panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
They started it!!!!
Praise Worship
- Thread starter Blue Tick
- Start date
- Status
Davidius
Inactive User
I come from the same kind of church! This is one reason why the RPW has become so dear to me. I'm sure you understand very well.
Davidius
Inactive User
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Such is inevitable when considering the acceptability of Praise songs. The EP discussion is not off topic because that argument is at the heart of the praise song issue. If uninspired song is permissible in church then how can praise songs not be permitted? By what standard do we allow How Great Thou Art but not Holy is the Lord?
If by the "heart of the praise song issue" you mean EP's don't have to answer the question, then I agree.
Carry on; don't mind me; I'm a grump today.
Carry on; don't mind me; I'm a grump today.
gwine
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks for the article. If I may summarize the last part it seems to be saying that those who think The Psalms should only be sung in a "wooden format" are the ones who are rejecting EP and using this as a counter argument. But this doesn't answer my questions: If it is permissible to sing The Psalms in the common language, then why can't we sing any part of Scripture?
RPW : If A is not commanded then it is forbidden.
Christian liberty : If A is not forbidden then it is allowed.
Your statement : If A is commanded then B is forbidden.
Setting aside for now whether your premise is true (If EP is prescribed for song), can you give me the Scriptural justification for your statment (If EP is prescribed for song everything else is proscribed)? I am having trouble both with the Scriptural references and with the broader everything else catagory, since your statement doesn't follow how I understood the RPW.
And so, to repeat myself, again, I would still like an answer to my questions about the WCF XVI-6.
Would you consider worship a good work? And if so would not the singing of Scripture (including the Psalms) be a sincere effort to please God?
gwine
Puritan Board Sophomore
Actually I might be fine with not allowing either if neither song was taken from a Scripture passage(s) or a reasonable paraphrase of such. Saying "the Lord reigns" ten times in a praise song is not scriptural, in my opinion. Reading Scripture is reading the inspired word of God. Singing Scripture is singing the inspired word of God.
To clarify then, since according to EPs, the element of public worship is singing of psalms, singing anything else is proscribed, in accordance with the RPW.
If singing of psalms is the element of worship God has commanded, singing something else in worship is not in accordance with what God has commanded in his word for his public worship; first paragraph of WCF 16. It could not be a good work to use other scripture for worship song that has not been prescribed for that purpose.
If singing of psalms is the element of worship God has commanded, singing something else in worship is not in accordance with what God has commanded in his word for his public worship; first paragraph of WCF 16. It could not be a good work to use other scripture for worship song that has not been prescribed for that purpose.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, I think this is a fair statement and is why the EP vs. IP or “No P” issue is very relevant to the Praise Song question. Basically, we must insist that the issue should come up when discussing the permissibility of praise songs especially if we are confessional.
Davidius
Inactive User
The justification for everything else be proscribed if EP is prescribed comes from the foundational verses for understanding the RPW, like Deuteronomy 4:2...
And in another place:
We are neither to add to nor take away from what God has commanded us. Whenever God has given instruction in worship He has always been careful to make sure to remind us that we cannot add to what He has prescribed. This is why Nadab and Abihu were consumed with fire...
Forgive me if you know all of this already, but this is what it seemed like you were asking.
We have discussed how, using the analogy of faith, the "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" listed in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 could easily be referring to the Psalms of David, since these terms all appear in the titles of the Psalms in the Septuagint, the version of the OT that Paul quoted from. It would be considered a form of triadic expression: three words grouped together but meaning the same thing (e.g. the kind of expressions that our found sometimes in the bible like "commandments, statutes and precepts" and "sin, iniquity and transgressions). Since the bible is to be the source of authority for all of our understanding of redemption and worship, we have asked those who do not hold to EP to explain, using the same analogy of faith, what a "hymn" or a "spiritual song" might be other than the Psalms of David & Asaph. No one has even attempted to do so. The only responses we've gotten in this vein are vague assertions and reading-in of modern day definitions of "hymn" into the biblical text. If it cannot be proven from scripture that these two words mean "uninspired compositions" then we should only sing from the large, wonderful Hymnal that God himself has put right smack dab in the middle of our bibles and then commanded us to sing.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Ok - to boil this down to burden of proof requirements:
New song is commanded first chronologically in the Psalms.
