Modern Worship?

[panta dokimazete]

Just had a gyro and tzatziki with pita bread - trying to get more familiar with Greek.



-JD - posting from my Blackberry at the auto mechanics.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Ok - let's step back - I am not interested in answering your entire polemic - it would take more time than I have to research, compile and publish a rebuttal.

I am interested in discussing the crux Scriptures and hermeneutic centered around psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Our entire disagreement centers around this. If Paul had merely said "...with the Psalms alone", I would be 100% on board with EP.

So - the issues:

1. Either all 3 song types are mandated and should be understood as seperate types - perhaps with inclusive elements, that is a psalm could be included in the type "hymn", but "hymns" are not strictly the Psalms and "spiritual song" may be a 3rd even more inclusive or distinct type.

2. Or - the Psalms are exclusively mandated and the term is inclusive, synonymous and self-referential to the terms "hymn" and "spiritual song".

Is this agreeable?

If so - I think we should start another thread.

Enjoying the discussion.

-pax-

-JD

 

[panta dokimazete]

Let's also agree on and define Sola Scriptura and the RPW.

-JD

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Let's also agree on and define Sola Scriptura and the RPW.

-JD

I think we're already good on RPW, which is sola scriptura as it applies to worship. I thought your previous definition was good:

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Again, I understand what the RPW is:

The regulative principle of worship is a Christian theological doctrine teaching that the public worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible; that God institutes in Scripture everything he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else is prohibited.

It is only when you start expressing things contrary to this definition that I have a problem. If we can stick with this definition, we should be good.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Ok - let's step back - I am not interested in answering your entire polemic - it would take more time than I have to research, compile and publish a rebuttal.

I am interested in discussing the crux Scriptures and hermeneutic centered around psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Our entire disagreement centers around this. If Paul had merely said "...with the Psalms alone", I would be 100% on board with EP.

So - the issues:

1. Either all 3 song types are mandated and should be understood as seperate types - perhaps with inclusive elements, that is a psalm could be included in the type "hymn", but "hymns" are not strictly the Psalms and "spiritual song" may be a 3rd even more inclusive or distinct type.

2. Or - the Psalms are exclusively mandated and the term is inclusive, synonymous and self-referential to the terms "hymn" and "spiritual song".

Is this agreeable?

If so - I think we should start another thread.

Enjoying the discussion.

-pax-

-JD

I disagree.

1. I think we can continue our discussion on this thread, without having to rehash all the items I rehashed.

2. I believe that the more fundamental issue is the application of the RPW as regards song in worship. Are we restricted in our song to particular texts appointed by God for that purpose (EP), or are we at liberty to employ any text in song, as long as it is theologically accurate (non-EP)?

I consider that to be more important, because it treats of our presuppositions with which we approach the debate. When we discuss the "new songs," you approach them with the thought that we are not restricted to any particular text in song, and conclude that this refers to the composition of new texts for song. I approach them with the thought that we are restricted to appointed and authorized texts, so that these passages must refer to an appointed or authorized text. I then conclude that they refer either to the Psalms being used in public worship, or other particular texts authorized for an extraordinary use. We go through a similar process in discussing Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:15, 26; Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26, etc.

If I can demonstrate that particular texts must be authorized for them to be sung in worship, and you cannot demonstrate your position, or refute my position, or demonstrate that things have changed with regard to such regulation in the shift from OT to NT, I think that we will go a long way in answering many of your other questions.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I disagree.

Why am I not surprised?

1. I believe that the more fundamental issue is the application of the RPW as regards song in worship. Are we restricted in our song to particular texts appointed by God for that purpose (EP), or are we at liberty to employ any text in song, as long as it is theologically accurate (non-EP)?

I maintain that if the key passages with "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" are resolved, there will be no questions about your position (EP), because your question then becomes moot, since I hold to the RPW and Sola Scriptura.

If my position is valid - that psalms and hymns and spiritual songs are all discrete, but perhaps non-exclusive, then we would need to begin to wrap RPW around the implications.

That is - inspired v. uninspired and canonical v. non-canonical, etc...

-JD

[Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

I disagree.

Why am I not surprised?

1. I believe that the more fundamental issue is the application of the RPW as regards song in worship. Are we restricted in our song to particular texts appointed by God for that purpose (EP), or are we at liberty to employ any text in song, as long as it is theologically accurate (non-EP)?

I maintain that if the key passages with "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" are resolved, there will be no questions about your position (EP), because your question then becomes moot, since I hold to the RPW and Sola Scriptura.

If my position is valid - that psalms and hymns and spiritual songs are all discrete, but perhaps non-exclusive, then we would need to begin to wrap RPW around the implications.

That is - inspired v. uninspired and canonical v. non-canonical, etc...

