Modern Worship?

[panta dokimazete]

Yes - I did blend you and Scott togther some - that just brings us back to the 3 types being different as the core to your position. You have not proven that.

[Edited on 6-11-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
You continue to emphasize "new song." But you have not yet demonstrated that "new song" refers to non-canonical songs. Until you do so, I fail to see a need to respond.

I have to prove that new means non-canonical? Sir, new means means new - new wife, new house, new wine, new man, new covenant. Different than the old, can include components of the old.

Does that mean is has to take 100% of its content outside canon?

No, but even the Psalms you sing have a "new" component to them.

Again, you do not deal with my argument. I understand that "new" means "new." But demonstrate how that points to non-canonical songs. When we read of the "New Testament," I would not suppose from the use of the word "new" that it is referring to a non-canonical text. You are the one trying to make some kind of point from the phrase "new song." Make your point. While you're at it, demonstrate that this gives us warrant to compose songs for worship.

[My Substantial Argument]
All Reformed Christians recognize that God commanded the singing of Psalms. This means that He authorized a particular text to serve as the content of our song. It follows that the content of our song is regulated by God. It is incumbent upon hymn-singers to demonstrate that this is no longer the case -- that God no longer regulates the content of our song in worship; that He has specifically relaxed this regulation, as Christ specifically said that He would relax the regulation regarding the place of worship under the New Testament (John 4:21). If they cannot do so, they must demonstrate that each and every hymn they employ in worship has been particularly appointed by God, as were the Psalms. Their failure to meet these requirements demonstrates that they are engaged in unlawful worship.

If God regulates the content of song in worship, then the commands to "sing a new song" and to "sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" are commands to sing particular songs which have been particularly authorized and appointed by God for that purpose -- not blanket permissions to sing whatever we want, as long as it is theologically accurate. And since only the Psalms have been particularly authorized and appointed for this purpose, they alone are to be sung in worship.
[/My Substantial Argument]

And your last paragraph seems to concede the argument, that I can fulfill the command to sing "new songs" by singing Psalms. Have you ever sung any of the Psalms that use that phrase? I have. And I have never supposed, while singing those words, that I was being commanded to sing what I was not singing at that very moment.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I never said the Apostle's terminology was ambiguous either.........and I never turned my back on the clear reading of scripture.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
JD,
Not wanting to turn this into a EP debate, but I know you have no idea what the Apostle meant when he said hymms and spiritual songs. No one knows. Having said this, you are left with only one clear cut choice on what is NOT assaulting Gods RPW, the psalms.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
This is true. I am basing my position on the idea that we all know what Psalms are. The ambiguous nature to the term hymms and spiritual songs are my contention.

Sean,
I apologize; I stand corrected. I guess I did say that. Are the terms not ambiguous? If they are not, then why is there such grappling over the topic? I'd love to settle this.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Ok. So what is an EP thread if this isn't one now?
On the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs question see the recent audio by Dr. Bacon.
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/Audiofiles/2006/A60521P.mp3

 

[panta dokimazete]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Ok. So what is an EP thread if this isn't one now?
On the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs question see the recent audio by Dr. Bacon.
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/Audiofiles/2006/A60521P.mp3

Not familiar with Dr.Bacon - what church? website?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

My pastor since 1992ish. Dr. Richard Bacon. www.fpcr.org

 

[panta dokimazete]

Just popping in:

1Co 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

If one were to examine this verse in context - it seems to be saying that when they assembled, each one had a psalm - not one of the Psalms - grouped along with other not strictly canonical contextual items.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Just popping in:

1Co 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

If one were to examine this verse in context - it seems to be saying that when they assembled, each one had a psalm - not one of the Psalms - grouped along with other not strictly canonical contextual items.

This text actually came up during our evening study at church last night. As far as I can tell, there are two possible interpretations of the passage. (And we can include verse 15, "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also." The word "sing" in verse 15 is the Greek psalo -- we could just as easily translate it, "I will psalm with the spirit, and I will psalm with the understanding also.")

1. First interpretation: The apostle is referring to charismatic songs, given by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The context of the discussion in the entire chapter seems to favor this understanding. The larger discussion of spiritual gifts (prophecy, tongues, interpretation, etc.) would then be seen to color our understanding of the psalms here mentioned. Verse 26, "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying," since it speaks of several other charismatic gifts (tongue, revelation, interpretation), would be seen to speak of the "psalm" as also a charismatic gift. Such charismatic psalms would have passed away with the close of the canon of Scripture.

