More on EP and the LXX

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Dan....
Scott,

As I have clearly stated to Matt today, if doing anything other than singing the Psalms in worship creates the possibility to break the RPW and sin, I am all for doing away with old habits, thus reducing the chance of sinning.

This could go both ways. For example, I will quote you and insert changes for the other side:

if ... singing [only] the Psalms in worship [in exclusion of hymns and spiritual songs] creates the possibility to break the RPW and sin, I am all for doing away with old habits, thus reducing the chance of sinning.

See the point? There may not only be the sin of commission, there may also be the sin of omission. Either the non-EP is sinning by commission, or the EP is sinning by omission.

I hope that made sense.

Dan,
I do see your point; However, I do not feel the conviction of ommission, based upon my studies on the subject. This is not to say that tomorrow I won't, but today I do not!

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by wsw201
As I have clearly stated to Matt today, if doing anything other than singing the Psalms in worship creates the possibility to break the RPW and sin, I am all for doing away with old habits, thus reducing the chance of sinning.

Scott, this is quite a statement that you are making and I find it a bit troubling. I hope you are not saying that if the church is not EP then it is forcing its congregants to sin. You and Matt are members in good standing of a PCA church that is not EP. If you truly believe that that not singing the Psalms exclusively is breaking the RPW and causing you to sin, I hope that both of you have taken this issue up with your Session.

Wayne,
I thank you for the exhortation; I am meeting with my pastor next Thursday to discuss a couple of items. One of the items will be the RPW. My position is everyone breaks the RPW; every Lords day. It's can be contrasted with the table; who really comes to the table worthy? However, our goal should be to reduce our unworthiness as much as we can, to reduce the possibility of breaking the RPW as much as we can. This should be the heart of every believer; for Gods glory.
 
Originally posted by blhowes
2) I've visited quite a few churches these last couple of years and its amazing how absent the Psalter is in the majority of churches. I've only been to one church that even used the Psalter (and the Trinity Hymnal). I can't help wondering historically if the introduction of the singing of hymns started a trend in the churches toward what we see today, where the Psalter is not used at all in worship. Though I don't know yet if I'm for EP, I don't think its a good thing that the singing of the Psalms has been totally replaced in modern churches with the singing of hymns and choruses.

This is an important point. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "Wherever the Psalter is abandoned, an incomparable treasure vanishes from the Christian church. With its recovery will come unexpected power." -- Psalms, The Prayer Book of the Bible, p. 26
 
As I said before, I think the burden of proof lies with the non-EP position because everyone (hopefully) agrees that inspired psalms are commanded, but the crux of the matter is whether non-inspired hymns are commanded and that is the controversy. Therefore, the non-EP side must prove that uninspired hymns are commanded to be sung.

I would disagree. Almost all the major Reformed Churches are non-EP. In fact it has been that way for over 100 years.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by wsw201
As I have clearly stated to Matt today, if doing anything other than singing the Psalms in worship creates the possibility to break the RPW and sin, I am all for doing away with old habits, thus reducing the chance of sinning.

Scott, this is quite a statement that you are making and I find it a bit troubling. I hope you are not saying that if the church is not EP then it is forcing its congregants to sin. You and Matt are members in good standing of a PCA church that is not EP. If you truly believe that that not singing the Psalms exclusively is breaking the RPW and causing you to sin, I hope that both of you have taken this issue up with your Session.

Wayne,
I thank you for the exhortation; I am meeting with my pastor next Thursday to discuss a couple of items. One of the items will be the RPW. My position is everyone breaks the RPW; every Lords day. It's can be contrasted with the table; who really comes to the table worthy? However, our goal should be to reduce our unworthiness as much as we can, to reduce the possibility of breaking the RPW as much as we can. This should be the heart of every believer; for Gods glory.

I am glad you are meeting with your Pastor about this. I hope Matt does the same thing. When we start believing that the Church is sinning by worshipping incorrectly or some other reason, we need to go to the Session for they are responsible for overseeing the worship service as well as other aspects of the Church.
 
Ok. How's this: In light of the regulative principle, it is the burden of proof on everyone to justify their practices in worship.
 
Wayne,
Keep in mind, everyone is breaking the RPW in one way or the other; to God we are all sinning in this regard. Our worship is always tainted. My position on EP is to minimize the assault. To conclude I am pronouncing all the churches whom are not EP anathema would be stretching it a bit.
 