-JD

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire]

Does this mean that if this question (i.e. regarding the use of these three terms in these two verses) gets resolved, you won't come back asking how to reconcile EP with "new songs," Pliny's letter, 1 Cor. 14, Luke 1-2, etc. etc.?

If that's the case, and the entire EP question can be resolved (for you, anyway) by an examination of Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, then I will happily do so.

If not, and you know right now that those would still be insurmountable issues for you, I recommend that we pursue my course (since it is basically an examination of our underlying presuppositions).

But if you would be convinced by these two texts alone, let's do it. And I would ask that you begin.

...Mind you also, I disagree with the statement that "then we would need to begin to wrap RPW around the implications." This implies that the RPW is a rather morphable thing without any definite shape (a "wax nose," if you will), and that we can make the RPW fit with us, not the other way around. But we won't go there at the moment.

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by Kaalvenist]

 

[panta dokimazete]

Does this mean that if this question (i.e. regarding the use of these three terms in these two verses) gets resolved, you won't come back asking how to reconcile EP with "new songs," Pliny's letter, 1 Cor. 14, Luke 1-2, etc. etc.?

I think it would be the start of the perfect defense of EP - It certainly kills the "new song" as an entirely new composition mandate. As a matter of fact, it really is the extinguisher for most all subsequent arguments, in my book.

If that's the case, and the entire EP question can be resolved (for you, anyway) by an examination of Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, then I will happily do so.

If not, and you know right now that those would still be insurmountable issues for you, I recommend that we pursue my course (since it is basically an examination of our underlying presuppositions).

Loverly...

But if you would be convinced by these two texts alone, let's do it. And I would ask that you begin.

Ok - do you agree we can do this in a new thread? I certainly don't mind keeping this one going - it just seems off the OP.

Name recommendation - psalms and hymns and spiritual songs - EP v. non-EP or somesuch.

If you agree - I will recapitulate a bit for folks to "catch up" - then will start my response.

...Mind you also, I disagree with the statement that "then we would need to begin to wrap RPW around the implications." This implies that the RPW is a rather morphable thing without any definite shape (a "wax nose," if you will), and that we can make the RPW fit with us, not the other way around. But we won't go there at the moment.

hmm - I consider the RPW a guideline, much as the WCF is - uninspired, thus fallible, but we can cross that bridge when we get there.

SDG!

-JD

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[panta dokimazete]

Oh, yeah - I also committ to answering as completely and as timely as I can, but acknowledge that I am normally very busy, so there may be some time between posts.

-JD

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Ok - do you agree we can do this in a new thread? I certainly don't mind keeping this one going - it just seems off the OP.

Let's just keep this one going. And feel free to post whenever you're ready.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Ok - for our purposes - here are the 2 verses in contention:

Eph 5:19
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Col 3:16
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

my source

You, Kaalvinist, as an EP'er, contend that the words - psalms and hymns and spiritual songs - are all references to the same thing - the contents of book of the Psalms, correct?

I need your concurrence to continue.

Edited to add:
Oh, and just in case there is ambiguity - I proposed to recap if we moved to another thread.

[Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Ok - for our purposes - here are the 2 verses in contention:

Eph 5:19
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Col 3:16
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

my source

You, Kaalvinist, as an EP'er, contend that the words - psalms and hymns and spiritual songs - are all references to the same thing - the contents of book of the Psalms, correct?

I need your concurrence to continue.

Edited to add:
Oh, and just in case there is ambiguity - I proposed to recap if we moved to another thread.

[Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]

Basically correct. To distinguish:

1. I do not believe that every occurrence of the use of these terms in all known literature of that period indicate a reference to the Psalms of the Bible.

2. I do believe that, in this particular context, every term is here being used to be understood of the Psalms of the Bible; so that no songs or songbook are here being referred to other than the Psalms of the Bible.

 

[panta dokimazete]

2. I do believe that, in this particular context, every term is here being used to be understood of the Psalms of the Bible; so that no songs or songbook are here being referred to other than the Psalms of the Bible.

Thanks - tracking to the epistles themselves (Ephesians, Colossians) - who do you believe would have been the audience? Mostly Gentiles or converted Jews?

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

2. I do believe that, in this particular context, every term is here being used to be understood of the Psalms of the Bible; so that no songs or songbook are here being referred to other than the Psalms of the Bible.

Thanks - tracking to the epistles themselves (Ephesians, Colossians) - who do you believe would have been the audience? Mostly Gentiles or converted Jews?

Mostly Gentile audience for both.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thanks "“ staying within the epistles in question themselves:

Do you think Paul, as the disciple to the Gentiles, seeing he would have a mixed audience, but probably anticipated distribution of his letters primarily to a large group of Gentiles, would have used terminology that was very Greco-Roman culturally attenuated - hymns and spiritual songs - as a synonym for a song type attuned primarily to Jewish culture?

