EP Split Thread

[JohnV]

Originally posted by webmaster
Let's NOT do this - let's not get into a new EP thread just yet. I've gone back and read everything ont he board on this subject, from the beginning. I think a lot of what was written is off the subject and chasing a lot of ghosts and smoke screens. Let's not jusmp the gun again and get into wrong ideas off the bat. I'll post some ideas later on and write some things as well. But I don't want to get into a shooting match just yet. (Just yet!) Even in reading my own responses and posts in those thread I have to roll my eyes at myself for arguing the way I did. I'll explain later.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by webmaster]

I haven't yet put forward my arguments opposed to EP. That is another thread. And besides, I'm still working on that. My biggest problem right now is determining with certainty whether or not I am coming at this reactionarily rather than objectively. So far, all I've done is wait for some argument in favour of EP, as if it had the burden of proof.

I'd be looking forward to a good discussion on this. It was Matt's original change from credo to paedo that first got my interest to this Board. That wasn't what made me want to join, but it is what made me stop here to have a look. It was the matter and type of discussion that ensued that got me to join up.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

You can download the EP debate here.

They are both persuasive. I am landing on the 2nd speakers side though. He is not EP. He is very pro Psalm singing though.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

EP is simple. People make it so complicated and argue from emotion more than Scripture, in my opinion.

The simplicity of it rests on the fact that Paul commands us to sing something in Eph 5:19/Col 3:16 ... all we have to do is step back from our 21st century, biased interpretation, and think "What would a first century person have interpreted or understood this as?"

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Listen to the debate Gabe. You might learn something other than your preconceived notions. Just like when you impose your understanding of Reformed Baptists by your own experience as being a Southern Baptist. Listen to the debate. You might learn that you are even more convinced, but at least listen and learn why. Don't just chaulk it up to emotionalism.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I will listen to the debate if it will make you happy. I do not hold to EP because of preconceived notions.

I spent 10 years in the SBC playing guitar, leading "worship," writing "worship songs," singing songs of human composition and strongly defending and propogating this practice against any opposition. I am EP because it is a necessary consequence from Scripture, not because of preference, presuppositions, or traditions. Everything related to who I am, what I grew up believing, and what is around me on a constant basis, contradicts and opposes strongly EP. I would never hold to a doctrine unless I was thoroughly convinced by God's Word (and I studied EP for almost a year before coming to a conclusion), and EP certainly takes no exception.

FYI.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Been there and done that also. I am not trying to respond emotionally either. I want God to be glorified the way he tells me to glorify him. Anything else is rubbish. I think Psalm singing is the best way to stay sure. I am prejudiced in that way. I have problems with the modern day stuff. Mainly because it lacks theological understanding. It isn't proven either. Just listen to the debate. It is intelligent and easy to listen to. Both guys are Reformed in the true sense. Plus their accents are cool.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I think the second guy's arguments are terrible (but so are the first guy's arguments). He asserts that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" means X, but then does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to prove this. Nothing. No Scripture comparison, no exegesis. Nothing.

Then, he commits the word root fallacy in appealing that "psalmos" HAS to mean "to pluck with an instrument." His definition-exegesis of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is embarrasing. We interpret Scripture with Scripture, not a dictionary or lexicon. The Psalms of the Old Testament are called hymns (with the same Greek word in the LXX) in the Old Testament. They are also called, simply, songs. I'm surprised this guy isn't a baptist, since he exegetes Scripture based on chosen definitions for Greek words.

Then, he agrees that "spiritual" shows the TYPE of songs that ought to be sung, but then does nothing to define what that word means (pneumataikis, I believe). This word is only used in cases of the Spirit of God being involved (or the Spirit of Satan) in the New Testament. I don't think anyone would argue we should sing by the Spirit of Satan.

Finally, his appeal that Calvin allegedly didn't support EP neither proves nor disproves the doctrine. He says he agrees with Calvin in his exegesis of Eph 5:19/Col 3:16, asserting that psalmos means to play with an instrument ... too bad Calvin was vehemently AGAINST the use of instruments in worship, as Judaizing.

