Exclusive Psalmody and Biblical Inerrancy

[larryjf]

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....

Actually, teaching and admonishing with the words of Christ has to do more with preaching than with singing psalms.

"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.....

Show me where the scriptures use "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" as a triadic expression.
The pure words of Christ are not limited to the book of Psalms.
And i have to wonder...are you for singing the Psalms as they are literally translated, or do you prefer to sing them in a man-made arrangement of them?

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...

But the Hebrew word chadash does not mean "a new way of understanding an old thing"...it simply means "new" as in "a new thing"...just as in Ex 1:8 in reference to a "new" king. It was not the old king understood in a different light...it was actually a new and different king.

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?

Wow! you are going to restrict us to only use the scriptures between Matthew and Jude?...Are you willing to have the same restriction placed on yourself for proving the EP doctrine?

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..

Clearly singing "new songs" doesn't only mean the Psalms in a new light since Rev 5:9 lists words to a "new song" that is not found in the book of Psalms.

 

[Coram Deo]

Chadash - 2318 chadash khaw-dash' a primitive root; causatively, to rebuild:--renew, repair.
2319 chadash khaw-dawsh' from 2318; new:--to make fresh.

So it does mean to renew or refresh something.. It means Quality not Quantity....

But the Hebrew word chadash does not mean "a new way of understanding an old thing"...it simply means "new" as in "a new thing"...just as in Ex 1:8 in reference to a "new" king. It was not the old king understood in a different light...it was actually a new and different king.

 

[Coram Deo]

Again, this is future heavenly worship... Not Currently... A Time when we have New Revelation. But how do you know it is not a Psalm or part of a Psalm?

Clearly singing "new songs" doesn't only mean the Psalms in a new light since Rev 5:9 lists words to a "new song" that is not found in the book of Psalms.

 

[Coram Deo]

I did not say we are to restrict to only scripture between Matthew and Jude, I asked a question with regards to the NEW COVENANT which is between Matthew and Jude..... Where are we told to Sing a New Song let alone Write a New Song within the Current NEW COVENANT CHURCH... Revelation does not count since that is FUTURE heavenly worship even if it can be proved that the New Song of Revelation is not referring to the Psalms which the time is future when new revelation is revealed unto us and it WONT be songs we compose but songs that the Spirit composes since everyone will know the Songs and all Sing in Unison....

Wow! you are going to restrict us to only use the scriptures between Matthew and Jude?...Are you willing to have the same restriction placed on yourself for proving the EP doctrine?

 

[Coram Deo]

Do you really think that is a question that should be asked? Are you reading from the hebrew in Church or from a translation? Are we to read from uninspired works in worship or just the scripture? The same holds true for Psalms...

And i have to wonder...are you for singing the Psalms as they are literally translated, or do you prefer to sing them in a man-made arrangement of them?

 

[larryjf]

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.

Yes, and it is interesting that it does NOT say "singing the Psalms". They were using the word "psalms" as it was commonly understood as meaning "a song of praise" or "a song sung in worship" without regard to it being in the book of Psalms.

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.

It is still not to be used as our final authority in matters of debate.

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?

It's not the age of the person who writes it, it's the content that matters.

 

[larryjf]

Chadash - 2318 chadash khaw-dash' a primitive root; causatively, to rebuild:--renew, repair.
2319 chadash khaw-dawsh' from 2318; new:--to make fresh.

So it does mean to renew or refresh something.. It means Quality not Quantity....

Then explain its use in Ex 1:8

 

[larryjf]

how do you know it is not a Psalm or part of a Psalm?

Tell me which psalm you think it is quoting from...it doesn't sound like a psalm to me...the words of the song are written out in Rev 5:9.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

Yes, and it is interesting that it does NOT say "singing the Psalms". They were using the word "psalms" as it was commonly understood as meaning "a song of praise" or "a song sung in worship" without regard to it being in the book of Psalms.

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.

It is still not to be used as our final authority in matters of debate.

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?

It's not the age of the person who writes it, it's the content that matters.

For more on the WCF see my RPW book. Anyway, I have exams to revise for and a book to finish, so I will let you have the last say on this one.

Sadly the thread has gone a bit

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Yes, and it is interesting that it does NOT say "singing the Psalms". They were using the word "psalms" as it was commonly understood as meaning "a song of praise" or "a song sung in worship" without regard to it being in the book of Psalms.