That is, wouldn't he have been terminologically exclusionary as opposed to inclusionary to remove ambiguity? Just as he is when describing sin?

Particularly in light of this verse?

Col 4

3At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison-- 4that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak


Aren't you also assuming that ALL the churches and Christians Paul would have been writing to would have a copy of the Psalms? I am sure all the home churches did not have a copy. Why would he direct them to sing the specific Psalms to which they may have had no access other than the occasional glance in the synagogue, if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief?

Also "“ did Paul refer to the Book of Psalms as a proof text in either of these letters?

[Edited on 6-14-2006 by jdlongmire - added Scripture reference]

[Edited on 6-15-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Thanks "“ staying within the epistles in question themselves:

Do you think Paul, as the disciple to the Gentiles, seeing he would have a mixed audience, but probably anticipated distribution of his letters primarily to a large group of Gentiles, would have used terminology that was very Greco-Roman culturally attenuated - hymns and spiritual songs - as a synonym for a song type attuned primarily to Jewish culture?

Yes. He is describing how to conduct a Christian ordinance. Christians (whether Jew or Gentile) would not regard a "song" or "hymn" in praise of a pagan deity as determining their use of the term.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
That is, wouldn't he have been terminologically exclusionary as opposed to inclusionary to remove ambiguity? Just as he is when describing sin?

If I understand you correctly, you are asking that if Paul is trying to limit our praise to the Psalms, he would use terms that specifically limited our praise to the Psalms, and would not have used terms that would admit of different understandings.

But the Psalms being sung exclusively to this point in the public praise of God's people, that would be the assumption under which God's people would continue to operate. Christ gave no directive to sing anything beyond the Psalms; and His example only confirms the practice of singing Psalms. There is nothing recorded in Acts to indicate that other, non-canonical songs were sung in praise to God. Now, we have two texts which employ terms which could be understood of songs in general (although they do not explicitly command the singing of non-canonical or uninspired songs); and could also be understood of the Psalms. Without a clear break from the heretofore universal practice of exclusive psalmody, that would be the continuing practice. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that this, in very clear and unambiguous terms, signifies a break from exclusive psalmody.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Particularly in light of this verse?

Col 4

3At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison-- 4that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak

1. I maintain that Paul's language would have been clearly understood by his hearers to refer to the Biblical Psalms.

2. Many words appearing in these verses had a previous connotation in pagan Greek literature -- "pray," "God," "word," "mystery," "Christ." We understand these terms in light of the OT (as well as the greater light afforded by Christ and His apostles in the NT). Why do I not see hymn-singers turn to the use of the word "pray" in pagan Greek literature, in order to determine how we ought to observe this Christian ordinance; and instead turn to the OT?

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Aren't you also assuming that ALL the churches and Christians Paul would have been writing to would have a copy of the Psalms? I am sure all the home churches did not have a copy. Why would he direct them to sing the specific Psalms to which they may have had no access other than the occasional glance in the synagogue, if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief?

Yes. They would have had the Scriptures (not necessarily each individual, but at least the church), since the reading and preaching of Scripture is an ordinance which they would have observed, along with prayer, the administration of the sacraments, and the singing of Psalms. And I'm not sure I understand the line, "if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief." I am not here talking about synagogue worship; I am speaking of the worship occurring in Christian churches.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Also "“ did Paul refer to the Book of Psalms as a proof text in either of these letters?

Paul did not quote from the OT in his epistle to the Colossians. He quoted five times from the OT in his epistle to the Ephesians, twice from the Psalms.

Eph. 4:8 --- Ps. 68:18
Eph. 4:25 --- Zech. 8:16
Eph. 4:26 --- Ps. 4:4
Eph. 5:31 --- Gen. 2:24
Eph. 6:2-3 --- Deut. 5:16

As a point of interest, it is demonstrable from each of these quotes (with the exception of the quote from Zech. 8:16) that he was quoting from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic, because the Septuagint varies slightly from the Masoretic in all of those verses, and Paul follows those variations. The reason why it cannot be demonstrated from Zech. 8:16 is because the Masoretic and Septuagint read identically in that verse; which makes it likely that Paul quoted from the Septuagint in all five OT quotes.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Response I (give it a little time to settle, as I may edit it a bit - anything I missed, I'll see if I can get to shortly - feel free to start chewing )

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Aren't you also assuming that ALL the churches and Christians Paul would have been writing to would have a copy of the Psalms? I am sure all the home churches did not have a copy. Why would he direct them to sing the specific Psalms to which they may have had no access other than the occasional glance in the synagogue, if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief?

by kaalvinist Yes. They would have had the Scriptures (not necessarily each individual, but at least the church), since the reading and preaching of Scripture is an ordinance which they would have observed, along with prayer, the administration of the sacraments, and the singing of Psalms. And I'm not sure I understand the line, "if they were not excluded entirely because of their foreign belief." I am not here talking about synagogue worship; I am speaking of the worship occurring in Christian churches.