Inconsistency, logical and exegetical fallacies, and appeals to authority (logical fallacy) are not arguments against EP. Just my humble opinion and thoughts.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by puritansailor
The Scottish metrical psalters are a literal translation of the Hebrew. Hence their reputation for being harder to sing The Dutch, Swiss, and English psalters tend to paraphrase more, and on those, I would agree with you, they more resemble uninspired hymns.

The Comprehensive Psalter is an edition of the 1650 Scottish Psalter, and this is why we chose to go with that as the elders believed overall it was still the best translation.

 

[JohnV]

Are there notes that can be played on the guitar? Or the lyre (Ps. 43:4)?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by JohnV
Are there notes that can be played on the guitar? Or the lyre (Ps. 43:4)?

If you're going to apostatize to the Old Covenant (Cf. Heb 7-10) and make a sacrificial offering to the Lord on the altar (Ps. 43:4), I'm sure you can figure out how to play the notes on a guitar.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
EP is simple. People make it so complicated and argue from emotion more than Scripture, in my opinion.

The simplicity of it rests on the fact that Paul commands us to sing something in Eph 5:19/Col 3:16 ... all we have to do is step back from our 21st century, biased interpretation, and think "What would a first century person have interpreted or understood this as?"

In light of that question, what do you make of the fact that Ephesians and Colossians were written to primarily newly-converted Gentile and Greek audiences? Fred elaborated on that point here much better than I could hope to, and so far I have yet to see a good EP response on that particular issue. Again, however, I could go either way at this point, and this particular issue is simply one of the points that seems to me to support hymnody at his point.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Do you think Paul would command new converts, ignorant of a great deal of theological implications related to Christianity, to write their own songs for worship? Knowing that they could write heresy so easily (as heretics did in the first few centuries, writing hymns to promote their doctrine)? Think especially of Corinth.

The fact of the matter is, if these people in Ephesus and Colossae had "bibles", it WAS the Septuagint. That is a FACT, indisputible. In GREEK, the Septuagint refers to the Psalms, OUTSIDE OF THE BOOK OF PSALMS, as both "hymns" and "songs."

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

From a previous thread on inspired Scripture:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by fredtgreco
This is an extremely interesting aspect of the doctrine of inspiration. Why? Because in fact it is most likely that was Paul was referring to in 2 Tim 3:16, was not only not an autograph, but it was most probably a translation - the Septuagint. And yet Paul treats the Septuagint as Scripture, not as something less than Scripture.

This is a significant point with respect to the exclusive psalmody debate.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Kevin,
You write:

singing Psalms does not make us closer to God

Would singing Psalms bring us closer to God than singing something that clearly breaks the RPW or possibly could break the RPW?

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Take the theological content of this song:

Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near;
Praise Him in glad adoration.

Praise to the Lord, Who over all things so wondrously reigneth,
Shelters thee under His wings, yea, so gently sustaineth!
Hast thou not seen how thy desires ever have been
Granted in what He ordaineth?

Praise to the Lord, Who hath fearfully, wondrously, made thee;
Health hath vouchsafed and, when heedlessly falling, hath stayed thee.
What need or grief ever hath failed of relief?
Wings of His mercy did shade thee.

Praise to the Lord, Who doth prosper thy work and defend thee;
Surely His goodness and mercy here daily attend thee.
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do,
If with His love He befriend thee.

Praise to the Lord, Who, when tempests their warfare are waging,
Who, when the elements madly around thee are raging,
Biddeth them cease, turneth their fury to peace,
Whirlwinds and waters assuaging.

Praise to the Lord, Who, when darkness of sin is abounding,
Who, when the godless do triumph, all virtue confounding,
Sheddeth His light, chaseth the horrors of night,
Saints with His mercy surrounding.

