Exclusive Psalmody and Biblical Inerrancy

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God.
WCF 21.1. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.​
A "positive command" is not necessary. There is no "positive command" to baptize infants, and yet we do it. ;)

You are confusing a positive command with an explicit command, which is a straw man version of the RPW, a positive command includes what can be deduced by good and necessary consequence (i.e. can include infant baptism, women coming to the Lord's Supper etc.).
But "good an necessary consequence" is not a "positive command." Where are we positively commanded to worship on the first day of the week?
 
But then you will need to come up with the subjective grounds on which they are insufficient. The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God. So if God chose to inspire prophets to write songs in the Old Testament and then collect them into a book, and then command that they be sung, and then not do anything remotely similar in the NT, that does mean that they are meant to be our only hymnal.

Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?

Larry, since EP has never been on my agenda as of yet, I make no public staement against it nor for it. I am obviously prematurely not agreeing with it. But you provided an arguement in another thread that 'convinced' me in my infancy of even hearing about this debate. It was something about types and shadows, and why limit ourselves to worshipping/singing to God when we have the full revealed Gospel. I agree 100% (you said something to this effect). Can you repeat it here for me to see again?
 
But then you will need to come up with the subjective grounds on which they are insufficient. The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God. So if God chose to inspire prophets to write songs in the Old Testament and then collect them into a book, and then command that they be sung, and then not do anything remotely similar in the NT, that does mean that they are meant to be our only hymnal.

Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?

Larry, since EP has never been on my agenda as of yet, I make no public staement against it nor for it. I am obviously prematurely not agreeing with it. But you provided an arguement in another thread that 'convinced' me in my infancy of even hearing about this debate. It was something about types and shadows, and why limit ourselves to worshipping/singing to God when we have the full revealed Gospel. I agree 100% (you said something to this effect). Can you repeat it here for me to see again?

This proves my point, StaunchPresbyterian. This is not an argument that has anything to do with the RPW. It is based on the supposed insufficiency of the Psalter in spite of arguments based on the biblically and confessionally required Regulative Principle. It doesn't matter what any one of us thinks worship should look like.

[bible]Psalm 51[/bible]
 
Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?

Larry, since EP has never been on my agenda as of yet, I make no public staement against it nor for it. I am obviously prematurely not agreeing with it. But you provided an arguement in another thread that 'convinced' me in my infancy of even hearing about this debate. It was something about types and shadows, and why limit ourselves to worshipping/singing to God when we have the full revealed Gospel. I agree 100% (you said something to this effect). Can you repeat it here for me to see again?

This proves my point, StaunchPresbyterian. This is not an argument that has anything to do with the RPW. It is based on the supposed insufficiency of the Psalter in spite of arguments based on the biblically and confessionally required Regulative Principle. It doesn't matter what any one of us thinks worship should look like.

[bible]Psalm 51[/bible]

CC, did you mean to addy this point to me or staunch Presbyterian? I am not entering this dialogue, all I said was Larry spoke in the past and presented an arguement against EP that satisfied me. But again, I am not a barometer on this subject. The heat is too great on a matter than I am not moved to get anxious about. Its about 57 on my list.;) It falls between serving half moons or Glazed Do-nuts for our fellowship coffee time after service, and repainting the lines a darker yellow in our parking lot.
 
CC, did you mean to addy this point to me or staunch prepby? I am not entering this dialogue, all I said was Larry spoke in the past and presented an arguement against EP that satisfied me. But again, I am not a barometer on thsi subject. The heat is too great on a matter than I am not moved to get anxious about. Its about 57 on my list.;)

Nicholas,

Sorry for the confusion. I did mean to address SP but was using your statement as an example of something I said to him earlier.
 