I was actually speaking of the converted Jews continuing to go to synagogue worship being rejected for their belief in Christ. As for Scripture availability "“ how prolific were the OT Scriptures in that time, in that place? Would it be as common to have them in their entirety? I am sure there would have been some, but not widely available to every Christian and Christian community as they are today. I am perfectly willing to concede this point, though.

by kaalvinist But the Psalms being sung exclusively to this point in the public praise of God's people, that would be the assumption under which God's people would continue to operate. Christ gave no directive to sing anything beyond the Psalms; and His example only confirms the practice of singing Psalms. There is nothing recorded in Acts to indicate that other, non-canonical songs were sung in praise to God. Now, we have two texts which employ terms which could be understood of songs in general (although they do not explicitly command the singing of non-canonical or uninspired songs); and could also be understood of the Psalms. Without a clear break from the heretofore universal practice of exclusive psalmody, that would be the continuing practice. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that this, in very clear and unambiguous terms, signifies a break from exclusive psalmody.

You make a good point "“ the worship in Christian churches "“ particularly Ephesus - would have been guided by Paul´s words:

Ephesians 2:
14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

"¦and understood that the synagogue worship ordinances (including their EP practice) in particular were no longer a requirement as they had never been recorded or ordained in Scripture and could certainly be considered "œman-made" worship.

So when God, though Paul, ordained the element of worhip song as psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, the early Christians would have understood that ALL these forms and styles of song could be turned to the worship of God through the Spirit of Truth.

And just as in the ordained element of prayer, the specific form was unregulated, while the content would be regulated "“ through Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

...just as in the ordained element of preaching, the specific form was unregulated, while the content would be regulated "“ through Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

...just as in the ordination concerning places of worship, the specific place was unregulated, while the content and elements, worship in spirit and in truth, would be regulated by the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Response I (give it a little time to settle, as I may edit it a bit)

A bit???

Originally posted by jdlongmire
I was actually speaking of the converted Jews continuing to go to synagogue worship being rejected for their belief in Christ. As for Scripture availability "“ how prolific were the OT Scriptures in that time, in that place? Would it be as common to have them in their entirety? I am sure there would have been some, but not widely available to every Christian and Christian community as they are today. I am perfectly willing to concede this point, though.

If you'll concede it, I'll take it.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
You make a good point "“ the worship in Christian churches "“ particularly Ephesus - would have been guided by Paul´s words:

Ephesians 2:
14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

"¦and understood that the synagogue worship ordinances (including their EP practice) in particular were no longer a requirement as they had never been recorded or ordained in Scripture and could certainly be considered "œman-made" worship.

1. At no time have I made any reference to synagogue. Why you continue so to do is beyond me.

2. The command to sing Psalms is not a part of "'man-made' worship," as you put it. It is a clear command of Almighty God in the Old Testament Scriptures.

3. I do not believe that "EP" (exclusive psalmody) is commanded by God. I do, however, believe that the singing of Psalms is commanded by God, and that no other songs have been commanded by Him to be sung in ordinary worship. EP is a belief and practice (not an explicit command), arrived at by good and necessary consequence from psalm-singing and the RPW.

I repeat: Singing of Psalms is commanded by God. It is not a ceremonial element of worship, and I daresay you'll have the darndest time to prove that it is ceremonial (especially given the repeating of the command in the New Testament, both by explicit precept and approved example). If you are arguing that singing of Psalms is ceremonial, then you must likewise maintain that singing of Psalms (and not just the exclusive singing of Psalms) has been "abolished" by Christ.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
So when God, though Paul, ordained psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, the early Christians would have understood that ALL these forms and styles of song could be turned to the worship of God through the Spirit of Truth.

1. Why you keep emphasizing the word "and," as though it had a significant bearing upon this discussion, is beyond me.

2. You have still not explained the difference, in the minds of early Christians, between psalms, hymns, and songs.

3. You have already imported your assumption that these can refer to uninspired compositions, without giving any demonstration whatsoever.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
And just as in the ordained element of prayer, the specific form was unregulated, while the content would be regulated "“ through Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

...just as in the ordained element of preaching, the specific form was unregulated, while the content would be regulated "“ through Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

...just as in the ordination concerning places of worship, the specific place was unregulated, while the content and elements, worship in spirit and in truth, would be regulated by the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

1. I think you have it somewhat backwards. Content was not strictly regulated for prayer or preaching, but the form was.

2. You are attempting to draw an analogy from two different and distinct elements of worship, to conclusions made regarding another, distinct element of worship; whereas the fact that they are distinct elements of worship mandates that we regard them as having their own appointment, both as to form and content, without the overlap you are suggesting.