2. Second interpretation: The apostle is referring to the Psalms of the Old Testament. I myself tend to favor this understanding (although the above is taken by most scholars today), for a couple reasons. (1.) All other uses of the word "psalm," in either noun or verb form, in the NT clearly refer to the Psalms of the OT. I do not think it reasonable to suppose that this passage would provide a lone exception to that rule. (2.) All recognize that the early church, at this time, sang from the Psalms of the OT. Why would a reference to singing psalms, in that period, not be a reference to the Psalms of the Bible? (The argument that it says a psalm, not the Psalms, makes no sense. We sang a Psalm last night at church. The context, emphasizing the lack of order and harmony that existed in the Corinthian church at that time, is highlighted by each individual having a Psalm, a doctrine, etc.) (3.) The early Christians were said to "have a psalm." If that is grouped with the last three items mentioned, it favors the above interpretation; if it is grouped with "hath a doctrine," it would seem to favor this interpretation, because people didn't receive "doctrines" as charismatic gifts. Christians would then be said to have had a psalm, a doctrine (non-charismatic examples of previous revelation), and to have had a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation (charismatic gifts). (4.) While the other items mentioned as charismatic gifts (tongues, revelations, interpretations) are throughout this passage, and in other passages, identified as charismatic gifts, psalms are nowhere expressly identified as such. Except for these passing references (1 Cor. 14:15, 26), they do not appear in any context that would even suggest such an understanding.

No matter which interpretation one takes, this passage cannot militate against exclusive psalmody. Obviously, if they were singing Psalms, that would serve as a further confirmation of our position. But even if they were singing "charismatic psalms," given by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, our position still stands. (1.) This gifting of "charismatic psalms" would have ceased with the close of the canon, along with the other gifts, so that it would provide no rule for us to follow today. (2.) Since these would have been inspired songs, that could provide no warrant for the composition and singing of uninspired songs in worship today. (3.) Their singing such songs at that time would not militate against exclusive psalmody, any more than their exercise of prophetic gifts would militate against sola scriptura. The Psalms have been authorized by God for the perpetual use of His church; these were not. They were, however, authorized by Him for other purposes, which purposes they fulfilled -- just as prophecies which never became inscripturated were true prophecies authorized by Him, that served their purpose, without becoming a perpetual rule of faith and life to the church.

So how do you understand the passage?

 

[panta dokimazete]

kaalvenist

1.) All other uses of the word "psalm," in either noun or verb form, in the NT clearly refer to the Psalms of the OT.

Let's see...


Search on Psalm

*Ac 13:33
that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'

oti tauthn o yeov ekpeplhrwken toiv teknoiv autwn hmin anasthsav Ihsoun [ wv kai en tw qalmw tw deuterw gegraptai uiov mou ei su egw Shmeron gegennhka se

*Ac 13:35
"Therefore He also says in another Psalm, 'YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.'

Dio kai en eterw Legei ou dwseiv ton osion sou idein diafyoran

1Co 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

ti oun estin adelfoi otan sunerchsye ekastov umwn qalmon exei didaxhn exei glwssan exei apokaluqin exei ermhneian exei panta prov oikodomhn genesyw

........................................................

Search on Psalms

*Lu 20:42
"For David himself says in the book of Psalms, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY

RIGHT HAND,
kai autov dabid Legei en biblw qalmwn eipen o kuriov tw kuriw mou kayou ek dexiwn mou

*Lu 24:44
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you,

that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

eipen de autoiv outoi oi logoi ouv elalhsa, prov umav eti wn sun umin oti dei plhrwyhnai panta ta gegrammena en tw nomw mwsewv kai profhtaiv kai qalmoiv peri emou

*Ac 1:20
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'

gegraptai gar en biblw qalmwn genhyhtw h epauliv autou erhmov kai Mh estw o katoikwn en auth kai thn episkophn autou laboi eterov

Eph 5:19
speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

lalountev eautoiv qalmoiv kai umnoiv kai wdaiv pneumatikaiv adontev kai qallontev en th kardia umwn tw kuriw

Col 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.

o logov tou Xristou enoikeitw en umin plousiwv en pash sofia didaskontev kai nouyetountev eautouv qalmoiv kai umnoiv kai wdaiv pneumatikaiv en xariti adontev en th kardia umwn tw kuriw

.........................................................