They say things like "We don't believe that Christ is openly mentioned enough in the Psalms." They have their own idea about what worship is supposed to look like instead of extracting their understanding from Scripture. Then, when the Psalms don't match up to their preconceived requirements, they say that we must write our own songs. This is not an argument from the RPW, which is what is required in matters of worship. It is an argument of sufficiency within the context of worship based on a false understanding of what proper worship is.
Let me just say here: I'm not EP, but I'm not arguing for or against it on this thread. What I'm saying is that we all need to be careful about how we talk about it. I agree that the arguments against EP that are mentioned in your quote are illegitimate, and so I am in no way defending them. My point is that some of the comments given by EPers on this thread are also illegitimate. There is no "positive command" to baptize our infants or worship on the Lord's Day. I know why we do these things, though, and would of course argue from Scripture in support of these practices -- but not on the basis of "positive command," rather, on the basis of "good and necessary consequence" -- infant baptism because it is a sign of the covenant, the actual rite being accidental, as you said; I worship on the Lord's Day because of the example of the Apostles in conjunction with the fourth commandment.

If someone buys the EP argument, then yes, singing anything but Psalms would seem to deny the sufficiency of Scripture -- but if you don't buy the EP argument, then it's an illegitimate argument against those who are non-EP. I can just as easily say that Scripture says we are to sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs -- right there I have a positive command to sing texts besides the Psalms. You can say that I've misinterpreted "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs," but you can't say I've in any sense denied the sufficiency of Scripture since my view comes from Scripture. The ground of the discussion has left the more general principles (like the RPW and the sufficiency of Scripture) to an exegetical discussion of what "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is referring to. One could just as easily say that EPers have denied the sufficiency of Scripture by appealing to the uninspired headings of the Psalms in the LXX -- you see, the argument cuts both ways.

The Psalms speak of Christ, but if I say that the Psalms don't speak with the same fulness that the NT does about him, you can't really object to that -- the sufficiency of Scripture, as a doctrine we all believe, deals with all of Scripture (not just the Psalms). Again, only when you presuppose EP to be true can you say anyone is in any sense denying the sufficiency of Scripture if they sing hymns. Has the Lord provided us with a sufficient song-book in Scripture? This is only a question that needs to be asked if you think Scripture itself leads to you to ask the question. Non-EPers think it's an unnecessary question to begin with; EPers think it's a necessary question. You can't adequately critique another's view (non-EP) presupposing your own view (EP) to be correct without first establishing the validity of your own view.

In other words, the question ("Has the Lord provided us with a sufficient song-book in Scripture?") is a complex question with embedded presuppositions -- you may accept those presuppositions, but others do not, and given their presuppositions, they may not in their own mind be denying the sufficiency of Scripture and it would be uncharitable to claim they were.

Sorry, my brain is all over the place at this point and maybe I should just bow out of the conversation. :um: :p
 
Shouldn't Worship and how we worship be considered number 1 on a list since that is the "chief end of man", and the reason we are saved for, that is to worship. John Calvin thought that worship and what we do in worship was even more important then Justification by faith alone because of the fact that we are justified and created for the purpose to worship God.

The First Commandment determines who we worship, the true living God. The second commandment determines how the true God is to be worshiped. The Third Commandment determines that we worship him truly and the name we use. The fourth commandment determines the day we worship....

What more can be important?

Larry, since EP has never been on my agenda as of yet, I make no public staement against it nor for it. I am obviously prematurely not agreeing with it. But you provided an arguement in another thread that 'convinced' me in my infancy of even hearing about this debate. It was something about types and shadows, and why limit ourselves to worshipping/singing to God when we have the full revealed Gospel. I agree 100% (you said something to this effect). Can you repeat it here for me to see again?

This proves my point, StaunchPresbyterian. This is not an argument that has anything to do with the RPW. It is based on the supposed insufficiency of the Psalter in spite of arguments based on the biblically and confessionally required Regulative Principle. It doesn't matter what any one of us thinks worship should look like.

[bible]Psalm 51[/bible]

CC, did you mean to addy this point to me or staunch prepby? I am not entering this dialogue, all I said was Larry spoke in the past and presented an arguement against EP that satisfied me. But again, I am not a barometer on this subject. The heat is too great on a matter than I am not moved to get anxious about. Its about 57 on my list.;) It falls between half moons or Glazed for our fellowship coffee time after service, and repainting the lines a darker yellow in our parking lot.
 