3. The place of worship was particularly and emphatically appointed and ordained under the Old Testament. Christ, by an explicit statement to that effect, declared that such would no longer be the case under the New Testament (John 4:21). Without an explicit statement to that effect, you have no warrant to infer that we are to treat song in worship in a similar manner.

To recap:

1. The singing of Psalms is not a ceremonial command of the OT. I don't think even you believe this, although you argue as though it is.

2. You must demonstrate your contentions regarding the text (i.e., the psalms, hymns, and songs refer to three different things; they allow for the use of non-canonical or uninspired texts in song, etc.).

3. You must demonstrate that song is to be regulated in the same manner as preaching or prayer; or, if you accept my former contention regarding the regulation of song texts in the OT, you must demonstrate that this regulation has been relaxed under the NT.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Popping in...

1. Why you keep emphasizing the word "and," as though it had a significant bearing upon this discussion, is beyond me.

Because Paul's intent for the and - whether - "synonymous with" or "discrete from" is the entire crux of our discussion.

Paul's command is the command from God to sing something.

That is:

"one type of song and another type of song and another type of song"

vs.

"one type of song" and "another word for that type of song" and "another word for that type of song"

No?

Just trying to keep the goalposts in sight...

-JD

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Popping in...

1. Why you keep emphasizing the word "and," as though it had a significant bearing upon this discussion, is beyond me.

Because Paul's intent for the and - whether - "synonymous with" or "discrete from" is the entire crux of our discussion.

Paul's command is the command from God to sing something.

That is:

"one type of song and another type of song and another type of song"

vs.

"one type of song" and "another word for that type of song" and "another word for that type of song"

No?

Just trying to keep the goalposts in sight...

-JD

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

1. Again, you emphasize the smallest and most trivial of points in our debate. You are not "keeping the goalposts in sight" by arguing in this fashion.

2. You fail to deal with my previous arguments regarding the common practice of using several synonymous terms to refer to the same thing or things (whether or not written by Paul, whether or not conjoined with kai). If you would like, and if you regard this as a new (or renewed) discussion, I can repeat that information, or clarify how it applies to the Pauline use of kai.

Since it is demonstrable that the conjunctive waw in the Hebrew Old Testament, and kai in both the Septuagint and the New Testament, can both be used to group together either several synonymous terms, referring to the same thing or things, or several antonymous terms, referring to different things, the use of and in these sentences is not going to determine the debate. So quit emphasizing that word as if it manifests a clear differentiation between these terms.

3. Exactly. It is a command to sing something -- a command to sing an actual song or group of songs with an actual text, identifiable to the apostle; and not a command to sing songs that had not yet been written, and would not be written for another 1500+ years.

And this makes the 200th reply to this thread.

 

[panta dokimazete]

**this post edited and reposted below**

-JD

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[panta dokimazete]

not trying to be a smarty pants, but for clarity's sake:

<i>by kaalvenist</i> ...can both be used to group together either several synonymous terms, referring to the same thing or things, or several antonymous terms, referring to different things,

antonymous does not mean different, it means opposite - that is why I used discrete

SDG,

-JD

[Edited on 6-16-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[panta dokimazete]

btw - am enjoying the dialogue...a nice, measured pace...

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[panta dokimazete]

1. Again, you emphasize the smallest and most trivial of points in our debate. You are not "keeping the goalposts in sight" by arguing in this fashion.

So quit emphasizing that word as if it manifests a clear differentiation between these terms.

Sorry, bud - you aren't the rulesetter here and I will keep the goalposts in sight as we refine the discussion (iron sharpens iron ).

The intent of the "<i>and</i>" (kai) by Paul as it relates to "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" is clearly discerned from a study of similar use in the epistles in question.

Ephesians 3
18may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth <i>and</i> length <i>and</i> height <i>and</i> depth

Eph 4
31Let all bitterness <i>and</i> wrath <i>and</i> anger <i>and</i> clamor <i>and</i> sl<i>and</i>er be put away from you, along with all malice.

Eph 5
8for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9(for the fruit of light is found in all that is good <i>and</i> right <i>and</i> true), 10<i>and</i> try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.

Col 1
22he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy
<i>and</i> blameless <i>and</i> above reproach before him,

Col 2
23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion <i>and</i> asceticism <i>and</i> severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Col 4
7Tychicus will tell you all about my activities. He is a beloved brother <i>and</i> faithful minister <i>and</i> fellow servant in the Lord.

Nowhere in the usage of <i>and</i> in these verses does he use it to join equally synonymous terms.

It is utilized to join similar, yet terminologically discrete terms.

<hr>

3. Exactly. It is a command to sing something -- a command to sing an actual song or group of songs with an actual text, identifiable to the apostle; and not a command to sing songs that had not yet been written, and would not be written for another 1500+ years.

