JD, I have repeatedly challened this assertion, and you have repeatedly refused to demonstrate or substantiate it. Your continued refusal to do so demonstrates to me that there is no substance to the argument, and that you are charging an absurdity upon your brethren without the slightest warrant for so doing; which is not right.
Try this Scripture directive: Sing "the words of David, and of Asaph the seer" (2 Chron. 29:30). Because this constitutes a divine appointment of the content of song in worship, I argue from thence that the content of song in worship is regulated (and not merely theological accuracy). Unless you can demonstrate that this is ill-founded, all of the quotes regarding "new song" and "hymns and spiritual songs" must pertain to actual songs available to those who penned those words, and not the hymns of Watts, Wesley, Cowper, et al.
1. I do not recall using ignorance and/or safety as foundational reasoning. If I understand him correctly, Scott does not principially believe in EP; he simply prefers it. So please do not take his arguments as "foundational reasoning" for EP.
But if it is not done according to the regulative principle, it will not be done in truth. You seem here to be saying that unregulated worship is acceptable to God, because "Jesus makes it all better." That is about as clear a rejection of the RPW as could be stated.
I don't know who came up with those numbers. But we believe that the vast majority of the world, as it now stands, is un-Christian and going to hell, right? Of the professing church, the largest part is Romish/Eastern Orthodox, which is heretical, right? Of Protestants, the larger part are mainline denominations which couldn't discern between true doctrine and false if the Bible said so plainly (and it does), right? Of evangelical Protestants, the larger part embrace Arminianism and other forms of rejection of five-point Calvinism, right? What keeps me from saying that the majority of Presbyterian and Reformed churches, where true doctrine is preached, have fallen away from their previously universal practice, and now maintain erroneous modes of worship?
Be careful, Scott. Orthodox Calvinism maintains that God has the prerogative to command what we are now, by the fall, unable to perform. It was the arch-heretic Pelagius who developed the idea that if God commands it, we can do it; and developed from thence his understanding of free will, rejection of original sin, possibility of sinless perfection, etc. Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists likewise recognize this maxim. It is an error.
Then consider this a correction.
You seem to be avoiding the wisdom of Paul, not using the wisdom of Paul. Paul says not to speak in an unknown tongue that isn't interpreted. Since the Reformation, Protestants have always appealed to this chapter to have services and Scripture in the common tongue, rather than the Latin of Popish services. It has further relevance to this particular discussion, because singing in worship is particularly mentioned by the apostle (verses 15, 26). When he commands singing with "understanding" in this context, how could one come to any conclusion but that we should sing in the common tongue?
But now you have defined "purity" in a way that Scripture does not define it. You have added to the commands and requirements of God, that we must read or sing in the languages in which the Scriptures originally came to us. And adding to the commands of God in worship is impurity, not purity.
"He hath shewed thee, O man..." If He has not told us that we (all Christians in their assembled capacity) must learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, then you are adding commands of God which He has not commanded. And understand, that's not just against the RPW -- that's against sola scriptura. You are placing requirements upon God's people which God Himself never did.
Again, there is no statement from Scripture to the effect that, in our singing of Psalms, we are bound to the Hebrew language, or Hebrew modes of singing, or Hebrew tunes. And no exclusive psalmodist is going to go beyond the Scripture requirement that we "sing Psalms." Ordinary Christians are commanded to sing Psalms, just like ordinary Christians are commanded to read Scripture. If the latter indicates that we should translate the Scriptures into the common tongue (cf. WCF 1.8), then the former indicates that we should translate the Psalms into the common tongue.
¿Qué?
No. We would offend God if we stopped singing Psalms, since He commanded us so to do. No exclusive psalmodist "binds your conscience" to doing anything that is not commanded in Scripture. Singing of Psalms is commanded in Scripture. Singing in Hebrew is not commanded in Scripture. Singing Hebrew tunes is not commanded in Scripture.
The following is a footnote from a paper I am in the process of writing on the subject of unaccompanied exclusive psalmody. I only quote it here because it has to do with this particular question.
And please note also that I am not, in these citations, emphasizing the use of kai or the waw conjunction. Although those are frequenlty used, the commonality between all of these verses is, as I said, the "piling up of terms" -- usually two or three, but sometimes four words, all referring to the same thing or things. Other verses could have been cited (especially verses in poetic portions of Scripture, such as the Psalms or Proverbs, where words are presented in Hebrew parallelism); but this should give you an indication of the commonality of the literary practice of using several (synonymous) terms to refer to the same thing.