No. It means the 150 Psalms. See the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, which is titled Singing of Psalms, [not of the Psalms], where it clearly means the 150 Psalms of David. The "article" argument is a non starter when one is familiar with the work and productions of the Westminster Assembly. It is about as persuasive as arguing over whether the "P" in psalms is capitalized. See http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/big-p-little-p-wcf-21-5-a-20263/ (with apologies to Daniel, but you weren't a PB buddy back then ).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

See also: http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/do-...clusive-psalmody-16682/index5.html#post212186

 

[larryjf]

No. It means the 150 Psalms. See the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, which is titled Singing of Psalms, [not of the Psalms], where it clearly means the 150 Psalms of David. The "article" argument is a non starter when one is familiar with the work and productions of the Westminster Assembly. It is about as persuasive as arguing over whether the "P" in psalms is capitalized. See http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/big-p-little-p-wcf-21-5-a-20263/ (with apologies to Daniel, but you weren't a PB buddy back then ).

Yes, i see what you mean.
I will have to think on this a little further.

 

[Coram Deo]

Ex. 1:8 is NOT Châdash, Ex. 1:8 is Châdâsh.. Notice the difference?

Châdash is 2318 "Khaw-dash" which is what the "NEW" song is..... and my Strong's says "to rebuild, renew, repair...."

Châdâsh is 2319 "khaw-dawsh" which comes from the root 2318 and Strong's says "new thing or fresh......"

So Ex. 1:8 is not your answer.... There is a BIG difference.... renew and rebuild or to repair is not the same as new thing....

Chadash - 2318 chadash khaw-dash' a primitive root; causatively, to rebuild:--renew, repair.
2319 chadash khaw-dawsh' from 2318; new:--to make fresh.

So it does mean to renew or refresh something.. It means Quality not Quantity....

Then explain its use in Ex 1:8

 

[Coram Deo]

Nevermind, I was looking in Hebrew when I should have been in the greek for Rev. 5...

Let type a new post for Rev. 5 greek word...

 

[larryjf]

Ex. 1:8 is NOT Châdash, Ex. 1:8 is Châdâsh.. Notice the difference?

Châdash is 2318 "Khaw-dash" which is what the "NEW" song is..... and my Strong's says "to rebuild, renew, repair...."

Châdâsh is 2319 "khaw-dawsh" which comes from the root 2318 and Strong's says "new thing or fresh......"

So Ex. 1:8 is not your answer.... There is a BIG difference.... renew and rebuild or to repair is not the same as new thing....

In my Hebrew text, the Hebrew word underlying the Ex 1:8 and the Ps 33:3 verses is exactly the same, including having the same vowel points...

חָדָשׁ

 

[Coram Deo]

Not according to Strongs....

Ex. 1:8 is NOT Châdash, Ex. 1:8 is Châdâsh.. Notice the difference?

Châdash is 2318 "Khaw-dash" which is what the "NEW" song is..... and my Strong's says "to rebuild, renew, repair...."

Châdâsh is 2319 "khaw-dawsh" which comes from the root 2318 and Strong's says "new thing or fresh......"

So Ex. 1:8 is not your answer.... There is a BIG difference.... renew and rebuild or to repair is not the same as new thing....

In my Hebrew text, the Hebrew word underlying the Ex 1:8 and the Ps 33:3 verses is exactly the same, including having the same vowel points...

חָדָשׁ

 

[larryjf]

Not according to Strongs....

Why do some of you want to use everything as your final authority except the Hebrew text? That is very unconfessional.

This Hebrew word is used in both instances....

חָדָשׁ

 

[Coram Deo]

Rev. 5:9 Kainôs 2537 - Fresh, so with respect to age...


Does not sound brand new to me but something old made new by age.... Or in other words new in quality not in quantity..

 

[Coram Deo]

Which translation are you using?

My Strong's has different symbols for both words, but I am not sure how to type them in Hebrew like you so everyone can see...

Not according to Strongs....

Why do some of you want to use everything as your final authority except the Hebrew text? That is very unconfessional.

This Hebrew word is used in both instances....

חָדָשׁ

 

[larryjf]

Rev. 5:9 Kainôs 2537 - Fresh, so with respect to age...


Does not sound brand new to me but something old made new by age.... Or in other words new in quality not in quantity..

It is the same word used to describe the "new" tomb in Mat 27:60.

 

[larryjf]

Which translation are you using?

My Strong's has different symbols for both words, but I am not sure how to type them in Hebrew like you so everyone can see...