I do, however, believe that the singing of Psalms is commanded by God, and that no other songs have been commanded by Him to be sung in ordinary worship.

Nope. Again, I contend that Paul understood that Gentile audience "“ steeped in Greco-Roman culture "“ would have understood that they could use any of the song styles and was encouraging them to do so, particularly in light of his command:

Col 3:17And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

In the case of our discussion the "whatever" is worshipping God in spirit and truth with the approved elements, specifically in song. Obviously guided by the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

Thus the command to sing songs to God as well as the content and context for the different types of songs were inclusively authorized.

Which is why we can compose and sing different song types to God in worship today - songs that are, in content and context, spiritually and Scripturally sound to the Glory of God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

-JD

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

JD,

I should have spoken more carefully. I was wrong to say that the terms are synonymous. They are not. In my better moments, I have acknowledged the terms to be distinct (or discrete) terms.

To clarify, I do not believe that these terms are synonymous, i.e., that the term "psalm" means "hymn," the term "hymn" means song, the term "psalm" means "song," etc. I believe, however, that these three terms refer to the same thing.

In other words, a "psalm" does not necessarily mean, or is not entirely defined by the word "song," and vice versa. However, in the title of Psalm 92, "A Psalm or Song for the sabbath day," both terms are used to refer to the same composition. Likewise, in Eph. 5:19/Col. 3:16, I maintain that, while all three terms are not synonymous terms, or do not exhaustively describe each other, the three terms are being used to refer to the same book of 150 compositions.

One example that I had previously presented of Paul's use of this literary device was 2 Cor. 12:12: "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patiece, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." The three terms joined by the use of two kais are not synonyms. The term "signs" is not a synonym of the term "wonder," "wonder" is not a synonym of the term "mighty deeds" (one word in Greek), etc. But in this verse, all three terms are referring to the same type or group of actions. One could also turn to some of the examples that you cited against this usage (Col. 1:22; Col. 4:7, etc.), as more examples of this usage.

So you have, by your insistence on this point, helped me to clarify what I was saying/meaning. Thank you.

But I still contend that this is not isolated to Paul, nor to the conjoining of such terms by the word "and." I again quote from footnote 24 of my paper:

The argument that this makes the apostle command us to sing "œpsalms and psalms and psalms" is of no force. (1.) Hymn-singers themselves are unable to substantially differentiate between "œhymns" and "œspiritual songs," which leaves their position open to a similar charge"”that we are here commanded to sing "œpsalms and uninspired hymns and uninspired hymns." (2.) The literary device of piling up several synonymous (this will be deleted or modified) terms, in order to refer to the same thing, is a very common usage in the Bible. Concerning God´s commandments, see Gen. 26:5; Exod. 15:26; 16:28; 18:16; Lev. 26:3, 15, 46; Num. 36:13; Deut. 4:40; 5:31; 6:1, 2, 17; 7:11; 8:11; 10:13; 11:1; 26:17; 27:10; 28:15, 45; 30:10, 16; 1 Kings 2:3; 3:14; 6:12; 8:58, 61; 9:6; 11:34, 38; 2 Kings 17:13; 23:3; 1 Chron. 28:7; 29:19; 2 Chron. 7:19; 34:31; Ezra 7:11; Neh. 1:7; 9:13, 14; 10:29; Ezek. 44:24; Dan. 9:5. Concerning human sin, see Exod. 34:7, 9; Lev. 16:16, 21; Num. 14:18; Deut. 19:15; Josh. 24:19; Job 13:23; Ps. 59:3; Jer. 16:18; 36:3; Ezek. 33:10; Amos 5:12; Heb. 8:12; 10:17. Concerning miracles (both true and false), see Exod. 7:3; Deut. 6:22; 7:19; 26:8; 29:3; 34:11; Neh. 9:10; Isa. 8:18; Jer. 32:20, 21; Dan. 4:2, 3; 6:27; Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22; John 4:48; Acts 2:22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 7:36; 8:13; 14:3; Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12; 2 Thess. 2:9; Heb. 2:4. Concerning prayer, see 1 Kings 8:28, 38, 45, 49, 54; 9:3; 2 Chron. 6:19, 29, 35, 39; Jer. 7:16; 11:14; Dan. 9:3, 17; Acts 1:14; Eph. 6:18; Phil. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:1; 5:5; Heb. 5:7. And concerning the songs used in worship, see the titles of Pss. 30, 48, 65, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 83, 87, 88, 92, 108.

JD,

You have repeatedly asserted that the pagan Greek usage of these terms is what defines Paul's use of these terms. I say "asserted" because you have failed to demonstrate this point, to date.