So - let's see:

1. Out of 8 verses in the NT that mention the word Psalm - roughly half refer specifically to the Book of Psalms - in a non-singing context - as Scripture

2. The others mention psalms in an informal context, that is, as a song for singing.

Two of the 8 verses use it in context with other contemporary types of songs for singing.

That is - the 2 other forms mention were generally understood types of non-canonical "uninspired" composition.

We know for certain Hymns were a recognized non-canonical "uninspired" compositional type - normatively a song witten to a god/demigod:

see -

"Hymn to the Muse" by Mesomedes

The Homeric Hymns

The Orphic Hymn to Athena

Paul doubtlessly would have considered the Book of Psalms and a psalm (most likely a canonical song) in general on a higher plain than the hymn, yet understood the usefulness of the hymn as a form for elevating Christ as deity among Greek/Roman culture.

........................................................

I'll get to spititual song in a bit.

http://www.google.com/search?num=10...6-04,GGLG:en&q=ancient+greek+hymn&btnG=Search

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/HM.html

http://www.commonplacebook.com/inspire/athena/hymns.shtm

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciCozm.htm

-JD

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

kaalvenist

1.) All other uses of the word "psalm," in either noun or verb form, in the NT clearly refer to the Psalms of the OT.

Let's see...


Search on Psalm

*Ac 13:33
that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'

oti tauthn o yeov ekpeplhrwken toiv teknoiv autwn hmin anasthsav Ihsoun [ wv kai en tw qalmw tw deuterw gegraptai uiov mou ei su egw Shmeron gegennhka se

*Ac 13:35
"Therefore He also says in another Psalm, 'YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.'

Dio kai en eterw Legei ou dwseiv ton osion sou idein diafyoran

1Co 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

ti oun estin adelfoi otan sunerchsye ekastov umwn qalmon exei didaxhn exei glwssan exei apokaluqin exei ermhneian exei panta prov oikodomhn genesyw

........................................................

Search on Psalms

*Lu 20:42
"For David himself says in the book of Psalms, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY

RIGHT HAND,
kai autov dabid Legei en biblw qalmwn eipen o kuriov tw kuriw mou kayou ek dexiwn mou

*Lu 24:44
Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you,

that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

eipen de autoiv outoi oi logoi ouv elalhsa, prov umav eti wn sun umin oti dei plhrwyhnai panta ta gegrammena en tw nomw mwsewv kai profhtaiv kai qalmoiv peri emou

*Ac 1:20
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'

gegraptai gar en biblw qalmwn genhyhtw h epauliv autou erhmov kai Mh estw o katoikwn en auth kai thn episkophn autou laboi eterov

Eph 5:19
speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

lalountev eautoiv qalmoiv kai umnoiv kai wdaiv pneumatikaiv adontev kai qallontev en th kardia umwn tw kuriw

Col 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.

o logov tou Xristou enoikeitw en umin plousiwv en pash sofia didaskontev kai nouyetountev eautouv qalmoiv kai umnoiv kai wdaiv pneumatikaiv en xariti adontev en th kardia umwn tw kuriw

Here are the results of my study:

Psalmos (Noun Form)
Luke 20:42: "And David himself saith in the book of Psalms (biblo psalmon), The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand." Clear reference to the Psalms of the Bible
Luke 24:44: "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms (psalmois), concerning me." Clear reference to the Psalms of the Bible (note the lack of a definite article; it was still understood to speak of THE Psalms)
Acts 1:20: "For it is written in the book of Psalms (biblo psalmon), Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." Clear reference to the Psalms of the Bible
Acts 13:33: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm (psalmo to deutero), Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Clear reference to a Biblical Psalm (interesting to note that the Psalms already had their current order and numbering)
1 Corinthians 14:26: "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm (psalmon), hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." Text in question
Ephesians 5:19: "Speaking to yourselves in psalms (psalmois) and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." Almost all are agreed that it refers to the Psalms of the Bible
Colossians 3:16: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms (psalmois) and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Almost all are agreed that it refers to the Psalms of the Bible