JPS 1917 Edition.

Which edition of the Hebrew are you using?

 

[Coram Deo]

I am just realizing that this is way

So I am going to be quiet now so the thread might get back ON topic....

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Yes, and it is interesting that it does NOT say "singing the Psalms". They were using the word "psalms" as it was commonly understood as meaning "a song of praise" or "a song sung in worship" without regard to it being in the book of Psalms.

No. It means the 150 Psalms. See the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, which is titled Singing of Psalms, [not of the Psalms], where it clearly means the 150 Psalms of David. The "article" argument is a non starter when one is familiar with the work and productions of the Westminster Assembly. It is about as persuasive as arguing over whether the "P" in psalms is capitalized. See http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/big-p-little-p-wcf-21-5-a-20263/ (with apologies to Daniel, but you weren't a PB buddy back then ).

Another attempt at shameless self-advertising ends in dismal failure. Trust Chris Coldwell to ruin it! Every time I see that Avatar coming it reminds me of a grumpy old man coming to chase you out of his garden as you try to retrive your ball, as a result of his actions the fun is ruined.

 

[Ranger]

I am just realizing that this is way

So I am going to be quiet now so the thread might get back ON topic....

How is it off topic? Your means and methods for interpreting the Hebrew and Greek text is extremely relevant to the discussion since the meaning of the words in Scripture is the crux of your argument.

there is a BIG difference

I think it's unwise to develop an argument from Strong's because without further information he can be very misleading. For instance, you argue that there is a big difference between Châdash and Châdâsh, and use that to support your argument solely based on Strong's separating the two words. Yet I must ask, does the word Châdash ever appear in Scripture in that form, which is the most basic Qal form of the verb? I've searched the JPS and BHS texts and have yet to find a single instance of that form. Lexicons concur saying that Châdash only appears in the Piel form, which is Chodesh.

So why does Strong's have the word Châdash in his lexicon at all? Because he is assuming that the word in question came from this root verb and therefore lumps all such verbs into the same category. Unfortunately, this rips the words right out of their original context and can be extremely unhelpful at times since we are those who try to interpret Scripture in context. Let Strong's serve as a basic reference, but always dig further into the text and that particular usage of the word in question.

Châdâsh is 2319 "khaw-dawsh" which comes from the root 2318 and Strong's says "new thing or fresh......"

When used in this form Châdâsh is an adjective (whereas chodesh is a verb) referring to something new. Let me reference the times this exact form is used in the Psalms (which have previously been referenced):

33:3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.

40:3 And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.

96:1 O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth.

98:1 O sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory.

144:9 I will sing a new song unto thee, O God: upon a psaltery and an instrument of ten strings will I sing praises unto thee.

149:1 Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.

When used in this form, in reference to a new song, it is not exclusive to Psalms, for instance:

Isaiah 42:10 Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.

Yet that exact form of Châdâsh is not exclusive to referencing songs. It is used in this exact form and construction 39 times in the Old Testament. Here are some other references used in that exact construction and form, yet referring to different nouns:

Exodus 1:8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

Leviticus 23:16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

Numbers 28:26 Also in the day of the firstfruits, when ye bring a new meat offering unto the LORD, after your weeks be out, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work:

Deuteronomy 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

Judges 16:11 And he said unto her, If they bind me fast with new ropes that never were occupied, then shall I be weak, and be as another man.

Isaiah 48:6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Note: In the final two verses, the form is identical, yet the endings vary indicating the duality (or plurality) of the heavens and the feminine ending for the earth and covenant.

From the context of these Scriptures, as well as the entirety of the 39 instances where Châdâsh is used in this construction, it becomes very evident that the adjective does not refer to a renewal of something, but instead to a new thing completely.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Another attempt at shameless self-advertising ends in dismal failure. Trust Chris Coldwell to ruin it! Every time I see that Avatar coming it reminds me of a grumpy old man coming to chase you out of his garden as you try to retrive your ball, as a result of his actions the fun is ruined.

Grumpy; who you calling grumpy?

 

[larryjf]

No. It means the 150 Psalms. See the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, which is titled Singing of Psalms, [not of the Psalms], where it clearly means the 150 Psalms of David. The "article" argument is a non starter when one is familiar with the work and productions of the Westminster Assembly. It is about as persuasive as arguing over whether the "P" in psalms is capitalized. See http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/big-p-little-p-wcf-21-5-a-20263/ (with apologies to Daniel, but you weren't a PB buddy back then ).