Praise to the Lord, O let all that is in me adore Him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him.
Let the Amen sound from His people again,
Gladly for aye we adore Him.

All of this is content paraphrased from the Psalms. Why does this commend us to God less than singing an English paraphrase of the Psalms? Does God forbid the quoting of Scripture from memory, out of order? Does God forbid the dynamic equivalent if it aids in understanding and pedagogy?

It really is straining at a gnat if we think that hymns with rich doctrinal content are not appropriate in the worship of God, especially when we have to do the same with the Psalms to make them singable.

If one is to be EP and the RPW is immovable on this, then one must sing in Hebrew. That is the only way I can understand it. Anything short of this is getting close but not close enough. Then you have whole denominations who claim that they're closer than you are. But in the end, what does God prescribe? If He prescribes the singing of the 150 Psalms only, then we had better sing them as they are written. Because anything other than this is innovation and uninspiration.

WCF 1:8 says that only the Hebrew and Greek texts are authentical and carry the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That means that a vulgar tongue is not inspired on issues of complete understanding. We are to search the original text to see the inspired Scriptures, though the English translations are quite accurate and translated with care.

So, most accurately, if we are going to sing the inspired Word of God, then we must, of necessity, sing the Psalms in Hebrew.

But why must we go to such extremes? Why be so dogmatic? Why do we hold over our brothers our own practice against theirs? Are we more holy? More righteous?

The EP congregations are no more holy, nor do they uphold more fully the RPW than other reformed denominations. Why? Because we're all fallen sinners who worship God imperfectly. Why squabble over this? It is distinction without difference. Psalm 103 can be sung from the English Bible, it can be sung from the Psalter, it can be sung to another tune. The concepts can be put into slightly different words.

Did the divines have in mind that we would use a particular Psalter? Did they prescribe one? No. Because of this, we should see that there is latitude.

Unfortunately, we as fallen sinners, hang ourselves with latitude.

That means that we do not go willy-nilly whereever we want to on this one, but sing songs to the Lord that are from His Word that align with the truths of Scripture. Not all hymns are good. But not all are bad either.

To me, this issue is rather like saying, "Do you tithe your mint." "I sure do. But do you tithe your cummin." "No." "Well, I would never think of not tithing my cummin." Who can be the most accurate? Who can be the model church? Who looks and sounds the best to God?

We are all ushered into the throne room of God through the blood veil of Jesus Christ our Lord. The Holy Spirit takes us there and translates our stuttering speech into the words pleasing to God's ears. God is not looking for true worship. He's looking for true worshipers. If we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and we look unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, then EP is not a hill to die on. And it certainly shouldn't be something that divides us.

As I said, I am perfectly fine singing only Psalms with my EP brothers. But what is it that holds them back from singing hymns with me? Identify that attitude and you have my problem with EP in a nutshell.

In Christ,

KC

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by kceaster
Did the divines have in mind that we would use a particular Psalter? Did they prescribe one? No. Because of this, we should see that there is latitude.

Consistent with the Westminster Directory of Publick Worship,

Of Singing of Psalms.

IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.

In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord.

That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to learn to read. But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing thereof.

the Assembly indeed did intend for a particular Psalter to be used in the churches under its jurisdiction, ie., that which became known as the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter.

William Symington, The Westminster Assembly of Divines:

On November 20, 1643, the Parliament sent down an order to the Westminster Assembly to take under their consideration Rous' metrical version of the Psalms, with a view to its use in public singing, instead of that hitherto employed, by Sternholds and Hopkins. The Independents were opposed to the use of any one Psalter, but the Presbyterians were in favor of such a measure, and the Scots commissioners appear to have entered warmly into the matter. Many alterations and amendments were suggested by the Assembly from time to time on the version of Rous. Baillie remarks in one place, "The Psalter is a great part of our uniformity, which we can not let pass till our Church be well advised with it." In another, "The Psalms are perfyted; the best without all doubt that ever yet were extant." Again, in urging attention to the revision on his friend Douglas: "These lines are likely to go up to God from many millions of tongues for many generations; it were a pity but all possible diligence were used to have them framed so well as might be." The version on which all this labor was bestowed both by the Westminster Assembly and by the Church in Scotland, is that which is still in use in Scotland, having been authorized by an act of the commission of the General Assembly, November 23, 1649, and confirmed by an order of the Committee of Estates, January 8, 1650.