If the EP rationale is to hold that the "new song" were the Psalms alone, then they must also reconcile at least 3 things:
1. New does not mean new as in brand new or substantially different from earlier types.
2. The reiterated command in Isaiah to sing a new song is not truly new songs - He is referring to the Psalms.
3. The supporting fact that there will be new song in Heaven.
Reference verses
If these cannot be absolutely reconciled - the psalms, hymns, spiritual songs "stacking" rationale is moot.
New song is commanded first chronologically in the Psalms.
If the EP rationale is to hold that the "new song" were the Psalms alone, then they must also reconcile at least 3 things:
1. New does not mean new as in brand new or substantially different from earlier types.
2. The reiterated command in Isaiah to sing a new song is not truly new songs - He is referring to the Psalms.
3. The supporting fact that there will be new song in Heaven.
Reference verses
If these cannot be absolutely reconciled - the psalms, hymns, spiritual songs "stacking" rationale is moot.
Last edited:
Lauren Mary
Puritan Board Freshman
For one of the better, more solidly Bible-based discussions out there cautioning about contemporary worship, I recommend reading "Worship in Melting Pot" by Peter Masters.
Amazon.com: Worship in the Melting Pot: Books: Peter Masters
Blessings all for 2007.
Amazon.com: Worship in the Melting Pot: Books: Peter Masters
Blessings all for 2007.
Davidius
Inactive User
Is the New Covenant "brand new or completely original"? If "new song" means what you say it means, why didn't the Apostles, who were the ones who would've had the same inspiration that David had, write any new songs? Why don't we have any evidence of hymnals from the primitive church? If God gave David and Asaph divine inspiration to write the Psalms and if the Psalms aren't adequate for New Covenant worship, it seems as though God would have inspired the Apostles to write a new divine hymnbook for the New Covenant. I know this is conjecture, but really.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The "completely original" is probably a bit hyperbolic, though accurate in the new context - I am going to refine my words - back in a sec.
...
Done, now I want to interact with your post...
Last edited:
gwine
Puritan Board Sophomore
Maybe my attempt to do so isn't obvious. Why can we not sing other Scripture? Are they not inspired? Could they not be the other hymns that Paul talks about?
I see the argument that if EP is commanded then nothing else is allowed in the same vein as the argument going on in the baptism thread. It is asserted there that just because adult baptism is commanded (repent and be baptized) it does not mean that infants are forbidden to be baptized. Maybe you will say that the first concerns the RPW and the second doesn't, and if so I don't know what to say, since I'm already out of my league. I am just trying to understand each of these topics (EP, baptism, head coverings, etc.) and find myself amazed that there are so many on each side.
But I thank you for attempting to enlighten me.
Davidius
Inactive User
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I agree with you that I was being hyperbolic - I modified it to "substantially different from the original" to take that into account - and yes, the new covenant is substantially different from the old.
Maybe they did - maybe God did not want them preserved because He wanted new songs written to His glory.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Cooper's rule - When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense
Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying, " Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
Revelation 14:3
And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth.
You are right - I should have said - the supporting fact that new songs will be sung in Heaven - I was asserting that these songs were for worship, but it seemed to make plain sense to me that they were.
And I know that we aren't in Heaven now, but I believe we are to live as if we were.
Davidius
Inactive User
I know where you're coming from, friend. Your inquisitiveness is great. I was in the very same spot not too long ago, trying to sort this all out for myself. I came out of a charismatic congregation where anything was acceptable and when I first was introduced to the RPW it was a very new concept but very refreshing and very much a blessing.
As to your comment regarding EP and Baptism, the difference for Infant Baptism is that we do we have a command to place the sign of the Covenant of Grace on our children in Genesis 17. Your quote of Paul singing hymns is fine but that still doesn't tell us what a "hymn" is according to the bible.
For instance, Jesus and his disciples are quoting as having sung a "hymn" before taking the Passover together.
It is almost universally agreed that the "Hallel Psalms" are being referred to here when it says that they sung a hymn (literally "they hymned"). The Hallel Psalms were a group of psalms, 113-118 to be exact, which were commonly sung by the Jews at events like Passover and Pentecost.
http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/504/hallel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallel
If they really were singing the Hallel Psalms, which is very likely, then this is another example of the word "hymn" being used with reference to Psalms.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Almost universally agreed...particularly by proponents of EP...
