is that there was absolutely no singing at all before David. So for millennia, including the time when there were formal singers in the tabernacle, no one sang in worship. Apparently all the other elements of worship: prayer, reading the Scriptures, preaching, etc are perpetual and are part of worship. That is why they are elements. It is only song that is an optional part of worship. Apparently it was not needed before 1000 BC.
The problem comes wen the clear words of Paul need to be filtered through the uninspired superscriptions of a translation of the Bible, and taken out of the natural context in which they were heard in order to make Paul say sing "Psalms, psalms and yet more psalms" that the complication is necessary.
Let's do a "complex" test: you pick any 20 people of the street, and try and convince them of EP using Col 3:16, and I'll try and convince them of hymnody. Who wants to guess which is more complex to explain and gets more headscratching?
This is called begging the question.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by pastorway
Think about it. To embrace EP is to embrace EXTREME DISCONTIUNUITY between the Old and New Covenants specifically in the area of worship. The only other option is to add to the Biblical record by arguing from silence.
Unsubtantiated assertion, pastorway. One could easily, in similar offensive and unsupported fashion, say the same thing about your view of the covenants and baptism.
You add to the Biblical record by arguing from silence when you admit women to the Lord's Supper.
Silence is not being argued from here, direct revelation, explicit references, and good and necessary consequence is. The Regulative Principle of Worship, as outlined in both the Continental and Scottish confessions and catechisms among Reformed people, is a result of necessary consequence and the teaching of Scripture as a whole, not singled-out prooftexts.
If it is singled-out prooftexts we desire, then the burden of proof rests on the non-RPW camp to show me the texts that command us to sing and compose songs that are NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit or NOT psalms or hymns from the Biblical text.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
I have no problem with that line of argumentation that you are now using. I understand different things are regulated differently. My response was to the line of reasoning that the human heart was sinful and that EP keeps sin out of worship. So the preaching comment was directed as a reductio to that line of reasoning. I'm just looking for good arguments on both sides and trying to weed through arguments that aren't as good. In this case, I like yours better.
I have a question:
IF we agree to sing only Psalms, then are we not disobeying the very Psalms we are singing???
Psalm 33:3 Sing to Him a new song; Play skillfully with a shout of joy.
Psalm 96:1 Oh, sing to the LORD a new song!Sing to the LORD, all the earth.
Psalm 98:1 Oh, sing to the LORD a new song!For He has done marvelous things; His right hand and His holy arm have gained Him the victory.
Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise in the assembly of saints.
I mean it is rather obvious to me that we are told to sing NEW SONGS. Verufying this with the rest of Scripture we see that Isaiah writes: Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise from the ends of the earth, You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, You coastlands and you inhabitants of them! (Is 42:10)
And in heaven a new song is sung and it is not in the Book of Psalms anywhere! Rev 5:9 - in fact, no one could even learn the song (meaning it cannot have been written in the Book of Psalms) except the 144,000 - Rev 14:3.
So singing only Psalms puts us in the position of disobeying other portions of Scripture as well as the Psalms themselves, and since regulations for worship cannot ever lead us into sin then it cannot be a regulation to sing ONLY Psalms.
Phillip
IF we agree to sing only Psalms, then are we not disobeying the very Psalms we are singing???
Psalm 33:3 Sing to Him a new song; Play skillfully with a shout of joy.
Psalm 96:1 Oh, sing to the LORD a new song!Sing to the LORD, all the earth.
Psalm 98:1 Oh, sing to the LORD a new song!For He has done marvelous things; His right hand and His holy arm have gained Him the victory.
Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise in the assembly of saints.
I mean it is rather obvious to me that we are told to sing NEW SONGS. Verufying this with the rest of Scripture we see that Isaiah writes: Sing to the LORD a new song, And His praise from the ends of the earth, You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, You coastlands and you inhabitants of them! (Is 42:10)
And in heaven a new song is sung and it is not in the Book of Psalms anywhere! Rev 5:9 - in fact, no one could even learn the song (meaning it cannot have been written in the Book of Psalms) except the 144,000 - Rev 14:3.
So singing only Psalms puts us in the position of disobeying other portions of Scripture as well as the Psalms themselves, and since regulations for worship cannot ever lead us into sin then it cannot be a regulation to sing ONLY Psalms.