See also the 1673 Puritan Preface to the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I think the second guy's arguments are terrible (but so are the first guy's arguments). He asserts that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" means X, but then does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to prove this. Nothing. No Scripture comparison, no exegesis. Nothing.

Then, he commits the word root fallacy in appealing that "psalmos" HAS to mean "to pluck with an instrument." His definition-exegesis of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is embarrasing. We interpret Scripture with Scripture, not a dictionary or lexicon. The Psalms of the Old Testament are called hymns (with the same Greek word in the LXX) in the Old Testament. They are also called, simply, songs. I'm surprised this guy isn't a baptist, since he exegetes Scripture based on chosen definitions for Greek words.

Here's a common weakness with EP arguments. Greek words have a common meaning to themselves outside NT Scripture. It's not just a matter of "comparing Scripture with Scripture" but comparing the Hebrew cultural usage with Greek cultural usage. When the Ephesian or Colossian Greeks heard "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" what did they first think? They didn't have any Hebrew reference point like Jewish converts did. Paul would have had to explain himself further at some point. James simply states "psalms" addressing his Hebrew audience, which if we had that alone we could certainly derive an EP position. But Paul uses more broad terms with a Gentile population. You have to assume a couple things in order to properly understand the phrase "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs". And these assumptions will have to be somehow contructed from the early Christian worldview, and especially account for the Gentile inclusion and adoption of Christian worship.
1) If your EP, you have to assume that Paul explained this phrase previously to the Gentile Christians, and simply reasserts that teaching, and give a sound argument for that assumption.
2) If you're non-EP, you have to assume that Paul previously taught that it was ok to compose new hymns, which this phrase simply reasserts, and give a sound argument for that.

I have yet to see a good argument thus far for either case.

Hence why I am EP by default, since it is the Confessional position, and in my view "safer."

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by kceaster
If one is to be EP and the RPW is immovable on this, then one must sing in Hebrew. That is the only way I can understand it. Anything short of this is getting close but not close enough. Then you have whole denominations who claim that they're closer than you are. But in the end, what does God prescribe? If He prescribes the singing of the 150 Psalms only, then we had better sing them as they are written. Because anything other than this is innovation and uninspiration.

WCF 1:8 says that only the Hebrew and Greek texts are authentical and carry the full inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That means that a vulgar tongue is not inspired on issues of complete understanding. We are to search the original text to see the inspired Scriptures, though the English translations are quite accurate and translated with care.

So, most accurately, if we are going to sing the inspired Word of God, then we must, of necessity, sing the Psalms in Hebrew.

You seem to forget that 1 Cor. 14 is also part of the RPW, that we are to sing with understanding, in a language everyone can understand. If we were to rest with your argument of singing only in Hebrew, then we have no warrant to translate the Bible into the vulgar language either. Do you think the early greek Christians sang the songs in Hebrew? Or in Greek?

But why must we go to such extremes? Why be so dogmatic? Why do we hold over our brothers our own practice against theirs? Are we more holy? More righteous?

Some do go too extreme in their rhetoric. But EP is the position of the WCF whether you like it or not, whether the denomination enforces it or not.

As I said, I am perfectly fine singing only Psalms with my EP brothers. But what is it that holds them back from singing hymns with me? Identify that attitude and you have my problem with EP in a nutshell.