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Originally posted by Dan....
Dan, for my dense head to get some clarification, are you implying the sin of omission would be NOT including uninspired hymns in the mix?

Correct. The apostle did not say "psalms, hymns, or spiritual songs". He says "and". (At least he does in English. I don't know about the Greek. If the "and" can rightly be translated "or" then someone please let me know ).

Dan, the Greek backs you up. We are commanded to sing all three. Either EPers are sinning or non-EPers are sinning. Either the verses mean "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" or they mean "inspired psalms from the psalter, inspired hymns from the psalter, and inspired songs from the psalter." The latter translation, in my estimation, is a gaping -- even laughable -- stretch.

Just wanted to throw in my :2cents:. And this may have already been pointed out; I haven't made it that far through the thread. Has anyone discussed the "hymns" of the NT?

For instance Php. 2:6-11 is widely believed to have been an early Christian hymn. While I'm sure EP'ers would debate the point, what is to be done with Rev. 5:9-14? No one can debate that the latter is a hymn of praise sung to God, in His throne room no less(!) and yet it is not to be found in the Psalms. Surely God would not receive sinful worship in His very presence, if such it were.

I will be the first to admit that this need to get added to the end of a long list of Reformed issues I need to study. But I still cannot get past my discomfort with the Puritan penchant for seeing commands in the Bible when none are present.

Now back to my corner where I shall eagerly await the beatings.
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Now don't forget my question, please? Inquiring minds must know.

How does Verbal Plenary Inspiration play into the LXX being quoted as inspired when it was originally written in Hebrew?

:worms: I for one do not believe translations are inspired (in the sense that the original authors were), rather God's Word is preserved providentially through the ages. But that was discussed ad nauseum on other threads.
 
Kevin -

"Now back to my corner where I shall eagerly await the beatings."

Please don't feel this way. No one should think about getting beaten.

For all of us -

We should all be stirivng to run the race in a way which wins the prize. Sanctification is hard. But that does not give us the right to make others feel like they are getting "beaten." I know we have disagreements, but let's not beat one another to death or make others feel that way. God wants us to think perfectly about His Word. That's impossible given our fallen minds. And oftentimes those minds can be less charitable that we would like. From either side of the fence, let's speak to one another with love.

1 Thessalonians 4:9, "Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another."
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Wayne,
Keep in mind, everyone is breaking the RPW in one way or the other; to God we are all sinning in this regard. Our worship is always tainted. My position on EP is to minimize the assault. To conclude I am pronouncing all the churches whom are not EP anathema would be stretching it a bit.

I thought the Regulative Principal was based in a PRINCIPAL not an actual list of "do's and don'ts". The principal being that the elements of worship need to be there in order for a worship service to be considered a true worship service. As long as the elements are there, then the service can be considered a proper worship service.

How do you know that God believes the Church is sinning in regards to the RPW? Did you get a Word of Knowledge? ;) Unless you want to go back to the Levitical laws, there is nothing that I have read in Scripture that spells out exactly what a truly RPW service looks like. Needless to say, all we do is tainted by sin and whatever we do is only accepted by God for the sake of Christ. We do not even pray as we ought and need the Spirit to help us.
 
{quote]I thought the Regulative Principal was based in a PRINCIPAL not an actual list of "do's and don'ts". The principal being that the elements of worship need to be there in order for a worship service to be considered a true worship service. As long as the elements are there, then the service can be considered a proper worship service.[/quote]

It is more than just principal. You say that as long as the elements are there then it is acceptable. What about additional stuff addes to these primary elements; could not these things taint the RPW?

How do you know that God believes the Church is sinning in regards to the RPW?

If the church is offering up worship contrary to Gods command, then it is sinning; simple. Nothing mystical.

THE
WESTMINSTER
CONFESSION OF FAITH
CHAP. XXI. - Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day.

1. The light of nature sheweth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

2. Religious worship is to be given to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to Him alone; not to angels, saints, or any other creature: and, since the fall, not without a Mediator; nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone.

3. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of His Spirit, according to His will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue.

4. Prayer is to be made for things lawful; and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter: but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death.

5. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.

6. Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed: but God is to be worshipped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or willfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by His Word or providence, calleth thereunto.

7. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.


CHAPTER 47



The Principles and Elements of Public Worship



47-1. Since the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the principles of public worship must be derived from the Bible, and from no other source.

The Scriptures forbid the worshipping of God by images, or in any other way not appointed in His Word, and requires the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in His Word (WSC 51, 50).



47-2. A service of public worship is not merely a gathering of God´s children with each other, but before all else, a meeting of the triune God with His chosen people. God is present in public worship not only by virtue of the Divine omnipresence but, much more intimately, as the faithful covenant Savior. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "œWhere two or three are gathered together in My name there I am in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).



47-3. The end of public worship is the glory of God. His people should engage in all its several parts with an eye single to His glory. Public worship has as its aim the building of Christ´s Church by the perfecting of the saints and the addition to its membership of such as are being saved -- all to the glory of God. Through public worship on the Lord´s day Christians should learn to serve God all the days of the week in their every activity, remembering, whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, to do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).



47-4. Public worship is Christian when the worshippers recognize that Christ is the Mediator by whom alone they can come unto God, when they honor Christ as the head of the Church, who rules over public worship, and when their worship is an expression of their faith in Christ and of their love for Him.



47-5. Public worship must be performed in spirit and in truth. Externalism and hypocrisy stand condemned. The forms of public worship have value only when they serve to express the inner reverence of the worshipper and his sincere devotion to the true and living God. And only those whose hearts have been renewed by the Holy Spirit are capable of such reverence and devotion.



47-6. The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given His Church a large measure of liberty in this matter. It may not be forgotten, however, that there is true liberty only where the rules of God´s Word are observed and the Spirit of the Lord is, that all things must be done decently and in order, and that God´s people should serve Him with reverence and in the beauty of holiness. From its beginning to its end a service of public worship should be characterized by that simplicity which is an evidence of sincerity and by that beauty and dignity which are a manifestation of holiness.



47-7. Public worship differs from private worship in that in public worship God is served by His saints unitedly as His covenant people, the Body of Christ. For this reason the covenant children should be present so far as possible as well as adults. For the same reason no favoritism may be shown to any who attend. Nor may any member of the church presume to exalt himself above others as though he were more spiritual, but each shall esteem others better than himself.



47-8. It behooves God´s people not only to come into His presence with a deep sense of awe at the thought of His perfect holiness and their own exceeding sinfulness, but also to enter into His gates with thanksgiving and into His courts with praise for the great salvation, which He has so graciously wrought for them through his only begotten Son and applied to them by the Holy Spirit.



47-9. The Bible teaches that the following are proper elements of worship service: reading of Holy Scripture, singing of psalms and hymns, the offering of prayer, the preaching of the Word, the presentation of offerings, confessing the faith and observing the Sacraments; and on special occasions taking oaths.
 
:ditto: to Scott. I really do not see what is so hard about the sin issue. Most of us who disagree on baptism have no problem acknowledging that one side is in sin for either going beyond God's command or ignoring part of it. The exact same principle applies here, since we all believe in the RPW. Can it be shown that there is a biblical command, either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence, to sing songs outside the Psalter after its completion? The answer to that question is the crux of which side is in sin, and I fail to understand what is so hard about that.

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Just wanted to throw in my :2cents:. And this may have already been pointed out; I haven't made it that far through the thread. Has anyone discussed the "hymns" of the NT?

For instance Php. 2:6-11 is widely believed to have been an early Christian hymn. While I'm sure EP'ers would debate the point, what is to be done with Rev. 5:9-14? No one can debate that the latter is a hymn of praise sung to God, in His throne room no less(!) and yet it is not to be found in the Psalms. Surely God would not receive sinful worship in His very presence, if such it were.

The former is being discussed in this thread. Regarding the latter, a lot hinges on one's interpretation of Revelation as a whole (e.g. historicist, preterist, idealist, futurist). As I see it, the futurist interpretation (and possibly the partial-preterist interpretation as well, as I am not very familiar with which specific prophecies they hold as fulfilled) is largely the only one that could make that passage potentially relevant to the EP issue; and even if one does have that interpretation, it is still questionable whether or not that passage challenges EP, which I started this thread partially to discuss, among other things.
 
It is more than just principal. You say that as long as the elements are there then it is acceptable. What about additional stuff addes to these primary elements; could not these things taint the RPW?