Psallo (Verb Form)
Romans 15:9: "And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing (psalo) unto thy name." Clear reference to a Psalm of the Bible (quote of Ps. 18:49, LXX.)
1 Corinthians 14:15: "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing (psalo) with the spirit, and I will sing (psalo) with the understanding also." Text in question
Ephesians 5:19: "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody (psallontes) in your heart to the Lord." "Singing and psalming" -- since almost all are agreed that the "psalms" refer to Biblical Psalms, the "psalming" would also refer to Biblical Psalms
James 5:13: "Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms (psalleto)." Possible question as to its origin, though most believe it refers to the Psalms

Note also that Acts 13:35 doesn't make the list, since it does not actually use the word "psalm" in the Greek: we would translate it, "He also says in another [psalm]." It is obviously a reference to a Biblical Psalm, but does not use that word.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
So - let's see:

1. Out of 8 verses in the NT that mention the word Psalm - roughly half refer specifically to the Book of Psalms - in a non-singing context - as Scripture

Basically correct. And the Book of Psalms was originally given by God as a hymnbook, as the very title indicates, both in Hebrew (Tehillim, or Sepher Tehillim) and Greek (Psalmoi, or Biblo Psalmon).

Originally posted by jdlongmire
2. The others mention psalms in an informal context, that is, as a song for singing.

Why do you suppose that a Psalm being mentioned for singing indicates that it is an informal context?

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Two of the 8 verses use it in context with other contemporary types of songs for singing.

Which are also other words used in contemporary literature for Psalms. See the article linked above; or, if that doesn't work, or if you want the footnotes, I can email you the paper.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
That is - the 2 other forms mention were generally understood types of non-canonical "uninspired" composition.

We know for certain Hymns were a recognized non-canonical "uninspired" compositional type - normatively a song witten to a god/demigod:

see -

"Hymn to the Muse" by Mesomedes

The Homeric Hymns

The Orphic Hymn to Athena

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=15129

Originally posted by Kaalvenist
4. Many argue that the Gentile character of these churches determines how we should interpret "hymns" and "songs." The argument is then made that, because these words (in pagan Gentile literature) referred to uninspired compositions, they should be understood as such when they appear in these passages. I would briefly respond,

(1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.

(2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given special Christian meaning (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.

(3.) The singing of God's praise is a particularly specified element of worship, under both Old and New Testaments. It is highly doubtful that the pagan culture of the time would influence how this ordinance would be observed, any more than the pagan culture would influence the observance of any other ordinances of worship (preaching, prayer, reading of Scripture, baptism, the Lord's supper).

(4.) The "hymns" and "songs" of pagan Gentiles, who did not have the Spirit of God at all, would of course have been uninspired; this does not mean that the "hymns" and "songs" of Christians would have been uninspired, any more than the "hymns" and "songs" of Christians would have been in praise of pagan gods.

Joe Nesom writes of the word "hymns," "In classical Greek this word was used of a festive lyric written in praise of a god or hero. Therefore we understand a hymn to be a song that is of extra-biblical origin and employs us in the direct praise of the Most High." I note,

(1.) This points us to "classical Greek," rather than attempting to determine how the Bible uses the word "hymn."

(2.) It is "written in praise of a god or hero." He draws upon an obviously pagan usage to determine how a Christian ordinance is to be observed.

(3.) The definition he gives from classical Greek makes no mention of its inspiration or lack thereof; yet he still draws the conclusion, "Therefore we understand a hymn to be a song that is of extra-biblical origin," etc.

(4.) He himself makes a confusion between the words "hymn" and "song." "Therefore we understand a hymn to be a song," etc.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Paul doubtlessly would have considered the Book of Psalms and a psalm (most likely a canonical song) in general on a higher plain than the hymn, yet understood the usefulness of the hymn as a form for elevating Christ as deity among Greek/Roman culture.

1. If Paul would have understood individual Psalms to be on a higher plain than uninspired compositions, why do you argue that he here lumps together canonical and non-canonical songs, so that he is essentially putting them all on equal footing?

2. Give me one undisputed example of an uninspired hymn from this period. Just one. That's all I ask. Until you do so, I regard the LXX. use of "hymn," Josephus's use of "hymn," and Philo's use of "hymn" (aside from the use of "hymn" in Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26, which all are agreed refers to the latter part of the Hallel Psalms) as defining Paul's use here, as contrasted with its use in pagan Gentile literature.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
I'll get to spititual song in a bit.