No one would object to singing psalms in either camp. For the rigid EP though, to sing uninpsired hymns is to betray the RPW. It's not an "I'm better than you" attitude, but rather an "I'm trying to worship God as he commands" attitude. Some can be gracious, and leave room for Christian liberty and ecclestiastical submission on this point, which is the point I'm at now. But that doesn't change the fact that only one position is correct, and since it is tied to worship, it does become more important since it affects how we worship every Sunday.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
EP is simple. People make it so complicated and argue from emotion more than Scripture, in my opinion.

The simplicity of it rests on the fact that Paul commands us to sing something in Eph 5:19/Col 3:16 ... all we have to do is step back from our 21st century, biased interpretation, and think "What would a first century person have interpreted or understood this as?"

As I have sad before, the only way that you camn interpret this is to be completely ignorant of Greco-Roman civilization and culture for the 1000 years before Christ.

I assure you, no pagan Greek would have EVER heard "hymn" and thought, "one of the 150 Psalms in a book I have never heard of by a backwater people that I did not even know existed."

 

[Beloved]

Thank you so much for this discussion! My husband would prefer exclusive psalmody, but I'm in the camp with BrianBowman, and thankfully he attends my church, maybe we can work on locating some ways to work in more exclusive psalmody at Peace with some updated scoring. (Brian - Might be a good hobby for Richard to take up in all that spare time he has )

This sort of discussion is what Ive been looking for online for years. I will probably lurk way way more than I have the courage to post on the theology and doctrine subjects, but I am so eager to learn from what everyone else discusses on the heavier subjects!

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I assure you, no pagan Greek would have EVER heard "hymn" and thought, "one of the 150 Psalms in a book I have never heard of by a backwater people that I did not even know existed."

Are we talking about pagan Greeks, here, Fred? Or saints? Did they have no access to the Scriptures? Did they not have elders or apostles teaching them doctrine? Were they simply converted and then left to go wild? Is it not true that, according to Church history, the apostle John was the bishop over Ephesus for a long period of time? Either these churches in Ephesus and Colossae were started by Jew converts to Christianity from Pentecost (in which case, knowledge of the LXX would be vast) or by apostles and disciples spreading the gospel. Either way, they weren't ignorant of Scripture and doctrine as a whole. Babes in Christ, they likely were for a time, but not pagan Greeks.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by kceaster
Did the divines have in mind that we would use a particular Psalter? Did they prescribe one? No. Because of this, we should see that there is latitude.

Consistent with the Westminster Directory of Publick Worship,

Of Singing of Psalms.

IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.

In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord.

That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to learn to read. But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing thereof.

the Assembly indeed did intend for a particular Psalter to be used in the churches under its jurisdiction, ie., that which became known as the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter.

William Symington, The Westminster Assembly of Divines:

On November 20, 1643, the Parliament sent down an order to the Westminster Assembly to take under their consideration Rous' metrical version of the Psalms, with a view to its use in public singing, instead of that hitherto employed, by Sternholds and Hopkins. The Independents were opposed to the use of any one Psalter, but the Presbyterians were in favor of such a measure, and the Scots commissioners appear to have entered warmly into the matter. Many alterations and amendments were suggested by the Assembly from time to time on the version of Rous. Baillie remarks in one place, "The Psalter is a great part of our uniformity, which we can not let pass till our Church be well advised with it." In another, "The Psalms are perfyted; the best without all doubt that ever yet were extant." Again, in urging attention to the revision on his friend Douglas: "These lines are likely to go up to God from many millions of tongues for many generations; it were a pity but all possible diligence were used to have them framed so well as might be." The version on which all this labor was bestowed both by the Westminster Assembly and by the Church in Scotland, is that which is still in use in Scotland, having been authorized by an act of the commission of the General Assembly, November 23, 1649, and confirmed by an order of the Committee of Estates, January 8, 1650.

See also the 1673 Puritan Preface to the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter.

Just for information sake:

A Puritan Preface to the Scottish Metrical Psalter

Below is the text (with some modernisation of spelling and punctuation etc.) of a letter to the reader affixed to an edition of the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter printed for the Company of Stationers at London in 1673. The title page bears the words: "œThe Psalms of David In Meeter. Newly Translated and diligently compared with the Original Text, and former Translations: More plain, smooth and agreeable to the Text, than any heretofore."

