Praise Worship

[panta dokimazete]

The thing is, it is unprecedented in scripture that humans are allowed to be "creative" when it comes to the worship of God. Not only were the sculpters not allowed to be creative when building the temple but all of the temple design was by God and not only that, he didn't leave the talent up to them either. He charimatically granted them the abilities to carry out the job. (Ex 31)

This also with the Psalms and the playing of instruments. The singers and players were divinely appointed for the job. (1 Chron 15 & 16)

We can be creative and delight men. We may even delight God with our talents OUTSIDE of worship in the solemn assemblies. We are nowhere given liberty in this area as pertains to worship.

Who said we were to be creative in worship apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scripture?

Are you not filled with the Holy Spirit? Does His Spirit not guide us to worship Him in spirit and in truth though Jesus Christ?

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Philippians 3:3
for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh

 

[Davidius]

Who said we were to be creative in worship apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scripture?

Are you not filled with the Holy Spirit? Does His Spirit not guide us to worship Him in spirit and in truth though Jesus Christ?

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

The Spirit guides us through the Word. It sounds like you're talking about some kind of Charismatic notion of being 'led by the Spirit.' What is the Spirit going to tell us to do that isn't already laid out in the bible?

 

[panta dokimazete]

...and the Bible says to sing to the Lord a new song.

Thus the Lord grants us this liberty through the Holy Spirit.

Just as he grants us liberty in prayer.

A Scripture bounded liberty.

 

[Augusta]

Who said we were to be creative in worship apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scripture?

Are you not filled with the Holy Spirit? Does His Spirit not guide us to worship Him in spirit and in truth though Jesus Christ?

Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Philippians 3:3
for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh

JD, I am sure you know the difference between the way we are filled with the Holy Spirit and the way God filled people with the Holy Spirit for ecstatic works. Are you a cessationist? Do you believe what you might write as a song would be inspired in the same way scripture is inspired? Do you really believe that?

 

[panta dokimazete]

JD, I am sure you know the difference between the way we are filled with the Holy Spirit and the way God filled people with the Holy Spirit for ecstatic works. Are you a cessationist? Do you believe what you might write as a song would be inspired in the same way scripture is inspired? Do you really believe that?

no, I do not believe that - I explained that earlier in the thread, I believe.

I believe you are confusing, or think that I am confusing, the categories of inspiration.

I can pray inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit and guided by Scripture in worship without considering my prayer inspired in the same manner Scripture was categorically inspired to be written.

In the same manner, I can compose and sing songs that are inspired/guided by the Holy Spirit and guided by Scripture in worship without considering my song to be inspired in the same manner Scripture was categorically inspired to be written.

In both practices, my worship will be made acceptable to God through Christ.

Confusing these categories of inspiration is the error of many Charismatic churches.

 

[panta dokimazete]

A couple other thoughts:

The disciples were specifically given direct or indirect guidance on all the elements of worship, except for songs and singing. If Christ wanted to change or clarify the ordinance of music and song, He could have spoken directly to the issue or had one of the apostles speak directly to it.

Also - how is it that EPers will accept the creative exercise of melody and harmony composition for the Psalms and not the exercise of lyrics guided by the Holy Spirit and Scripture for new songs?

I assure you that the Psalms could be (and probably have been) set to melodies and harmonies that would be VERY unedifying and not glorifying to God.

If the composer can be trusted to glorify God through appropriate melody, harmony and instrumental arrangement, why could they not be trusted to be guided by the Holy Spirit and bound by Scripture to compose new songs to fulfill the Scriptural mandate and commandment of God?

 

[Davidius]

A couple other thoughts:

The disciples were specifically given direct or indirect guidance on all the elements of worship, except for songs and singing. If Christ wanted to change or clarify the ordinance of music and song, He could have spoken directly to the issue or had one of the apostles speak directly to it.

You're right, Christ could've done that, but he didn't. So the apostles and the rest of the early church continued to sing the Psalms, like the Church had been doing for years, and just like Paul encouraged them to do.

Also - how is it that EPers will accept the creative exercise of melody and harmony composition for the Psalms and not the exercise of lyrics guided by the Holy Spirit and Scripture for new songs?

I assure you that the Psalms could be (and probably have been) set to melodies and harmonies that would be VERY unedifying and not glorifying to God.

If the composer can be trusted to glorify God through appropriate melody, harmony and instrumental arrangement, why could they not be trusted to be guided by the Holy Spirit and bound by Scripture to compose new songs to fulfill the Scriptural mandate and commandment of God?

This is a strawman because we've already been over this. A song, by nature of being such, has rhythm and a tune. We are commanded to sing Psalms but God chose not to include specific tunes in the requirement for singing. Therefore, the tune itself is a circumstance. It is not the element of worship itself. The words are. They're being carried on a tune that is not part of the actual command.