How did you manage to go from discussing 1 Cor. 14 back to Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16? My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)? not, How do you understand the three words, psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais? You keep jumping around; try to stick to one topic, or one text, and examine that.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by Kaalvenist]

 

[panta dokimazete]

Why do you suppose that a Psalm being mentioned for singing indicates that it is an informal context?

I should have said less formal in context of Psalms used as Scriptural support for spoken teaching, preaching by the pastor/preacher vs. singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs as congregational affirmation/praise in worship.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[panta dokimazete]

[quotes]Which are also other words used in contemporary literature for Psalms. See the article linked above; or, if that doesn't work, or if you want the footnotes, I can email you the paper.[/quote]

Sorry - did not see the article link you referenced.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[panta dokimazete]

Sorry if it seems I am jumping around, just seems we are introducing more and more data into the conversation.

for instance - you say in your linked article:

(1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.

(2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given special Christian meaning (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.

It is quite an assertion that Paul was writing and using "Christianized" vocabulary for common terms. Can you substantiate this or did you just make it up?

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

Why do you suppose that a Psalm being mentioned for singing indicates that it is an informal context?

I should have said less formal in context of Psalms used as Scriptural support for spoken teaching, preaching by the pastor/preacher vs. singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs as congregational affirmation/praise in worship.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire]

I would deny such a distinction. I understand the Scripture to command the use of canonical texts for reading, preaching, confirmation of doctrine, singing. Why would there be a difference between reading the Psalms and singing the Psalms as far as formality, efficacy, authority, etc.?

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
[quotes]Which are also other words used in contemporary literature for Psalms. See the article linked above; or, if that doesn't work, or if you want the footnotes, I can email you the paper.

Sorry - did not see the article link you referenced.

[Edited on 6-13-2006 by jdlongmire] [/quote]Not sure that the link is working now, or very often. But I still have it as a Word doc (hint hint hint).

 

[panta dokimazete]

My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)?

My understanding of this verse is very broad and has many implications.

I Cor. 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

In context to our discussion - what are you asking? Is this about EP or RPW?

Could each of these elements be uninspired and used in worship? Yes.

(BTW - I strongly believe that tongues ARE strictly regulated and are, in fact, discouraged by Paul...as well as revelation (prophecies?))

Is Paul constraining the elements of worship to these items alone? No.

Is this what you are asking?

-JD

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Sorry if it seems I am jumping around, just seems we are introducing more and more data into the conversation.

for instance - you say in your linked article:

(1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.

(2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given special Christian meaning (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.

It is quite an assertion that Paul was writing and using "Christianized" vocabulary for common terms. Can you substantiate this or did you just make it up?

By this, I mean such words as Christos having a significance beyond simply using a Greek word meaning "anointed" -- it has a history going back over a thousand years as referring to the Hebrew Messiah. "Redeem" has a meaning beyond a temporal "buying," which would be the immediate connotation in Greek language and culture. Again, "redemption" is a term used in the OT Scriptures to refer to God's salvation, both temporal and spiritual. "Elect" has particular reference to a specific Christian doctrine, etc., etc. The fact that both letters are replete with such terms that are not accompanied with a particular explanation of what each means, as contradistinguished from their common Greek usage, shows that he would have expected them to understand them with a Christian meaning. The fact that we don't immediately recognize this only shows how much we have become "Christianized" in our understanding.

Why is it that so many suppose Paul's use of these terms was being guided by pagan Greek usage, when they have a nearly unanimous testimony of reference to the Psalms from the Septuagint (the Bible he used, as evidenced by his OT quotes to the Ephesians), and the Greek writers familiar with the Psalms in that period (notably Jews), and the NT itself (Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26 referring to the paschal Psalms, Heb. 2:12 referring to Psalm 22:22)? Why do they think that "hymns" in praise of pagan deities have a bearing upon the determination of what Christians are to sing (especially regarding the inspiration or non-inspiration thereof)?