Good Reader,

´Tis evident by the common experience of mankind, that love cannot lie idle in the soul. For every one hath his oblectation [way of enjoyment] and delight, his tastes and relishes are suitable to his constitution, and a man´s temper is more discovered by his solaces than by any thing else: carnal men delight in what is suited to the gust [taste] of the flesh, and spiritual men in the things of the Spirit. The promises of God's holy covenant, which are to others as stale news or withered flowers, feed the pleasure of their minds; and the mysteries of our redemption by Christ are their hearts´ delight and comfort. But as joy must have a proper object so also a vent: for this is an affection that cannot be penned up: the usual issue and out-going of it is by singing. Profane spirits must have songs suitable to their mirth; as their mirth is carnal so their songs are vain and frothy, if not filthy and obscene; but they that rejoice in the Lord, their mirth runneth in a spiritual channel: "œIs any merry? let him sing psalms," saith the apostle (James 5:13). And, "œThy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage," saith holy David (Ps. 119:54).

Surely singing, ´tis a delectable way of instruction, as common prudence will teach us. Aelian (Natural History, book 2, chapter 39) telleth us that the Cretans enjoined their children to learn their laws by singing them in verse. And surely singing of Psalms is a duty of such comfort and profit, that it needeth not our recommendation: The new nature is instead of all arguments, which cannot be without thy spiritual solace. Now though spiritual songs of mere human composure may have their use, yet our devotion is best secured, where the matter and words are of immediately divine inspiration; and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of "œpsalms and hymns and spiritual songs," which the apostle useth (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). But then ´tis meet that these divine composures should be represented to us in a fit translation, lest we want David, in David; while his holy ecstasies are delivered in a flat and bald expression. The translation which is now put into thy hands cometh nearest to the original of any that we have seen, and runneth with such a fluent sweetness, that we thought fit to recommend it to thy Christian acceptance; some of us having used it already, with great comfort and satisfaction.

Thomas Manton D.D Henry Langley D.D. John Owen D.D.

William Jenkyn James Innes Thomas Watson

Thomas Lye Matthew Poole John Milward

John Chester George Cokayn Matthew Meade

Robert Francklin Thomas Dooelittle Thomas Vincent

Nathanael Vincent John Ryther William Tomson

Nicolas Blaikie Charles Morton Edmund Calamy

William Carslake James Janeway John Hickes

John Baker

 

[Augusta]

What convinces me is the fact that the Israelites were GIVEN everything for the worship of God. Nothing was man-made and you did NOT approach Him any way you pleased.

The Levites were a type of the visible church. They alone were allowed to enter into the temples holiest areas. They were not given land because they were consecrated to God as His special people. They had very specific instructions for everything and deviated from those instructions at their own peril.

There are many examples of people bringing what was NOT what God had commanded or profaned God's worship by doing their own thing and they met God's wrath and or punishment when they did. Cain, Nadab, Abihu, Uzzah, and Zimri who brought Cozbi a midianite woman just to the door of the tent of meeting and Phinehas spears them both through and God was pleased.

Numbers 25:
10 The LORD said to Moses,
11 "Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them.
12 Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him.
13 He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelites."

Yes the veil was ripped in two. That was because the Temple is obsolete now. We no longer need it because we have a heavenly temple now. We worship here but we worship "in Christ" in the heavenly temple which is HOLY. Even the Seraphim cover their eyes and feet there. We should all be as zealous as Zimri was for God's honor. We should not even think of profaning God's presence by bringing man-made things to the worship of God.

Uzzah was killed because he touched the ark. He himself was the profane in that instance even though he was consecrated by God as a special class of people for the purpose of carrying the ark, even though he was sincere in trying to keep it from falling to the ground. Sincerity means nothing. The worship is for God not man. What we like doesn't matter. What's funner for us does not matter. Pleasing God is what matters. We should not do what is not commanded.