Yes, i see what you mean.
I will have to think on this a little further.

O.K., i agree that the Westminster Standards do teach Exclusive Psalmody.
I was not slow to speak and quick to listen...instead i drew from the hip, without considering the historical context of the text. I am sorry that i did not follow the biblical principle of James 1:19.

Further, since I have more respect for the knowledge and insight of the Westminster Divines than my own, I must now consider the whole issue with greater circumspect.

 

[panta dokimazete]

If the premise is flawed, then the conclusion is, as well - no matter the level of goodwill and desire to glorify God.

Again, if the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, then the EP premise - that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are exclusively referential to the 150 Psalms - is contradictory, unless new does not actually mean uniquely created or is self-referential in every reference to new song and new in general.

Again, EP proposes the plain reading of the Psalms cannot be trusted every time new is utilized.

so EP proposes:

P1 the 150 Psalms are prescriptive for public worship
P2 the 150 Psalms command that new songs be sung to God, but new actually means renewed or is self-referential in every reference pertaining to song
C1 the reference to psalms, hymns and spiritual song is exclusively self-referential to the 150 Psalms

This seems much more reasonable:

P1 the 150 Psalms are prescriptive for public worship
P2 the 150 Psalms command that new songs be sung to God
C1 the reference to psalms, hymns and spiritual song is not exclusively self-referential to the 150 Psalms

Once this logic is acknowledged, the true formulation of Publik Worship can begin.



(Am being too provocative? )

 

[Davidius]

If the premise is flawed, then the conclusion is, as well - no matter the level of goodwill and desire to glorify God.

Again, if the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, then the EP premise - that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are exclusively referential to the 150 Psalms - is contradictory, unless new does not actually mean uniquely created in every reference to new song and new in general.

Again, EP proposes the plain reading of the Psalms cannot be trusted every time new is utilized.

so:

P1 the 150 Psalms are prescriptive for public worship
P2 the 150 Psalms command that a new song be sung to God
C1 the reference to psalms, hymns and spiritual song is not exclusively self-referential to the 150 Psalms

Have you ever read a Logic textbook?

 

[panta dokimazete]

If the premise is flawed, then the conclusion is, as well - no matter the level of goodwill and desire to glorify God.

Again, if the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, then the EP premise - that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are exclusively referential to the 150 Psalms - is contradictory, unless new does not actually mean uniquely created in every reference to new song and new in general.

Again, EP proposes the plain reading of the Psalms cannot be trusted every time new is utilized.

so:

P1 the 150 Psalms are prescriptive for public worship
P2 the 150 Psalms command that a new song be sung to God
C1 the reference to psalms, hymns and spiritual song is not exclusively self-referential to the 150 Psalms

Have you ever read a Logic textbook?

**sigh** so instead of refuting the logic, you cast aspersions? Just interact with it, please, or ignore it - I don't put my thoughts out as gospel, brother. I am working this out with "fear and trembling" - testing everything and keeping the good.

BTW - I did edit the original post. Reason? Well, see above.

 

[Davidius]

If the premise is flawed, then the conclusion is, as well - no matter the level of goodwill and desire to glorify God.

Again, if the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, then the EP premise - that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are exclusively referential to the 150 Psalms - is contradictory, unless new does not actually mean uniquely created in every reference to new song and new in general.

Again, EP proposes the plain reading of the Psalms cannot be trusted every time new is utilized.

so:

P1 the 150 Psalms are prescriptive for public worship
P2 the 150 Psalms command that a new song be sung to God
C1 the reference to psalms, hymns and spiritual song is not exclusively self-referential to the 150 Psalms

Have you ever read a Logic textbook?

**sigh** so instead of refuting the logic, you cast aspersions? Just interact with it, please, or ignore it - I don't put my thoughts out as gospel, brother. I am working this out with "fear and trembling" - testing everything and keeping the good.

BTW - I did edit the original post. Reason? Well, see above.

I do apologize. I shouldn't have responded that way. It's not so much the "logic" that I disagree with as the Logic, if that makes any sense. Formal logic is not just writing two sentences with P next to them followed by a third with C next to it. You have to restrain your syllogism to three terms and fit a certain propositional form so as to make the syllogism as simple and understandable as possible.

Although one thing I wanted to point out is that false premises do not require a false conclusion.

All fish are flying animals
All robins are fish
All robins are flying animals