The word that we translate "Scripture" in our Bibles (graphe) simply means "writing" in Greek. Why do we not turn to pagan Greek literature in order to determine its usage of this term? Why don't we go to pagan Greek usage for how we should understand words like kurios (Lord), or theos (God), or other terms of like weight and import? Quite simply, because they have no bearing on such things. When the NT commands us to worship theos, it commands us to worship, not some pagan Greek deity, but the God of the OT. When it commands us to read the graphe, it is not referring to any sort of writing, but the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. And when we are commanded to sing psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais, we are not commanded to sing hymns and songs in praise of pagan Greek deities; we are commanded to sing the psalms, hymns, and songs contained in the Book of Psalms of the Old Testament.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Why would there be a difference between reading the Psalms and singing the Psalms as far as formality, efficacy, authority, etc.?

Not reading - Preaching - surely you recognize the primacy, regulation and differentiation of Preaching vs. singing in worship?

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)?

My understanding of this verse is very broad and has many implications.

I Cor. 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

In context to our discussion - what are you asking? Is this about EP or RPW?

Could each of these elements be uninspired and used in worship? Yes.

(BTW - I strongly believe that tongues ARE strictly regulated and are, in fact, discouraged by Paul...as well as revelation (prophecies?))

Is Paul constraining the elements of worship to these items alone? No.

Is this what you are asking?

-JD

JD, I'm asking you to give an interpretation of the passage (particularly the verses in question), give substantial reasons and arguments for that interpretation, and interact with my comments on the passage.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

Why would there be a difference between reading the Psalms and singing the Psalms as far as formality, efficacy, authority, etc.?

Not reading - Preaching - surely you recognize the primacy, regulation and differentiation of Preaching vs. singing in worship?

I recognize them to be different elements of worship; never said otherwise. All I was meaning is that the Word of God is still the Word of God, whether it is read, preached, or sung; and the Word of God is still authoritative for us, and effectual to accomplish God's purposes, whether it is read, preached, or sung. You seemed to be denying that in the quote I was examining.

 

[panta dokimazete]

You seemed to be denying that in the quote I was examining.

huh? not sure I follow you...

 

[panta dokimazete]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist

Originally posted by jdlongmire

My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)?

My understanding of this verse is very broad and has many implications.

I Cor. 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

In context to our discussion - what are you asking? Is this about EP or RPW?

Could each of these elements be uninspired and used in worship? Yes.

(BTW - I strongly believe that tongues ARE strictly regulated and are, in fact, discouraged by Paul...as well as revelation (prophecies?))

Is Paul constraining the elements of worship to these items alone? No.

Is this what you are asking?

-JD

JD, I'm asking you to give an interpretation of the passage (particularly the verses in question), give substantial reasons and arguments for that interpretation, and interact with my comments on the passage.

in context to EP or RPW?

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

Originally posted by Kaalvenist

Originally posted by jdlongmire

My question to you was, How do you understand the passage (i.e. 1 Cor. 14, especially verses 15 and 26)?

My understanding of this verse is very broad and has many implications.

I Cor. 14:26
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

In context to our discussion - what are you asking? Is this about EP or RPW?

Could each of these elements be uninspired and used in worship? Yes.

(BTW - I strongly believe that tongues ARE strictly regulated and are, in fact, discouraged by Paul...as well as revelation (prophecies?))

Is Paul constraining the elements of worship to these items alone? No.

Is this what you are asking?

-JD

JD, I'm asking you to give an interpretation of the passage (particularly the verses in question), give substantial reasons and arguments for that interpretation, and interact with my comments on the passage.

in context to EP or RPW?

The passages mention the practice of "psalming" (verse 15), and having a "psalm" (verse 26). My discussion of the passage above, posted at 10:08 AM, examined the question of the identity of these songs, and concluded that they were either OT Psalms, or charismatic psalms given by immediate inspiration (favoring the former interpretation). In discussing this text, not once did I mention the RPW.

Answer: EP.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Sorry if it seems I am jumping around, just seems we are introducing more and more data into the conversation.

for instance - you say in your linked article:

(1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.

(2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given special Christian meaning emphasis mine: jdl (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.

It is quite an assertion that Paul was writing and using "Christianized" vocabulary for common terms. Can you substantiate this or did you just make it up?

By this, I mean such words as Christos having a significance beyond simply using a Greek word meaning "anointed" -- it has a history going back over a thousand years as referring to the Hebrew Messiah. "Redeem" has a meaning beyond a temporal "buying," which would be the immediate connotation in Greek language and culture. Again, "redemption" is a term used in the OT Scriptures to refer to God's salvation, both temporal and spiritual. "Elect" has particular reference to a specific Christian doctrine, etc., etc. The fact that both letters are replete with such terms that are not accompanied with a particular explanation of what each means, as contradistinguished from their common Greek usage, shows that he would have expected them to understand them with a Christian meaning. The fact that we don't immediately recognize this only shows how much we have become "Christianized" in our understanding.