Consider the chapter you quoted from the PCA DoW:

47-6. The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given His Church a large measure of liberty in this matter. It may not be forgotten, however, that there is true liberty only where the rules of God´s Word are observed and the Spirit of the Lord is, that all things must be done decently and in order, and that God´s people should serve Him with reverence and in the beauty of holiness. From its beginning to its end a service of public worship should be characterized by that simplicity which is an evidence of sincerity and by that beauty and dignity which are a manifestation of holiness.

Note that it states that Christ did not give the Church a fixed form for public worship but has given His Church a large measure of liberty. But of course this liberty must be tempored by the Scriptures. The RPW is a guide for the Church, and establishes certain basic principals to follow.

Can a Worship Service be tainted? Sure can. But how much of this goes to the elements of worship or the circumstances of worship or just plain personal taste?


If the church is offering up worship contrary to Gods command, then it is sinning; simple. Nothing mystical.

Did God command for an offering to be taken up during the worship service? How about creeds? or corporate confessions of sin? Not mystical but also not simple.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Just wanted to throw in my :2cents:. And this may have already been pointed out; I haven't made it that far through the thread. Has anyone discussed the "hymns" of the NT?

For instance Php. 2:6-11 is widely believed to have been an early Christian hymn. While I'm sure EP'ers would debate the point, what is to be done with Rev. 5:9-14? No one can debate that the latter is a hymn of praise sung to God, in His throne room no less(!) and yet it is not to be found in the Psalms. Surely God would not receive sinful worship in His very presence, if such it were.

The former is being discussed in this thread. Regarding the latter, a lot hinges on one's interpretation of Revelation as a whole (e.g. historicist, preterist, idealist, futurist). As I see it, the futurist interpretation (and possibly the partial-preterist interpretation as well, as I am not very familiar with which specific prophecies they hold as fulfilled) is largely the only one that could make that passage potentially relevant to the EP issue; and even if one does have that interpretation, it is still questionable whether or not that passage challenges EP, which I started this thread partially to discuss, among other things.

I'll look at those threads (the PB is quite the tar baby, isn't it?) but I fail to see how one's interpretive view of Revelation comes to bear in this case Even if the song was song in the past (preterist)--before 70 AD even (for all the hyper-preterists out there)--the present (idealist???), or future (futurist), the point remains the same: the saints around the throne are depicted as worshipping God in song that is not a Psalm! I think the "good and necessary consequence" principle would make one stop and go "hmmmmmmm" at that point.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
 
The Idealist interpretation would certainly keep it from having any relevance, since it essentially takes Revelation to be completely metaphorical, hence the song would not be literally sung. The partial-Preterist interpretation, as I perceive it, understands a lot of the prophecies to have been fulfilled in a metaphorical way as well, hence the song may not have been literally sung. The Historicist interpretation is somewhat similar to the preterist position in that it sees a lot of the prophecies being fulfilled metaphorically, the difference being all throughout history instead of in 70 A.D.

Thus, the Futurist position is really the only one that interprets a great deal of the prophecies in a literal fashion. And with that interpretation, the song being referenced would be being sung in the eschaton, rather than any time within the Church age, and that does not necessarily challenge EP, which is what I talk about in the thread linked above that I started on "The Psalter in redemptive history."
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
The Idealist interpretation would certainly keep it from having any relevance, since it essentially takes Revelation to be completely metaphorical, hence the song would not be literally sung. The partial-Preterist interpretation, as I perceive it, understands a lot of the prophecies to have been fulfilled in a metaphorical way as well, hence the song may not have been literally sung. The Historicist interpretation is somewhat similar to the preterist position in that it sees a lot of the prophecies being fulfilled metaphorically, the difference being all throughout history instead of in 70 A.D.

Thus, the Futurist position is really the only one that interprets a great deal of the prophecies in a literal fashion. And with that interpretation, the song being referenced would be being sung in the eschaton, rather than any time within the Church age, and that does not necessarily challenge EP, which is what I talk about in the thread linked above that I started on "The Psalter in redemptive history."

OK, I'll grant you that the language may be metaphorical. But even if it is, so what? The fact is the non-Psalm is still sung before the throne. To me this puts a knife to the throat of the EP position, unless one wants to argue that that God would use metaphor in a deliberately misleading way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top