Also, you used the phrase "guided by the Holy Spirit and scripture" again, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Does the Holy Spirit speak to you other than through the Scripture? Are you a prophet?

We have been promised that the Holy Spirit would be a comforter and a teacher for us, that he would pray for us when we can't find the words. Where does the bible say that one of his jobs is to help us write songs? I'll repeat my sentiment from earlier: If your songs are from the Holy Spirit, they're either already in the bible or they should be added to it.

 

[Kaalvenist]

How could I foget?



Kaal - I was simply pointing out the obvious, that this line of conjecture would certainly resonate with the EP position. I think there is good rationale to consider the Hallel Psalms as the "hymns" they sang. There is just not conclusive evidence, since the Scriptures do not make it perfectly clear.

Grace and Peace,

JD

Well then, since you begrudgingly confess that "there is good rationale to consider the Hallel Psalms as the 'hymns' they sang," is there any "good rationale" to suppose that they sang anything else? Especially uninspired compositions? Maybe hymns to pagan Greek deities or heroes?

And do the Scriptures have to "make it perfectly clear," i.e. spell it out in so many words, for us to be reasonably certain that they sang the Hallel Psalms? Again, if every commentator, regardless of denomination, theological bent, or conservatism, asserts that they sang the Hallel Psalms, I don't really see what the issue is.

 

[panta dokimazete]

We have been promised that the Holy Spirit would be a comforter and a teacher for us, that he would pray for us when we can't find the words. Where does the bible say that one of his jobs is to help us write songs? I'll repeat my sentiment from earlier: If your songs are from the Holy Spirit, they're either already in the bible or they should be added to it.

Then so should our prayers, by your logic. Or we should only pray the prayers that have been given to us in Scripture.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Commonly utilized by the early church? The early church that condemned anything other than the 150 Psalms at the Synod of Laodicea and Council of Chalcedon?

I went back and read the Canons of Laodecia - items of note:

Canon 15

No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book.

Canon 17

The Psalms are not to be joined together in the congregations, but a lesson shall intervene after every psalm.

Canon 59

No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments.

Interesting - it seems the Psalms were read, not sung and the canonical singers (the only singers allowed, hmm...) sang from a book, not the book of Psalms.

That lends credence to the fact that songs other than the Psalms were sung by the early church, well by the authorized singers of the early church, anyway.

One more thing.

As I already noted in a much earlier post, worship songs other than the Psalms were outlawed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (21 years after Augustine's death) because heresies (like those of the Donatists) were being introduced through such songs. Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo and since the issue probably didn't just fall into the lap of the Council in 451 it's quite likely that Augustine was one of those pushing for this kind of ruling, especially after reading that text.

The only thing I can find in the first Council of Chalcedon about psalms, songs, singing or singers is that they cannot be married into heterodoxy.

 

[panta dokimazete]

This is a strawman because we've already been over this. A song, by nature of being such, has rhythm and a tune. We are commanded to sing Psalms but God chose not to include specific tunes in the requirement for singing. Therefore, the tune itself is a circumstance. It is not the element of worship itself. The words are. They're being carried on a tune that is not part of the actual command.

Dave - we've only been over this inasmuch as you made this assertion and I have not responded, so I wanted to make sure that I did.

We are commanded to sing new song by God, and we are given guidance in the composition of these new songs to do all things by the Holy Spirit, bounded by Scripture, through Jesus Christ, for the glory of God.

New songs can have elements of prayer, praise and preaching - none of which are specifically prescribed as to the content and composition except they must follow the same ruleset described above.

To apply such a strict dictum as EP to the element of song in worship must necessarily lead to the constraint of prayer and preaching to only those elements which have been specifically given in Scripture.

Exegesis is the liberty (bounded freedom) given by God to the leaders and teachers of the church, in spoken and sung word.

All elements and circumstances (ex: vernacular and melody) must be guided in the same manner described above, so this liberty applies to the use of instrumental music and the composition of musical accompaniment to songs. (I would say that Handel's Messiah would be a good illustration of the principle - a more modern example would be M.W. Smith's Agnus Dei.)

 

[CDM]

...New songs have elements of prayer, praise and preachingone of which are specifically prescribed as to the content and composition except they must follow the same ruleset described above.

If these new songs "have elements of prayer praise and preaching" then it follows you would never have women singing these "new songs" in a choir or individual setting during the public worship of God right?

 

[panta dokimazete]

If these new songs "have elements of prayer praise and preaching" then it follows you would never have women singing these "new songs" in a choir or individual setting during the public worship of God right?

can you say - "leading question"?

No more (or less) than I would allow anyone to participate in corporate prayer or praise in worship. Say in terms of responsive/corporate reading or praying. It would be dependent on the content and context.