1. Our position is that of the Westminster Confession: "singing of Psalms with grace in the heart" is an ordinary part of worship (WCF 21.5). It is not just "preaching" that is an element of worship, but "preaching of the Word" -- the subject-matter is defined. It is not just "reading" that is an element of worship, but "reading of Scripture" -- the content is defined. Likewise, we believe that the content has been defined as regards singing. How is that extreme or absurd?
We agree that the regulative principle is a restriction that is not "foreign," right? The question concerns how the RPW applies re: song in worship. I don't know of anyone who denies that God commanded the Psalms to be sung in worship -- especially not Presbyterians. If the content of song has been appointed, then the content of song is regulated.
1. I've been arguing with an Arminian who's been attending our church, who can't demonstrate his position from Scripture. All he can do is quote certain passages of Scripture -- no explanation, no interpretation, no exegesis. He simply quotes 1 John 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:9; Heb. 2:9; John 3:16, etc. How is that different from what you're doing? You haven't made any demonstration from the "new song" commanded, or the psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais that are commanded, that this indicates we are to sing other songs along with the Psalms. You haven't demonstrated that this indicates we are to sing uninspired songs. You haven't demonstrated that this indicates we are to sing songs written thousands of years after those words were penned, which those human authors of Scripture could never sing.
No, this indicates the common usage of Scripture, and that it is not isolated to Paul, or to the use of the word kai. But Dr. Ed Robson, who used to teach at our seminary (RPTS) until he retired last year, did his doctoral thesis on Paul's use of the word kai, and has written on its bearing on Eph. 5:19/Col. 3:16.
It's not really a paper, just a little scribble, honest -- I'm not presenting it for any class, just writing it to write. And it's fine as a footnote.
Again, you fail to deal with the substance of my argument. You have not once demonstrated that "new song" means anything. You have not demonstrated that "hymns and spiritual songs" mean anything. And you continue to ignore the fact that God appointed particular songs to be sung in worship, meaning that God regulates the content of song in worship -- and how that relates to the interpretation of the "new song" and the "hymns and spiritual songs."
I simply ask to be treated fairly as an opponent, and that Scripture be dealt with beyond its surface-level statements. I wouldn't call these "my terms."
Wrong. I base my argument upon the original institution of psalmody in the OT. When I say "God appointed particular songs," how do you interpret that?
Very true. Perhaps a demonstration is in order.
1. The command stands to sing what? You must demonstrate what these words mean to vindicate your position, just as I.
But given the RPW, it doesn't have to. If we are only commanded to sing Psalms, then we are commanded to only sing Psalms.
1. You are assuming the 21st century European/American understanding of what a "hymn" means, as is evidenced by your last remark, "then hymns stand." What stands?
1. We aren't in heaven yet.
And the substance of my argument continues to be ignored.
Mind you, this is only a "pre-publication" copy; I plan on submitting the finished product to the Session of my church. We'll see where it goes from there.
Actually, you assert that it was an uninspired hymn. Honestly, I don't care too much about what an uninspired non-Christian wrote after the close of the apostolic era. I would assume that, since you place so much weight upon it, you would be the one devoting careful arguments to the development of your case. The thread remains open, Sir.
Fine. But develop the argument from the reference. My argument in the above-linked thread has no comment upon it. And I have not seen even one hymn-singer develop the argument from Pliny's letter. Not one.
Again, you confuse me with Scott. I never said that the apostle's terminology is ambiguous. I believe he is plainly referring to the Psalter with those three terms. You have still refused to define "hymn" or "song."
The "plain reading" that I have from every commentator on those texts is that Christ and the apostles sang the last part of the Hallel Psalms (115-118). They "could" have put psalmos (or psalleo, to match the verb), but they didn't have to, because "hymn" was a common way of speaking of Psalms at that time. It is only with our modern times that "hymn" has become "discreet in form and content from the Psalms." For an extensive treatment of the Eph./Col. passages, I recommend that you read John McNaugher's paper, "A Special Exegesis of Eph. v. 19 and Col. iii. 16" (unfortunately, this site doesn't have his extensive footnotes; I could email the paper to you, if you would like). He deals extensively with the use of the word humnos in the literature of that period, and demonstrates the frequent use of that term to refer to the Psalter. (Of course, the original Hebrew title of the book is Sepher Tehillim -- Book of Praises, or Book of Hymns.)