(1.) I have demonstrated that Paul used several terms which had previous connotations in pagan Greek literature, which had been entirely divested of that connection, and which were determined by their OT usage.

(2.) I demonstrated that Paul quoted from the OT five times in his epistle to the Ephesians (twice from the Psalms), and all quotes were from the Septuagint; meaning that he believed his audience, Gentile though they were, to be familiar enough with the OT for his quotes to be understood.

(3.) I pointed out the fact that you (and others who oppose EP) rely upon a pagan Greek connection to these terms, to establish how this Christian ordinance should be observed, and that you do not treat other ordinances in a similar manner (prayer, reading and preaching of Scripture, etc.).

(4.) I pointed out that you have failed to show the connection between asserting that their pagan Greek usage determines their usage in these verses, with the idea of using uninspired or non-canonical songs.

(5.) I pointed out that you have failed to give even one example of an uninspired or non-canonical song that they sang in worship at this time (not surprising, since the first such songs were not composed until hundreds of years after this time).

Until you can positively demonstrate your position, and interact with any (or all) of these arguments against your position, I regard your claims on this text as rather hollow.

 

[panta dokimazete]

So you have, by your insistence on this point, helped me to clarify what I was saying/meaning. Thank you.

You are welcome - you are still stretching to get to your conclusion. I may come back to that.

<hr>

(3.) I pointed out the fact that you (and others who oppose EP) rely upon a pagan Greek connection to these terms, to establish how this Christian ordinance should be observed, and that you do not treat other ordinances in a similar manner (prayer, reading and preaching of Scripture, etc.).


(4.) I pointed out that you have failed to show the connection between asserting that their pagan Greek usage determines their usage in these verses, with the idea of using uninspired or non-canonical songs.

How about the fact that the use of non-Psalmic hymns are recorded in the historical record by a pagan?

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD, wrote to the Emperor Trajan observing that the Christians sang hymns to Christ "as to a god":

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god..."

link

Do you think Pliny knew what a psalm was? You can bet he knew what a hymn to a god was. And please don't try and pull the messianic psalms out as a rebuttal - what would Pliny know of the messianic Psalms?

(5.) I pointed out that you have failed to give even one example of an uninspired or non-canonical song that they sang in worship at this time (not surprising, since the first such songs were not composed until hundreds of years after this time).

Actually, according to the historical record only about 70 or so years after Christ's ascension - plenty of time for the practice to have become common.

Until you can positively demonstrate your position, and interact with any (or all) of these arguments against your position, I regard your claims on this text as rather hollow.

That's 3 of the 5...more later.

-JD


[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

(3.) I pointed out the fact that you (and others who oppose EP) rely upon a pagan Greek connection to these terms, to establish how this Christian ordinance should be observed, and that you do not treat other ordinances in a similar manner (prayer, reading and preaching of Scripture, etc.).


(4.) I pointed out that you have failed to show the connection between asserting that their pagan Greek usage determines their usage in these verses, with the idea of using uninspired or non-canonical songs.

How about the fact that the use of non-Psalmic hymns are recorded in the historical record by a pagan?

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD, wrote to the Emperor Trajan observing that the Christians sang hymns to Christ "as to a god":

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god..."

link

Do you think Pliny knew what a psalm was? You can bet he knew what a hymn to a god was. And please don't try and pull the messianic psalms out as a rebuttal - what would Pliny know of the messianic Psalms?

1. You have shifted this from a linguistic or terminologic question (the meaning of the Greek word humnos), to an historical question (what Pliny was claiming that Christians in Bithynia were singing in ca. A.D. 115). You have entirely avoided the original question(s).

2. This can have no bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the Greek word humnos in these texts, since Pliny, who wrote in Latin, claims that the early Christians sang a carmen.

3. I have already mentioned the thread that I began, in order to discuss that section of Pliny's letter. I have already discussed that point on that thread with some detail, and will not do so again -- not on this thread, anyway. If you want to examine the quote in context, and deal with my remarks thereupon, follow the link, and we can deal with that item there. Otherwise, quit mentioning Pliny, and deal with my actual points.

Originally posted by jdlongmire

(5.) I pointed out that you have failed to give even one example of an uninspired or non-canonical song that they sang in worship at this time (not surprising, since the first such songs were not composed until hundreds of years after this time).

Actually, according to the historical record only about 70 or so years after Christ's ascension - plenty of time for the practice to have become common.

You continue to misunderstand what I mean. I am not asking for a reference to a "hymn" (which, in this instance, does not explicitly identify itself as a Psalm or a non-canonical song); I am asking for an actual text of an actual non-canonical song used in that period for Christian worship. That is why I said there is no example of such things until several hundred years after this time.

Originally posted by jdlongmire

Until you can positively demonstrate your position, and interact with any (or all) of these arguments against your position, I regard your claims on this text as rather hollow.