CC, did you mean to addy this point to me or staunch prepby? I am not entering this dialogue, all I said was Larry spoke in the past and presented an arguement against EP that satisfied me. But again, I am not a barometer on thsi subject. The heat is too great on a matter than I am not moved to get anxious about. Its about 57 on my list.;)

Nicholas,

Sorry for the confusion. I did mean to address SP but was using your statement as an example of something I said to him earlier.

Oh you mean your attempt to stack the deck as you imply in post number 30? Saying something like, If you disagree, the RPW only allows you to disagree in certain way? SO not only does the RPW tell us, what is proper woorship, it narrows the way one can argue about whats going on in worship? So when Larry said why would we only sing of shadows and types, the RPW calls a foul because that language is not allowed in this game? Pretty strict rules you are presenting here CC. Kinda like saying, Ill race you across the pool, but you cant use your arms, but I can!!;)
 
Larry, since EP has never been on my agenda as of yet, I make no public staement against it nor for it. I am obviously prematurely not agreeing with it. But you provided an arguement in another thread that 'convinced' me in my infancy of even hearing about this debate. It was something about types and shadows, and why limit ourselves to worshipping/singing to God when we have the full revealed Gospel. I agree 100% (you said something to this effect). Can you repeat it here for me to see again?

I can't quite find the post you are referring to, but i remember saying something like that.
Some other things to consider are...

We are commanded to sing "new" songs in Isaiah.
[bible]Isa 42:10[/bible]
In Luke 4 Jesus quotes part of Isa 42, and He says "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled..." (Lk 4:21)

And if the only place that EP folks can define "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is from the LXX, then they should consider how the LXX defines those terms in other areas as well.
Just as an example, the LXX also uses psalmos in places outside of the Psalms (1 Sam 16:16-17; 2 Ki 3:15; Amos 5:23). This is enough to show that psalmos does not only refer to God-ordained songs to be sung in worship. This word is used to translate more than one underlying Hebrew word that have a wide variety of meaning.
 
CC, did you mean to addy this point to me or staunch prepby? I am not entering this dialogue, all I said was Larry spoke in the past and presented an arguement against EP that satisfied me. But again, I am not a barometer on thsi subject. The heat is too great on a matter than I am not moved to get anxious about. Its about 57 on my list.;)

Nicholas,

Sorry for the confusion. I did mean to address SP but was using your statement as an example of something I said to him earlier.

Oh you mean your attempt to stack the deck as you imply in post number 30? Saying something like, If you disagree, the RPW only allows you to disagree in certain way? SO not only does the RPW tell us, what is proper woorship, it narrows the way one can argue about whats going on in worship? So when Larry said why would we only sing of shadows and types, the RPW calls a foul because that language is not allowed in this game? Pretty strict rules you are presenting here CC. Kinda like saying, Ill race you across the pool, but you cant use your arms, but I can!!;)

This doesn't make any sense. If the RPW tells us what proper worship is then yes, it narrows what we can use to argue about worship. That should be self evident.

Your pool analogy is off, too. I never said that Larry can't use something and I can. I said that we should both use the scriptures, since that is what is required by the Confession and the RPW.
 
Shouldn't Worship and how we worship be considered number 1 on a list since that is the "chief end of man", and the reason we are saved for, that is to worship. John Calvin thought that worship and what we do in worship was even more important then Justification by faith alone because of the fact that we are justified and created for the purpose to worship God.

The First Commandment determines who we worship, the true living God. The second commandment determines how the true God is to be worshiped. The Third Commandment determines that we worship him truly and the name we use. The fourth commandment determines the day we worship....

What more can be important?

This proves my point, StaunchPresbyterian. This is not an argument that has anything to do with the RPW. It is based on the supposed insufficiency of the Psalter in spite of arguments based on the biblically and confessionally required Regulative Principle. It doesn't matter what any one of us thinks worship should look like.

[bible]Psalm 51[/bible]

CC, did you mean to addy this point to me or staunch prepby? I am not entering this dialogue, all I said was Larry spoke in the past and presented an arguement against EP that satisfied me. But again, I am not a barometer on this subject. The heat is too great on a matter than I am not moved to get anxious about. Its about 57 on my list.;) It falls between half moons or Glazed for our fellowship coffee time after service, and repainting the lines a darker yellow in our parking lot.