Not mocking, just pointing out that there is some presuppositional bias there...
Davidius
Inactive User
Almost universally agreed...particularly by proponents of EP...
Not mocking, just pointing out that there is some presuppositional bias there...
I purposefully provided links that were not from EP websites because I knew you would say something like that.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
CarolinaCalvinist said:
Just for the record - and I know we have ranged pretty far from the OP - I resonate with this experience very much, as I came from a tradition bound, doctrinally non-existent, Arminian based background. When I began to understand Reformed doctrine, I was overjoyed to understand that there could be consistent application of God's word to God's worship and to life overall!
What I have found, however, is that there seems to be a tendency to move from licentiousness in doctrine or worship and overcompensate toward legalism, when we should be embracing Christian liberty. ("his yoke is easy and his burden is light")
That is to say - careful freedom or bounded freedom - it is not an oxymoron. The Lord gives us liberty through Christ, and we have now become slaves to righteousness, so our good work is to seek to obey, while not becoming slaves to man-made principles.
It is late and I am sleepy, so I hope this makes sense...
Davidius
Inactive User
EP is actually quite freeing. Never again will I have to look back with regret on having sung a song for so long only to come to realize that it teaches bad doctrine. Never again will I have to wonder if the songs I'm currently singing are acceptable to God and whether they contain any error. I still try to remain as exegetical as possible with my arguments for it instead of basing it just on a benefit like that, but I just wanted to point out that it's not a burdensome, legalistic thing.
Kaalvenist
Puritan Board Sophomore
And as I said in my article that I submitted to examination (remember that?), I have checked between two and three dozen commentators on Matthew (26:30) and Mark (14:26), and they unanimously affirm this to be a reference to the Hallel Psalms. Only a few of these men held to exclusive psalmody (and in some of those cases, whether or not they held to exclusive psalmody is a subject hotly debated). J.D., do you know of even one commentator who asserts that they did not sing the Hallel Psalms? I would be interested to find out (in order to give more fullness to my examination).Almost universally agreed...particularly by proponents of EP...
Not mocking, just pointing out that there is some presuppositional bias there...
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
Last edited:
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Well met! And I am certainly not trying to bind your conscience that it is - how can it be a burden when you seek only to do God's will guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit? I do not condemn, I exhort!
My point is, when we get to the point we begin to prescribe EP as the only acceptable form of musical worship so that we condemn other's worship outside of EP as sin, then I believe that is legalistic. There is just not a strong enough case to make such a strong claim.
I will concede that there is a good case for EP as a "safe" option, if one is constraining themselves to a very reductionary sense of musical worship and "new" song, but I also believe that there is a strong case for imitative creativity of the Divine (Gen 1:1) (Eph 5:1) and a mandate and liberty to sing new song in that context when it is bounded by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. That is foundational to my systematic in this area.
I also apply the context of the parable of talents - that God has entrusted some with talents in the contemporary usage of the term to glorify God in worship, feed the sheep, equip the saints, as well as welcome in the stranger (Mat. 25:35) in the context of the Great Commission.
I also apply the mandate "Test everything, keep the good" (1Thes. 5:21) in this context by carefully examining the content of any element of worship that I have stewardship of to insure it's appropriateness in worship.
Do I do this perfectly? No, but I do it in the full confidence that my paltry efforts will be acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Just as you can be assured of the same through EP.
Grace and Peace, my brother!
-JD
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
An additional thought:
I believe that the resonance to EP, particularly to those who come to the Reformed faith from a non-Reformed background, is a reaction to the widespread lack of a consistent systematic in the area of musical worship, just as the (my!) resonance to expository preaching as opposed to the non-systematic, topical approach taken by many (most?) non-Reformed preachers.
I believe that the resonance to EP, particularly to those who come to the Reformed faith from a non-Reformed background, is a reaction to the widespread lack of a consistent systematic in the area of musical worship, just as the (my!) resonance to expository preaching as opposed to the non-systematic, topical approach taken by many (most?) non-Reformed preachers.
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
Davidius
Inactive User
There has never been room for the creativity of man in divine worship. We shouldn't take scriptures that have nothing to do with worship out of context and ruin God's RPW.
- Status
