A few other queries for IP folks: what is y'all's take on Hebrews 2:12, quoting Psalm 22:22- "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise (hymneo) unto thee." And Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26: "And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives" (this of course would have been part of the singing of Psalms 113-118 and Psalm 136).
In those two passages "hymneo" describes Christ singing the Psalms, and also describes the singing of Christ in the church following his resurrection and ascension; so certainly, singing the word of God. Do you think this adds weight to taking "hymneo" in the Ephesians and Colossians passages as meaning inspired song?
What do you believe about Christ being in the midst of his gathered church during public worship, as far as singing praise- how do you take Psalm 22:22 and Hebrews 2:12? If you believe he is present as song leader, will he sing the uninspired words of men?
Many scholars are absolutely convinced that Jesus and the disciples sang from Psalm 113-118 and Psalm 136. I wonder what makes them so certain. It is certainly a possibility. But basing the definition of hymneo on an assumption of what they "must have been singing" seems quite tottery to me. Jeri, also, you seem to be doing the whole shifting argument thing again (which you have done before). Are you arguing for Psalms only, or for inspired words only? They are not the same. The first paragraph seems to argue EP, but then you bring in the "inspired song" or "uninspired words" in your second and third paragraph. I have argued that "hymn" refers to more than the Psalms. I have not argued that "hymn" by itself necessarily refers to uninspired words in the Bible. I believe that psalmos does (Psalm 151). The various uses of hymn in the OT refer to more than the Psalter. I would have to do more research to see if hymnos ever refers to freshly composed non-inspired hymns. On what basis are non-Psalmic inspired texts excluded from singing in public worship, when Paul uses three words associated with many texts of the Bible, not just the Psalms? Here, at this point in the argument, I am not arguing for uninspired words, only against EP. I think EP advocates need to recognize that the inspired words position is just as much opposed to EP as it is to the IP position. That is one point I desire to make crystal clear. I get the strong impression that EP folk tend to think that the inspired word position is tantamount to their position. It really isn't.
Not to beat a twice dead horse, but again this is not the regulative principle. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that hymnos has a semantic use limited to 'inspired song'. But that is not the question. The question is how is Paul and others using the term. Do we have clear warrant from the text of scripture that 'hymn' necessitates using uninspired songs? And if the command is merely to 'sing praise' in the general without any specific content, then is it wrong to never sing a psalm? (as is the practice of broad evangelicalism).
Hymnos is not the only word under discussion. Your argument here seems to assume that if you can prove that hymnos only refers to inspired song, then that plus the RPW settles it. But we have many words as titles in the psalms. And we have psalmos and odais in Paul's letters. At best your argument could only prove the inspired words only position, not EP. Paul commands the church in Colossians 3:16 to sing psalmoi. That would include the Psalter. I don't know of anyone who would claim that the Psalter is excluded from what Paul says. Therefore we can safely say that Paul commands the singing of the Psalter. Therefore evangelicals are wrong who never sing it. However, I would certainly dispute the claim that the three terms Paul uses refer only to the Psalms (arguing here against EP). In arguing for IP, I would also argue that psalmos, if it refers to the Septuagint Psalter (which most EPers argue), cannot be excluded from referring to Psalm 151, which has psalmos in the title, and was regarded as part of the LXX Psalter. Therefore, that offers clear evidence that Paul commanded non-inspired praise in worship.
This is not strictly a reply to you brother, but I think the point is often missed. EPers do not go to Col. 3 and Eph. 5 to prove Exclusive Psalmody - in fact we don't really go anywhere to 'prove EP'; we don't need to as we have the RPW as a principle. We go to clear passages to prove the singing of Psalms and are unconvinced that disputed passages such as Col. 3 and Eph. 5 provide an indisputable warrant for singing uninspired songs.
I have seen MANY EPers go to Col 3 and Eph 5 as at least one argument in their position. That being said, I agree that Col 3 and Eph 5 do not prove EP. And, as others have said, if the semantic range of the three terms Paul uses cannot be limited to the Psalms, then the EP position is actually refuted, since Paul doesn't refer to "only certain" psalms, hymns, and odes. There is nothing in the text restricting the semantic range of Paul's usage only to the Psalms. This means that anything called by these three words (such as the Song of Moses) falls within Paul's semantic usage at this point. Now this point wouldn't automatically refute the inspired words only position, only EP. So, to respond to my argument here by saying "But Paul is only referring to inspired words" will miss my point and not answer my argument. Because that is where many EP'ers will doubtless want to go.
The RPW does not automatically prove the EP position. This needs to be clearly contested, as it has already been on the thread quite cogently. If Paul doesn't mean just the Psalter in Col 3 and Eph 5, and if those two passages include worship within their purview, then we have clear warrant for material beyond the Psalter to be sung in worship. Again, this would only (at this point) refute the EP position and prove that other positions fall within the RPW. Another step would be needed to prove the IP position. I think it would be nice if EP'ers and inspired-words only people would acknowledge that the IP position and certain others can be consistent with the RPW, and that I, for one, do not jettison the RPW at all. As has been said in the thread above, the question is not whether one needs a biblical mandate for something in worship. Of course we do. That is the RPW. If it is not mandated, it is forbidden. The question is simply this: what has been mandated? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that some EPers are confusing semantic boundaries with RPW boundaries. Some seem to be saying something like this: "Well, although the words psalmos, hymnos, and odais can mean more than the Psalms, it still has to be proven that Paul actually included non-Psalmic material when he said those things." Then, when someone says "but there is no restriction on the semantic usage in Paul," the response is, "But that's not the RPW." This confuses semantic range with the RPW. If Paul had wanted to restrict his terminology to the Psalms, then he could have picked a much clearer way of doing it. He could have said "sing the book of Psalms to each other." As I noted above, the Psalter has many titles in usage, some of them used much more often than the hymnos term. Therefore, it is not clear at all that Paul limited this to the Psalms. It is much more probable that anything that went by the titles and is biblical in content is what is meant.
I believe such a step exists when exploring the idea of the whole counsel of God and the word-concept distinction. For any statement to be biblical, it has to accord with the teaching of the Bible. I can talk about the Trinity as a biblical concept, even though the word "Trinity" does not occur in Scripture. I can say that justification involves the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ, and be perfectly biblical, even though the Bible doesn't use the terms "active and passive". The Bible teaches it. Therefore, non-inspired hymnody can be perfectly biblical if its
meaning is biblical. The line therefore between inspired and uninspired is not as hard and fast as some seem to think. Consider, for example, the Second Helvetic Confession's take on preaching. The preaching of the Word IS the Word, provided the sermon is biblical in content, and to the extent that it is biblical in content. The same is true of the confessions of the church. This is not to say they are infallible. There is still a distinction between the infallible inspired text and fallible uninspired summaries. From where I stand, the EP and inspired words only position commit the word-concept fallacy by saying that the Bible mandates only its own ipsissima verba words in praise (but not in prayer, which hard and fast distinction falls foul of the six Psalms that are prayers as noted above). The Bible and the Reformed Confessions do not draw the line between ipsissima verba and faithful summaries in preaching, or in prayer, or in confession of faith, or in benedictions, or greetings. But when it comes to praise, all of a sudden, ipsissima verb kicks in with regard to the EP and inspired words only positions, and the principle of the whole counsel of God is completely jettisoned. This does not seem to me to be in harmony with the Reformed understanding of how the message of the Bible works. In short, it appears to be biblicistic to me. The only answers I have seen to this argument are exceedingly tenuous as to their biblical validity, with an accompanying over-confidence in what is clear usually attending it.