Mike, I worship within the RCA. There is much more concern I have than EP, RPW,or any other acronym you may use. We have Robert Schuller still claiming our name. DOnt be offended ok. You wanna use the RPW, fine, you wanna be EP, great. Give Glory to God. You can say whatever you want, and try to make the matter pressing on me, but it honestly is not. Now if I was in the tabernacle, well then thats a different story.
 
Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?

Larry, since EP has never been on my agenda as of yet, I make no public staement against it nor for it. I am obviously prematurely not agreeing with it. But you provided an arguement in another thread that 'convinced' me in my infancy of even hearing about this debate. It was something about types and shadows, and why limit ourselves to worshipping/singing to God when we have the full revealed Gospel. I agree 100% (you said something to this effect). Can you repeat it here for me to see again?

This proves my point, StaunchPresbyterian. This is not an argument that has anything to do with the RPW. It is based on the supposed insufficiency of the Psalter in spite of arguments based on the biblically and confessionally required Regulative Principle. It doesn't matter what any one of us thinks worship should look like.
Well, quite frankly, I don't consider that to be legitimate grounds for not exclusively singing the Psalms. I said in my previous post that I don't believe it to be a valid argument that since the Psalms are shadows therefore we should sing more than Psalms. But that doesn't mean it isn't an interesting point from the perspective of those who, on other biblical grounds, have already rejected EP.
 
I said that we should both use the scriptures, since that is what is required by the Confession and the RPW.

Except that the Confession does not say that we are to use the LXX as our Scripture authority, but the Hebrew OT. And you can't do that to prove your point
 
Are we not in the tabernacle of the Lord when we worship? We ascend to Heaven to the Tabernacle, before the Throne of Grace.....

Psalm 84:

How lovely is Your tabernacle,
O LORD of hosts!
2 My soul longs, yes, even faints
For the courts of the LORD;
My heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.



Sorry about that Schuller fellow...

Shouldn't Worship and how we worship be considered number 1 on a list since that is the "chief end of man", and the reason we are saved for, that is to worship. John Calvin thought that worship and what we do in worship was even more important then Justification by faith alone because of the fact that we are justified and created for the purpose to worship God.

The First Commandment determines who we worship, the true living God. The second commandment determines how the true God is to be worshiped. The Third Commandment determines that we worship him truly and the name we use. The fourth commandment determines the day we worship....

What more can be important?

CC, did you mean to addy this point to me or staunch prepby? I am not entering this dialogue, all I said was Larry spoke in the past and presented an arguement against EP that satisfied me. But again, I am not a barometer on this subject. The heat is too great on a matter than I am not moved to get anxious about. Its about 57 on my list.;) It falls between half moons or Glazed for our fellowship coffee time after service, and repainting the lines a darker yellow in our parking lot.

Mike, I worship within the RCA. There is much more concern I have than EP, RPW,or any other acronym you may use. We have Robert Schuller still claiming our name. DOnt be offended ok. You wanna use the RPW, fine, you wanna be EP, great. Give Glory to God. You can say whatever you want, and try to make the matter pressing on me, but it honestly is not. Now if I was in the tabernacle, well then thats a different story.
 
Are we not in the tabernacle of the Lord when we worship? We ascend to Heaven to the Tabernacle, before the Throne of Grace.....

If that's the case, and we are worshipping with the heavenly host, certainly we are to sing new songs not found in the book of Psalms.

[bible]Rev 5:9[/bible]
 
Only 144,000 will sing that song.... And it is likely that it does not refer to a NEW song....


Are we not in the tabernacle of the Lord when we worship? We ascend to Heaven to the Tabernacle, before the Throne of Grace.....

If that's the case, and we are worshipping with the heavenly host, certainly we are to sing new songs not found in the book of Psalms.

[bible]Rev 5:9[/bible]
 
Only 144,000 will sing that song.... And it is likely that it does not refer to a NEW song....