Phillip
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Calvin on Colossians 3:16
Calvin on Ephesians 5:19
19. To psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. These are truly pleasant
and delightful fruits. The Spirit means "œjoy in the Holy Ghost,"
(<451417>Romans 14:17
alludes to deep drinking, with which it is indirectly contrasted. Speaking to
themselves, is speaking among themselves. Nor does he enjoin them to
sing inwardly or alone; for he immediately adds, singing in your hearts; as
if he had said, "œLet your praises be not merely on the tongue, as
hypocrites do, but from the heart." What may be the exact difference
between psalms and hymns, or between hymns and songs, it is not easy to
determine, though a few remarks on this subject shall be offered on a future
occasion. F58 The appellation spiritual, given to these songs, is strikingly
appropriate; for the songs most frequently used are almost always on
trifling subjects, and very far from being chaste.
This doesn't sound like accapella EP.
[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Doesnt sound like uninspired psalmody either. I'm not sure whether in theory calvin was EP though in practice he was. Calvin introduced the singing of psalms in worship in Geneva, and personally contributed to the Genevan Psalter.
I think that Paul was telling them to sing psalms, hymns and songs that were spiritual (i.e. biblical).
The Jewish believers would I think have understood this the same way, especially in the context of a Hellenistic culture (Homer and Hesiod were like Broadway, Steven Spielberg and Star Wars all rolled into one; everyone knew them)
I am not sure why the Septuagint writers did that. We have no way of knowing if they even did, or if they were later additions, since they are in superscriptions, and no where in the text.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Well this is a disappointing response ...
Okay, let me ask you this:
Would you conduct the sacraments using the guidelines as set forth explicitly in Scripture for reading the Word? How could you? It wouldnt' make any sense, would it?
If you use the regulations for baptism while preaching, then you have a wet preacher and a nonsensical sermon.
There is no logical fallacy here at all. The afore-quoted person asked why preachers can say non-inspired words in a sermon if we cannot sing non-inspired songs. That is an invalid question. It is invalid because it misunderstands the point of how the RPW is applied to the elements of worship. Scripture tells us in plain fashion how each element is to be regulated, whether it is singing, reading the Word, administering baptism, etc. They are not universal regulations, but specific to each respective element of worship.
and lets put this stupid, yes STUPID assertion about ladies and the Lord's Supper to rest once and for all (yeah, right).
EVERYONE IN THE CHURCH WAS EXPECTED AND COMMANDED TO EAT THE SUPPER (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:20ff) and this would obviously include the women present. So enough with the ignorant and blind argument that the Bible is SILENT when it SPEAKS rather plainly and LOUDLY.
Phillip
EVERYONE IN THE CHURCH WAS EXPECTED AND COMMANDED TO EAT THE SUPPER (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:20ff) and this would obviously include the women present. So enough with the ignorant and blind argument that the Bible is SILENT when it SPEAKS rather plainly and LOUDLY.
Phillip
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Hahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahaha
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
For argument's sake...in the Psalms that you listed above, couldn't the new song be self-referential to the Psalm that was just penned. In other words at one time there were only 32 Psalms penned or gathered. Then the Psalmist sat down to pen the 33rd. So to sing a new song would be in fact an inspired way to say, "hey, sing this song - it's new".
Just trying to look at it at all angles. Gotta think on the Revelation and other pieces of scripture.
The reason, Gabriel, that it is called begging the question is that you have made the assumption that in order to have any regulation of the element of song, you must have your preconceived regulation. No one (least of all me) has asserted that the element of song is unregulated. We have only asserted that it is not regulated as you have stated.
Please show me the explicit command in the Scripture where the regulation of song is dramatically changed from the time of Seth (or Abraham, or Moses) and that of David.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Peter
Yes indeed! Though, advocates for uninspired hymnody (on the PB anyway) wont try to show from scripture where hymns are commanded instead they'll critique nuances of inspired Psalmody.
[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Peter]
It is actually pretty simple:
Paul said sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. We are commanded to sing a "new song." We are commanded to sing in worship. No one has shown how that is possible BEFORE the psalms were written. The only thing that has been offered is that there was absolutely no singing at all before David. So for millennia, including the time when there were formal singers in the tabernacle, no one sang in worship. Apparently all the other elements of worship: prayer, reading the Scriptures, preaching, etc are perpetual and are part of worship. That is why they are elements. It is only song that is an optional part of worship. Apparently it was not needed before 1000 BC.
Yes I did but you never responded to me. Again: Just b/c there is a dearth of inspired songs inscripturated into the canon does not mean they never existed. "New song" refers to the present song, eg. Ps 40, not a new uninspired composition.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