 

[CDM]

can you say - "leading question"?

No more (or less) than I would allow anyone to participate in corporate prayer or praise in worship. Say in terms of responsive/corporate reading or praying. It would be dependent on the content and context.

It's a logical deduction from your premise. Call it a leading question if you like.

Perhaps you can describe the right context that you would approve of a woman singing a solo or in a choir during the public worship of God?

Thanks.

 

[panta dokimazete]

It's a logical deduction from your premise. Call it a leading question if you like.

Perhaps you can describe the right context that you would approve of a woman singing a solo or in a choir during the public worship of God?

Thanks.

I can think of several - a song setting of the Magnificat jumps immediately to mind - all in context of that person being under the authority of the Elders.

 

[CDM]

So is this singing by the female soloist and/or choir praying and preaching as you mentioned in your earlier post?

"all in context of that person being under the authority of the Elders." How is the context of the woman being under the authority of the Elders shown .... a headcovering?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Help me understand your last post - is your laughter mocking?

If so, we are done.

 

[CDM]

Help me understand your last post - is your laughter mocking?

If so, we are done.

No, not mocking you. My laughing is done with a sense of irony in regard to older posts dealing with visible signs of authority.

Revised post: So is this singing by the female soloist and/or choir praying and preaching as you mentioned in your earlier post?

"all in context of that person being under the authority of the Elders." How is the context of the woman (or man) being under the authority of the Elders shown or known?

 

[panta dokimazete]

No, not mocking you. My laughing is done with a sense of irony in regard to older posts dealing with visible signs of authority.

Ah, gotcha - didn't catch the reference.

Revised post: So is this singing by the female soloist and/or choir praying and preaching as you mentioned in your earlier post?

"all in context of that person being under the authority of the Elders." How is the context of the woman (or man) being under the authority of the Elders shown or known?

I am not sure I understand - in the same context that they can participate in, say, the reading of Scripture and prayer. The Elders have the responsibility, authority and oversight over the content and context of public worship as well as the participators.

 

[CDM]

Ah, gotcha - didn't catch the reference.



I am not sure I understand - in the same context that they can participate in, say, the reading of Scripture and prayer. The Elders have the responsibility, authority and oversight over the content and context of public worship as well as the participators.

Now I'm confused. Let me try to clarify with (hopefully) no leading questions.

You said,

New songs can have elements of prayer, praise and preaching - none of which are specifically prescribed as to the content and composition except they must follow the same ruleset described above.

Now, for example, a woman is singing a solo to the people of God during public worship. According to your statement(s) this is praying and preaching. So, this is in fact leading the people of God in prayer and in preaching isn't it?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Now I'm confused. Let me try to clarify with (hopefully) no leading questions.

You said,


Now, for example, a woman is singing a solo to the people of God during public worship. According to your statement(s) this is praying and preaching. So, this is in fact leading the people of God in prayer and in preaching isn't it?

I believe I said praise, prayer or preaching and I suppose I should have added all the elements from the WCF - which one of those would you consider the Magnificat?

V. 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: besides religious oaths, and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasion; which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.

 

[CDM]

Forget the Magnificat. I am simply trying to get an idea of what you hold to. When a woman is up there singing a solo of Shine, Jesus Shine is it not your belief that she is (can/could be) praying, praising or preaching?

So, again, can she or can't she lead the praying, praising, and preaching? I would assume you'd say "No." BUT my question is wouldn't this be a contradiction?

 

[Davidius]

I wonder how long we can keep this thread going.

 

[elnwood]

No, the burden of proof is on those who insist that God has commanded the identification of other "psalms" and the subsequent singing of them by the church. We know that the book of Psalms consists of psalms. We cannot be absolutely certain what other passages qualify as psalms. Who decides that? Where do they get the authority to make that call? You still have not proved that this is authorized, required, or commanded by God. Therefore you cannot bind men's conciences to sing them. That would be implicit faith.

Jaybird, do you even know what a psalm is? A psalm is a type of song. Strong's defines psalmos primarily as "a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode." As I noted, when the bible means from the Psalms or from the book of Psalms, it says so, but it doesn't in these passages. To assume that Ephesians 5:18 Colossians 3:16 means specifically the Psalter is just poor exegesis.

When the bible commands that we pray, we don't ask what qualifies as a prayer. Should we only pray the Lord's Prayer, because we cannot be absolutely certain what qualifies as a prayer? No! We know what a prayer is, and we know what a psalm is. We don't assume that we should only pray prayers in the canon, so why should we assume this for songs?

 

[Davidius]

Jaybird, do you even know what a psalm is? A psalm is a type of song. Strong's defines psalmos primarily as "a set piece of music, that is, a sacred ode." As I noted, when the bible means from the Psalms or from the book of Psalms, it says so, but it doesn't in these passages. To assume that Ephesians 5:18 Colossians 3:16 means specifically the Psalter is just poor exegesis.