The song is written out there for us...and it is not in the book of Psalms.
I'm not sure where the 144,000 is coming from in the Rev 5:9 quote...but I certainly don't believe that the 144,000 is a literal number, but rather the number designating those who are saved.
 
Sorry, I was referring to another Revelation passage on a new song. Revelation 14:1-5, John says that “no one could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.” Again, it is apparent that he is not speaking of the content of a specific song, for anyone can learn the music and lyrics of particular songs, regardless of whether or not they are redeemed. John refers instead to the meaning of the Song that he heard, which was concealed from the minds of those who did not have the understanding of faith.

But with regards to Rev. 5:9, I see this yet future.... I interpret revelations as future... Not now regardless if our worship does take place in the heavenlies now... We MIGHT get to Sing new songs in heaven when we get there because of new revelation, but we do not know.. If we do get to Sing new Songs in heaven we will not be writing them, they will be inspired by the Holy Spirit as is all songs made for worship in Scripture. But it is more plausible that we will still be singing the Old Songs... I heard this from one of my Elders, but I need to studied it more.. He said that of all the Songs in Revelation mentioned all of them are repeated in the Psalter minus 2 but those two might have a connectional language with two other Psalms..



Only 144,000 will sing that song.... And it is likely that it does not refer to a NEW song....

The song is written out there for us...and it is not in the book of Psalms.
I'm not sure where the 144,000 is coming from in the Rev 5:9 quote...but I certainly don't believe that the 144,000 is a literal number, but rather the number designating those who are saved.
 
But then you will need to come up with the subjective grounds on which they are insufficient. The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God. So if God chose to inspire prophets to write songs in the Old Testament and then collect them into a book, and then command that they be sung, and then not do anything remotely similar in the NT, that does mean that they are meant to be our only hymnal.

Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?

Here are a few in the OT:

Psalm 95:2 said:
Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving;Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.

Psalm 105:2 said:
Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;Talk of all His wondrous works!

If the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, as you have alluded to here, and I believe they are (Colossians 3:16
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God
) then EP is broken, since the Psalms teach:

Psalm 33:3
Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy.

Psalm 40:3
He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God. Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD.

Psalm 96:1
Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth.

Psalm 98:1
Sing to the LORD a new song, for he has done marvelous things; his right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him.

Psalm 144:9
I will sing a new song to you, O God; on the ten-stringed lyre I will make music to you,

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

:cheers:
 
Do we have to get into that again..... :violin:

I might write something in a minute after a phone call...... :deadhorse:


Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?

Here are a few in the OT:



Psalm 105:2 said:
Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;Talk of all His wondrous works!

If the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, as you have alluded to here, and I believe they are (Colossians 3:16
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God
) then EP is broken, since the Psalms teach:

Psalm 33:3
Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy.

Psalm 40:3
He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God. Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD.

Psalm 96:1
Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth.

Psalm 98:1
Sing to the LORD a new song, for he has done marvelous things; his right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him.

Psalm 144:9
I will sing a new song to you, O God; on the ten-stringed lyre I will make music to you,

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

:cheers:
 
Nice try Larry, but the Confession teaches exclusive psalmody. Moreover, the Septuagint was the Bible used in the apostolic church, and so since the terms psalms, hymns and songs are all used in the LXX to describe psalms then we have no reason to presume that they refer to human inventions. Furthermore, please explain to me from Scripture what the difference is between a hymn and a song? And how can the words of mere men be described as the "word of Christ". Why is there not a gift of hymn writing mentioned in the NT? Who is now authorised to compose hymns? :scratch:

Please show where the Confession teaches "exclusive" psalmody.

Yes, the LXX describes Psalms as you have posted. But no, we are not to look to the Septuagint for settling disputes.

The difference between a hymn and a song...
A "hymn" would be much more simple, while a "song" would be a more structured metrical composition.

The "word of Christ" is not a reference to songs, but to the preaching of the word of God. And yes, preaching is done through the words of mere men.

For your last question you are presuming that there needs to be authorization to make praise songs to God.

I would also point out that Paul actually quoted from hymns and songs that were sung in his time and outside of the book of Psalms (Phil 2:6-11; Eph 5:14; 2 Tim 2:11-13)

The WCF says that the "singing of psalms with grace in the heart" is an element of worship. This refers to the book of psalms as can be seen from reading the Directory for Worship.