That's 3 of the 5...more later.

Not hardly.

 

[panta dokimazete]

You continue to misunderstand what I mean. I am not asking for a reference to a "hymn" (which, in this instance, does not explicitly identify itself as a Psalm or a non-canonical song); I am asking for an actual text of an actual non-canonical song used in that period for Christian worship. That is why I said there is no example of such things until several hundred years after this time.

Whether or not I can actually produce a non-canonical hymn is irrelevant - although it would substantiate my claim - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (There are some that would present the Odes of Solomon c. AD 100-200)

Based on the word usage in the epistles in question, we have good reason to infer that the three songs types were not synonyms for nor a summary of the Book of Psalms.

We have histo-cultural evidence to infer that utilization of multiple song types both in content and context were understood to Paul's readers.

We have the historical record that presents evidence that a song "œwas sung to Christ as to a god" and that the historian would have had VERY little and most probably NO understanding of the nuances of the messianic Psalms.

We have Paul's own guidance in matters of word and deed.

We have Christian liberty in worship under the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Paul was referring to the Book of Psalms exclusively or commanding Exclusive Psalmody in Ephesians or Colossians.

-JD

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

You continue to misunderstand what I mean. I am not asking for a reference to a "hymn" (which, in this instance, does not explicitly identify itself as a Psalm or a non-canonical song); I am asking for an actual text of an actual non-canonical song used in that period for Christian worship. That is why I said there is no example of such things until several hundred years after this time.

Whether or not I can actually produce a non-canonical hymn is irrelevant - although it would substantiate my claim - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (There are some that would present the Odes of Solomon c. AD 100-200)

1. My question was whether or not you could present an example of a non-canonical hymn used in that period. I certainly don't regard that as an irrelevant question.

2. The Odes of Solomon are debated by scholars, not only as to what time they were written, but whether they were even Christian. After having read through the Odes, I myself question as to whether they had a Christian origin.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Based on the word usage in the epistles in question, we have good reason to infer that the three songs types were not synonyms for nor a summary of the Book of Psalms.

Read 2 Chronincles 29:30 and Psalm 72:20 in the Septuagint, and then make that claim.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
We have histo-cultural evidence to infer that utilization of multiple song types both in content and context were understood to Paul's readers.

You still haven't produced any argument on this point.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
We have the historical record that presents evidence that a song "œwas sung to Christ as to a god" and that the historian would have had VERY little and most probably NO understanding of the nuances of the messianic Psalms.

You conceded to Dr. Clark that we can't determine one way or the other based upon that line in Pliny. (And Pliny wasn't an historian, he was a Roman governor.)

Originally posted by jdlongmire
We have Paul's own guidance in matters of word and deed.

That is what we are trying to examine at this point, if you'll avoid trying to summarize your argument which you haven't yet made.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
We have Christian liberty in worship under the guidance of Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

We have liberty to obey God's commands, not to disobey His commands.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Ultimately, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Paul was referring to the Book of Psalms exclusively or commanding Exclusive Psalmody in Ephesians or Colossians.

If you'll continue to ignore the evidence to the contrary, I daresay you never will conclude anything beyond what you currently maintain. But you have to prove your own case as well, i.e., that we have the liberty to use any (theologically accurate) text for matter of singing praise to God in worship.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
-JD

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

Enough editing! Deal with the arguments, deal with the text; quit making conclusions based upon no interaction with my position or the terms/Scriptures in question.

 

[panta dokimazete]

You conceded to Dr. Clark that we can't determine one way or the other based upon that line in Pliny. (And Pliny wasn't an historian, he was a Roman governor.)

I conceded that we cannot extract too much from the Pliny text. I would still contend that singing a song to "Christ as to a god " would fit a historical/cultural understanding that would probably have excluded the messianic Psalms as the reference and included other song types. Perhaps canonical based songs, but still not the messianic Psalms.

Gaius Plinius Secundas (Pliny the Elder) was a Roman official and military officer who also wrote as a naturalist, biographer and historian.

http://www.answers.com/topic/pliny-the-elder

kaalvenist "“ the crux of our debate was that Paul´s command to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs in Ephesians and Colossians either were or were not referential exclusively to the book of Psalms.

Enough editing! Deal with the arguments, deal with the text; quit making conclusions based upon no interaction with my position or the terms/Scriptures in question.

Peace, brother!

I have interacted with the textual, Scriptural and the histo-cultural aspects of this thoroughly and have drawn a reasonable conclusion.

Just because I have refused to be pulled off into rabbit trails, you assert I have not interacted or dealt with your arguments.

Your ability to assert (which you are very good at, BTW ) that I have not does not invalidate my efforts or my conclusions.

It has been a very fruitful and interesting discussion, thanks.

-JD

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

whee!

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 6-18-2006 by jdlongmire]