Actually, poor exegesis is pointing at "hymns and spiritual songs" and saying "aha!" when you can't even define what those two terms are by using the analogy of faith. EPers have done real exegesis in pointing to the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint. What is a spiritual song, Don? How is it different from a hymn?

David, Asaph, and the Sons of Korah were given divine inspiration to write the 150 Psalms especially to be sung by God's people. Where in the New Testament do we get the idea that God decided to change his methodology from given inspiration to certain men to write authoritative songs for the entire church to just letting anyone write any song they want?

When the bible commands that we pray, we don't ask what qualifies as a prayer. Should we only pray the Lord's Prayer, because we cannot be absolutely certain what qualifies as a prayer? No! We know what a prayer is, and we know what a psalm is. We don't assume that we should only pray prayers in the canon, so why should we assume this for songs?

More poor exegesis. Jesus said pray like this not pray this whereas Paul said sing these songs and no where is there a command to write songs.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Jesus said pray like this not pray this whereas Paul said sing these songs and no where is there a command to write songs.

Q186.What rule hath God given for our direction in the duty of prayer?
The whole Word of God is of use to direct us in the duty of praying; (a) but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer, which our Saviour Christ taught his disciples, commonly called the Lord's Prayer. (b)
Q187.How is the Lord's Prayer to be used?
The Lord's Prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern according to which we are to make other prayers; but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer. (c)

 

[elnwood]

Actually, poor exegesis is pointing at "hymns and spiritual songs" and saying "aha!" when you can't even define what those two terms are by using the analogy of faith. EPers have done real exegesis in pointing to the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint. What is a spiritual song, Don? How is it different from a hymn?

David, Asaph, and the Sons of Korah were given divine inspiration to write the 150 Psalms especially to be sung by God's people. Where in the New Testament do we get the idea that God decided to change his methodology from given inspiration to certain men to write authoritative songs for the entire church to just letting anyone write any song they want?

More poor exegesis. Jesus said pray like this not pray this whereas Paul said sing these songs and no where is there a command to write songs.

David, I don't think you even understand my post. My argument has nothing to do with "hymns and spiritual songs." My argument is that there is no reason, other than your own presuppositions, that "psalms" in this passage is restricted to the 150 psalms. If Paul intended those passages to mean specifically the 150 Psalms, he had the Greek vocabulary to say so. But he didn't. There is no exegetical reason that those passages must mean the Psalter exclusively.

When is a psalm a psalm? Only if it is part of the canon? Are there only 150 songs ever written that are psalms?

 

[Davidius]

Q187.How is the Lord's Prayer to be used?
The Lord's Prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern according to which we are to make other prayers; but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer. (c)

Yes, I do understand that the Lord's Prayer may be used as a prayer. I was just making a point by saying that Jesus wasn't restricting us to that, whereas songs for congregational worship have, throughout redemptive history, been limited to that which God has appointed. In other words, the elements of prayer and song are governed by different statues as far as the Regulative Principle is concerned.

 

[Davidius]

David, I don't think you even understand my post. My argument has nothing to do with "hymns and spiritual songs." My argument is that there is no reason, other than your own presuppositions, that "psalms" in this passage is restricted to the 150 psalms. If Paul intended those passages to mean specifically the 150 Psalms, he had the Greek vocabulary to say so. But he didn't. There is no exegetical reason that those passages must mean the Psalter exclusively.

When is a psalm a psalm? Only if it is part of the canon? Are there only 150 songs ever written that are psalms?

A Psalm may be a general term but the question is not "how many meanings does the word 'Psalm' have?" but rather "what did Paul mean when he used those three words?" As I mentioned before, the people of God had been singing THE Psalms for generations, following God's command. Are you saying that Paul, in a quick few strokes of the pen, is completely altering the way we should understand the RPW as it relates to song by saying that we can now just sing whatever we want? The only other problem with that idea is, as I also mentioned earlier, that there is no command to write new songs. Men had been divinely appointed for this task in this task and no one, not even the Apostles, was charged with writing new works. So when Paul just says to sing certain songs you're still adding onto that your own right to write new ones. And so I think my point still stands. We know that Paul's words were used in the titles of the songs. We have apostolic example of the singing of Psalms in the New Testament. We have no new divine appointments of songwriters, nor do we have any divine command to write new songs. Your interpretation of these verses also requires a large shift in the nature and severity of God's RPW, something which I don't see any support for. So I will continue to assert that Paul is using triadic expressions to refer to the Psalms of the Bible.

 

[Davidius]

Before you pull out the "sing a new song" argument on me again, can we just call it quits on this thread?