The LXX helps us to understand what the texts meant to the original audience. Moreover, it is quoted as infallible Scripture by the NT writers.

Where are you getting your distinction between "hymns" and "songs" in Scripture.

The "word of Christ" in Colossians 3:16 refers to infallible Scripture, not man-made songs.

As for the last point, are you saying that anyone can write hymns? So if a 5 year old wrote a hymn and brought it to church on Sunday, would you be required to sing it. The divine qualification is inspiration, since none of us are inspired we should confine ourselves to the inerrant, infallible hymn-book that God has Sovereignly given to us. After all, name me a better hymn book that the psalter?
 
As for the last point, are you saying that anyone can write hymns? So if a 5 year old wrote a hymn and brought it to church on Sunday, would you be required to sing it.

Let's change a word here:

As for the last point, are you saying that anyone can say prayers? So if a 5 year old wrote a prayer and brought it to church on Sunday, would you be required to pray it.

Not anymore than I would be required by Scripture guidance on things to be done "in order".


The divine qualification is inspiration, since none of us are inspired we should confine ourselves to the inerrant, infallible hymn-book that God has Sovereignly given to us. After all, name me a better hymn book that the psalter?

Who made the divine qualification inspiration any more than divine inspiration is for prayer?
 
Colossians 3:16

"Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you," What words of Christ? Christ is the author of the Psalms so when we sing the Psalms the words of Christ is truly and really richly dwelling within us.... We speak the very words of Christ on lips and take them within our hearts...

"with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another" The fact that we are teaching and admonishing makes this a corporate setting... This is Worship and we are teaching and admonishing one another. To ourselves and to our neighbors around us and we are teaching with the pure words of Christ the very words of Christ when we sing "MY God MY God OH why have you forsaken me" Psalm 22:1. We become part of the body of Christ we when sing and offer up our spiritual sacrifice of Praise with the very words of Christ on our lips....


"with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God" With What, Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs which are what? What does the scripture interpret them to be? Scripture interprets scripture and they say that Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs are Triadic Expression which are all subcategories of the Book of Tehillem or the Book of Praises i.e. The book of Psalms. And we sing with thankfulness with the words of Christ on our lips, how much more thankful in our hearts can we be with the pure words of Christ on our lips and how He spoke them and how He groaned them... May we groan with passion and with our full larynx may we sing the Psalms on our lips and on our hearts more then any mere Human song.....

Psalm 33:3
Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy.


Sing to him a new song? what song? Could it be talking about Psalm 33 itself. But also the word does not mean brand new. It means new in quality not in quantity.... When a Hebrew knew the Psalms from infancy and later became saved, the Psalms became NEW to him. Sung in a New Light. Sung knowing his Redeemer, and Sung as a New Man.. When a Man becomes New, does it have a new body? When we are resurrected and we receive our new bodies, are they different bodies? No, our confessions tell us they are SELFsame bodies, only glorified..... When the Earth is consumed in fire and we have the new heavens and new earth are they different bodies? No the earth will be restored after the day of fire. It will be the same Earth and Heavens only New and Restored. New in biblical terms when restored and and better quality and not new in quantity.. It is the same quantity only in new and restored light... So when we are saved we sing the Psalms like the hebrew and they become new to us in a very real sense...


Psalm 40:3
He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God. Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD.


The same thing applies.. It is talking about the Psalm itself.. But with one difference here... It says HE (God) put the Psalm in my mouth.. Which precludes our own hymn writing.. It is Christ who writes the Psalms through inspiration and he put that song within our mouth...

Psalm 96:1
Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth.


Sing what? Sing to the Lord, all the Earth, Sing This Psalm 96... He is telling us to Sing to the Lord this Psalm.. It is talking about the Psalms which are NEW for a New Man....

Q. Where in the New Covenant are we told to Sing a New Song between Matthew and Jude? Revelation is excluded since that is future and not relevant since that is a time with new revelation if they are new compositions to begin with and not the Psalms being spoken of?