Just read Malachi 1 and 2 to see what God thinks of people profaning His worship. Then read Isaiah 56:1-8 to see the blessings the gentiles will receive when they keep from "defiling the Sabbath."

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Augusta
What convinces me is the fact that the Israelites were GIVEN everything for the worship of God. Nothing was man-made and you did NOT approach Him any way you pleased.

The Levites were a type of the visible church. They alone were allowed to enter into the temples holiest areas. They were not given land because they were consecrated to God as His special people. They had very specific instructions for everything and deviated from those instructions at their own peril.

Traci,

This is interesting, since the Biblical historical fact is that the Israelites you specifically mention did not have any (or nearly any) of the Psalter. Did God fail to provide for them? Did they sing from another (unpreserved) Psalter? If so, where did it go? Why did God let it go?

If not, did they sing uninspired songs? If so, were they less under the RPW than we are? Did the RPW "not count" for Moses and the Levites? Are we to surmise that worship under the strictest of ceremonial conditions (the tabercnacle) was somehow wider in scope (freer) than under the New Covenant?

 

[Augusta]

Fred, they sang only as the Spirit moved as in the case of them singing after crossing the Red sea. Once they had the "sweet Psalmist" he organized the singers and players and he wrote most of the Psalms.

He was none other than David a prophet, priest, and King and the type of Christ. Combine this with the the levitical priesthood being the type of the visible church and you have a pretty darn good guide for how to run church and the worship of God.

Here we are eschatologically "in Christ" before the throne of David in the heavenly temple not made with hands. I just can't see singing anything else before God in the presence of God but the inspired Psalms of David.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Augusta]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Augusta
Fred, they sang only as the Spirit moved as in the case of them singing after crossing the Red sea. Once they had the "sweet Psalmist" he organized the singers and players and he wrote most of the Psalms.

He was none other than David a prophet, priest, and King and the type of Christ. Combine this with the the levitical priesthood being the type of the visible church and you have a pretty darn good guide for how to run church and the worship of God.

So you are saying that all singing before David was divinely inspired? I'd like to see any evidence for that.

You still have't answered my question. You are only left with

1. The saints did not sing at all before David

2. They sang only directly inspired songs, in which case those songs themselves becames somehow "no good anymore" after David (in fact, to sing the very song you mention, Exodus 15, would be to give false worship God according EP)

3. They sang uninspired songs, which were ok, but then God changed his mind.

Sorry, I don't see how any of those are possible.

Here we are eschatologically "in Christ" before the throne of David in the heavenly temple not made with hands. I just can't see singing anything else before God in the presence of God but the inspired Psalms of David.

So you couldn't see singing the inspired words the Scripture itself says that are sung before the throne of God (Revelation), or the words sung in Exodus? Is some Scripture better than others?

[Edited on 7/26/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Augusta]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Augusta
Fred, they sang only as the Spirit moved as in the case of them singing after crossing the Red sea. Once they had the "sweet Psalmist" he organized the singers and players and he wrote most of the Psalms.

He was none other than David a prophet, priest, and King and the type of Christ. Combine this with the the levitical priesthood being the type of the visible church and you have a pretty darn good guide for how to run church and the worship of God.

So you are saying that all singing before David was divinely inspired? I'd like to see any evidence for that.

You still have't answered my question. You are only left with

1. The saints did not sing at all before David

2. They sang only directly inspired songs, in which case those songs themselves becames somehow "no good anymore" after David (in fact, to sing the very song you mention, Exodus 15, would be to give false worship God according EP)

3. They sang uninspired songs, which were ok, but then God changed his mind.

Sorry, I don't see how any of those are possible.

Here we are eschatologically "in Christ" before the throne of David in the heavenly temple not made with hands. I just can't see singing anything else before God in the presence of God but the inspired Psalms of David.