Why is it that so many suppose Paul's use of these terms was being guided by pagan Greek usage, when they have a nearly unanimous testimony of reference to the Psalms from the Septuagint (the Bible he used, as evidenced by his OT quotes to the Ephesians), and the Greek writers familiar with the Psalms in that period (notably Jews), and the NT itself (Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26 referring to the paschal Psalms, Heb. 2:12 referring to Psalm 22:22)? Why do they think that "hymns" in praise of pagan deities have a bearing upon the determination of what Christians are to sing (especially regarding the inspiration or non-inspiration thereof)?

The word that we translate "Scripture" in our Bibles (graphe) simply means "writing" in Greek. Why do we not turn to pagan Greek literature in order to determine its usage of this term? Why don't we go to pagan Greek usage for how we should understand words like kurios (Lord), or theos (God), or other terms of like weight and import? Quite simply, because they have no bearing on such things. When the NT commands us to worship theos, it commands us to worship, not some pagan Greek deity, but the God of the OT. When it commands us to read the graphe, it is not referring to any sort of writing, but the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. And when we are commanded to sing psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais, we are not commanded to sing hymns and songs in praise of pagan Greek deities; we are commanded to sing the psalms, hymns, and songs contained in the Book of Psalms of the Old Testament.

So - Paul spoke to all Christians with the same understanding that the vocabulary he utilized would have "specialized meanings"?

He mixed specific terms ("psalms") with non-specific terms ("hymns" and "spiritual songs") with the reader having "special knowledge" to discern that all the terms meant the same thing?.

This sounds very gnostic.

I think your foundational arguments are flawed.

-JD

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

Originally posted by Kaalvenist

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Sorry if it seems I am jumping around, just seems we are introducing more and more data into the conversation.

for instance - you say in your linked article:

(1.) We cannot assume that Paul would adopt such an interpretation of those words, as a concession to the Gentile Christians.

(2.) The apostle's frequent usage of common words, which have been given special Christian meaning emphasis mine: jdl (as well as his frequent quotations of the Old Testament scriptures in the epistle to the Ephesians) argues that the Gentile Christians, by the time of these epistles, were already well established in the "Christian culture." They would have understood these words, not with their former Gentile understanding, but with a new, particularly Christian understanding.

It is quite an assertion that Paul was writing and using "Christianized" vocabulary for common terms. Can you substantiate this or did you just make it up?

By this, I mean such words as Christos having a significance beyond simply using a Greek word meaning "anointed" -- it has a history going back over a thousand years as referring to the Hebrew Messiah. "Redeem" has a meaning beyond a temporal "buying," which would be the immediate connotation in Greek language and culture. Again, "redemption" is a term used in the OT Scriptures to refer to God's salvation, both temporal and spiritual. "Elect" has particular reference to a specific Christian doctrine, etc., etc. The fact that both letters are replete with such terms that are not accompanied with a particular explanation of what each means, as contradistinguished from their common Greek usage, shows that he would have expected them to understand them with a Christian meaning. The fact that we don't immediately recognize this only shows how much we have become "Christianized" in our understanding.

Why is it that so many suppose Paul's use of these terms was being guided by pagan Greek usage, when they have a nearly unanimous testimony of reference to the Psalms from the Septuagint (the Bible he used, as evidenced by his OT quotes to the Ephesians), and the Greek writers familiar with the Psalms in that period (notably Jews), and the NT itself (Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26 referring to the paschal Psalms, Heb. 2:12 referring to Psalm 22:22)? Why do they think that "hymns" in praise of pagan deities have a bearing upon the determination of what Christians are to sing (especially regarding the inspiration or non-inspiration thereof)?