Need I quote the others? They are all talking about the Psalms themselves... Not new compositions.... Let us sing the New Songs and may they always be New for the New Man who has the Spirit Dwelling within him..

Let us Sing of His marvelous things and wondrous works which are recounted for us in the Book of Tehillem....





Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?

Here are a few in the OT:



Psalm 105:2 said:
Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;Talk of all His wondrous works!

If the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, as you have alluded to here, and I believe they are (Colossians 3:16
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God
) then EP is broken, since the Psalms teach:

Psalm 33:3
Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy.

Psalm 40:3
He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God. Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD.

Psalm 96:1
Sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth.

Psalm 98:1
Sing to the LORD a new song, for he has done marvelous things; his right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him.

Psalm 144:9
I will sing a new song to you, O God; on the ten-stringed lyre I will make music to you,

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

:cheers:
 
As for the last point, are you saying that anyone can write hymns? So if a 5 year old wrote a hymn and brought it to church on Sunday, would you be required to sing it.

Let's change a word here:

As for the last point, are you saying that anyone can say prayers? So if a 5 year old wrote a prayer and brought it to church on Sunday, would you be required to pray it.

Not anymore than I would be required by Scripture guidance on things to be done "in order".


The divine qualification is inspiration, since none of us are inspired we should confine ourselves to the inerrant, infallible hymn-book that God has Sovereignly given to us. After all, name me a better hymn book that the psalter?

Who made the divine qualification inspiration any more than divine inspiration is for prayer?

Brother, thanks for your comment. This is sometimes where a misunderstanding occurs in the exclusive psalmody debate. We are not arguing that inspired materials be used in all parts of worship, but only in the parts of worship for which it is required (song, reading). Consequently, we do not believe that inspired material is all that can be used in prayer and preaching because God has authorized the use of uninspired material in these parts of worship, while in other parts, we believe that the RPW demands that only inspired material be used.

Thanks for raising these points, as it is important for us to clarify our views so that everyone can understand each other's position better. :handshake:
 
Sing to him a new song? what song? Could it be talking about Psalm 33 itself. But also the word does not mean brand new. It means new in quality not in quantity.... When a Hebrew knew the Psalms from infancy and later became saved, the Psalms became NEW to him. Sung in a New Light. Sung knowing his Redeemer, and Sung as a New Man.. When a Man becomes New, does it have a new body? When we are resurrected and we receive our new bodies, are they different bodies? No, our confessions tell us they are SELFsame bodies, only glorified..... When the Earth is consumed in fire and we have the new heavens and new earth are they different bodies? No the earth will be restored after the day of fire. It will be the same Earth and Heavens only New and Restored. New in biblical terms when restored and and better quality and not new in quantity.. It is the same quantity only in new and restored light... So when we are saved we sing the Psalms like the hebrew and they become new to us in a very real sense...

:up:
 
For most it probably has more to do with sufficiency than errancy.

Probably, but if the psalms are insufficient then why hasn't God added to them?

Embedded in this statement is the assumption that God must provide an inspired book of songs for the new covenant church. Such an assumption is unwarranted, it has been brought to Scripture rather than derived from Scripture.
 
First, Col. 3 and Eph. 5 are known as Triadic Expression very common to Hebrew Culture and First Century Christians... We must think like a First Century Christian and not put our modern terminology onto the scripture...

And it's not only to people of the Hebrew culture that Paul wrote Colossians and Ephesians to. There were many Gentiles in those congregations. Paul also used language that resonated with those from the Graeco-Roman world. Hence, we need to be aware of 1st century Jewish and Graeco-Roman culture when understanding the language of Paul.

"Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs": just because the LXX uses each of these words for Psalms proves nothing. The words are also used for songs not in the Psalter both in common Graeco-Roman culture and in the NT (see Revelation). The only way we could know if "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is a reference to the Psalter is if it was a technical phrase as a reference to the Psalter. Nowhere is it used in this way. Hence, there is no way that the phrase can be used as a certain reference to the Psalter.

The issue is this: If God wanted the NT church to use only the Psalter in church (note I don't use the word "worship") he would've made the issue very clear in the Scriptures. As it stands it is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top