So you couldn't see singing the inspired words the Scripture itself says that are sung before the throne of God (Revelation), or the words sung in Exodus? Is some Scripture better than others?

[Edited on 7/26/2005 by fredtgreco]

As I said above they sang ONLY when moved by the Holy Spirit that I know of. Moses in Deut. was told by God to teach Israel that song to be a witness of Him telling them what He would do WHEN they turned yet again to idolatry.

Deborah the prophetess prophesied in the form of a song.

The song sung after crossing the Red Sea was said to be sung by Moses and the people and one can only deduce that he taught them that one too or they were all supernaturally singing the same words.

Other than that I see only plain old ordinary singing not in worship to God until David in 1 Chron. 15 when he brought the ark to Jerusalem. He is called the "sweet psalmist" and also in 2 Samuel 23 it says:

1 These are the last words of David:
"The oracle of David son of Jesse,
the oracle of the man exalted by the Most High,
the man anointed by the God of Jacob,
Israel's singer of songs:

So as I said there was no singing in scripture that was in the worship of God that was not inspired. And I think it is no mistake that David, who was a huge figure in the OT and the type of Christ, wrote songs for the worship of God and that they were included in the canon of scripture. Why were the other songs not included? I do not know. I think if God wanted them to be sung they would have been included in the canon.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Augusta]

 

[fredtgreco]

This is an even more interesting take. So now worship did not involve singing at all before David? That would be the only element of worship that would be new and added that I am aware of.

Forgive me if I am not ready to jettison my understanding of the RPW solely because David is called the "sweet psalmist." That really has absolutely no theological import.

 

[Peter]

1st remember the question is what they sung in *worship*. And to answer the question they sung only inspired songs.

Nobody denies that not all of God's revelations have been inscripturated. Its probable that there was an environment rich with Spirit inspired songs pre-David. Also, yes, EPists believe to sing scripture songs other than the Psalms is sin. The reason is, we believe, as you know, that these songs were particular to a bygone period in redemptive history. It would be like following the Levitical instructions, though once prescribed their usage has been annulled. Anyway, the issue is irrelevant unless you're going to argue for an exclusive use of all scripture songs position Fred.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Peter]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
We interpret Scripture with Scripture, not a dictionary or lexicon..... I'm surprised this guy isn't a baptist, since he exegetes Scripture based on chosen definitions for Greek words.

GABE, You can't mean what you said above. So Greek definitions don't mean anything and they aren't involved with interpreting what someone writes? I understand your plite and am not arguing against your findings. But statements like these will make you seem uncredible.

I agree we interpret scripture with scripture but we also do it by definition and context. I am not arguing against EP. I am trying to get you to discuss this more intelligently. Just say you disagree with his definitions and go find the correct definitions and context so that you can rebut. Logos is important. Definitions are important by nature. Context also helps us with defining words and doing exegesis. If words don't have definitions we only have isogesis and our own imaginations to rest upon. And I agree, we interpret Scripture with Scripture. That means taking the clearer passages to understand the difficult passages.
So tighten up your argument without being a loose canon. Not all Baptists are unsound theologians. You are capable. Do a better job.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Peter
1st remember the question is what they sung in *worship*. And to answer the question they sung only inspired songs.

And the evidence for that would be?

Nobody denies that not all of God's revelations have been inscripturated. Its probable that there was an environment rich with Spirit inspired songs pre-David. Also, yes, EPists believe to sing scripture songs other than the Psalms is sin. The reason is, we believe, as you know, that these songs were particular to a bygone period in redemptive history. It would be like following the Levitical instructions, though once prescribed their usage has been annulled. Anyway, the issue is irrelevant unless you're going to argue for an exclusive use of all scripture songs position Fred.

Actually, it is not irrelevant at all. It shows that the EP position is so extreme that it makes the singing of God's inspired word a sin. I can't imagine why it would be perfectly proper for me to corporately read Exodus 15, but as soon as I set it to music, it is a grievous and high sin. Something is wrong here.