The word that we translate "Scripture" in our Bibles (graphe) simply means "writing" in Greek. Why do we not turn to pagan Greek literature in order to determine its usage of this term? Why don't we go to pagan Greek usage for how we should understand words like kurios (Lord), or theos (God), or other terms of like weight and import? Quite simply, because they have no bearing on such things. When the NT commands us to worship theos, it commands us to worship, not some pagan Greek deity, but the God of the OT. When it commands us to read the graphe, it is not referring to any sort of writing, but the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. And when we are commanded to sing psalmois kai humnois kai odais pneumatikais, we are not commanded to sing hymns and songs in praise of pagan Greek deities; we are commanded to sing the psalms, hymns, and songs contained in the Book of Psalms of the Old Testament.

So - Paul spoke to all Christians with the same understanding that the vocabulary he utilized would have "specialized meanings"?

He mixed specific terms ("psalms") with non-specific terms ("hymns" and "spiritual songs") with the reader having "special knowledge" to discern that all the terms meant the same thing?.

This sounds very gnostic.

I think your foundational arguments are flawed.

-JD

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire]

And I think you aren't reading my posts. I fail to see any degree of interaction with my argument at its most basic level.

1. You fail to show where my "foundational arguments are flawed."

2. You confuse my argument (that certain terms have different meanings and connotations for Christians than for pagans, primarily because of the OT background of their usage) with Gnosticism (that certain Christians have a special knowledge of more deep and spiritual things, many of which are obviously heretical, which position was actively opposed by John in his gospel and epistles).

3. Your basis for rejecting my position is an ad hominem charge of Gnosticism, which you do not prove, and which is not related (as shown in point 2).

4. You have consistently failed to interact with the use of humnos in the LXX. version of the Psalms, as well as in writers of the period (both canonical and extra-canonical) who were familiar with the Psalms. (Incidentally, the fact that Josephus and Philo also used humnos to refer to Biblical Psalms demonstrates that it is not a simply "Christian" or NT understanding of the term; it is a BIBLICAL (OT included) understanding of the term.)

This debate has been going for a while now. "Let me explain...no, there is no time. Let me sum up." (Can you guess the movie quote?)

1. The charge that if we are consistent, we should sing in Hebrew, has been answered repeatedly, with no substantiation of the charge (the charge was in fact based upon a straw-man of our position).

2. The argument that the content of our songs falls under the RPW (since particular songs with established content have been appointed) has not been answered.

3. The literary device of using several (synonymous) terms to refer to the same thing, with over one hundred verses cited as proof thereof, was never shown to be erroneous; nor was it demonstrated that this is irrelevant, and the only relevant discussion is Paul's use of kai in this regard.

4. Although several Scripture phrases and passages have been cited as proof of the warrant for hymn-singing ("new songs," 1 Cor. 14, "hymns and spiritual songs"), there has been no attempt to give an interpretation of any of those texts, or demonstrate how they lead us, by good and necessary consequence, to the composition and singing of non-canonical or uninspired songs.

5. Reference was made to Pliny's letter. A link was provided to a recent discussion of the pertinent section of that letter, because no hymn-singer had chosen to interact with the actual text in question, or my observations thereupon. To date, the letter has still not been subjected to a thorough examination by a hymn-singer, although it continues to be cited as proof of hymn-singing in the early church.

6. My appeal to every commentator on Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, that humnesantes refers to the singing of the Hallel Psalms at the close of the Passover meal, has still not been answered.

7. My argument for a Christian (or Biblical) understanding of the terms in Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16, was glossed over with an ad hominem reference to Gnosticism.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist
This debate has been going for a while now. "Let me explain...no, there is no time. Let me sum up." (Can you guess the movie quote?)

Buttercup is marrying Humperdinck in little less than half an hour. So all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape - after I kill Count Reugen.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by Philip A

Originally posted by Kaalvenist
This debate has been going for a while now. "Let me explain...no, there is no time. Let me sum up." (Can you guess the movie quote?)

Buttercup is marrying Humperdinck in little less than half an hour. So all we have to do is get in, break up the wedding, steal the princess, make our escape - after I kill Count Reugen.

YES!!! You gotta love "The Princess Bride"!!! (And no, the topic of the thread is not changing. This was just a brief digression. )

 

[Augusta]

Have fun storming the castle!!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I'm in the mood for a nice MLT right about now, you know, mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is lean and the tomato is ripe.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I'm in the mood for a nice MLT right about now, you know, mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is lean and the tomato is ripe.

Just thinking about these quotes made me realize something funny. I have to occasionally fire an M4 carbine, and I always fire left-handed because I'm left eye dominant; but...

I am not left handed!