I understand what you're saying -- but, for sake of argument, let's apply that logic to other aspects of our worship. Just as we would "pollute any song we tried to write," so we likewise pollute all our prayers and preaching. We ought not then even use uninspired prayers and uninspired preaching. But you see then, no one is willing to take it that far. So, why apply that logic to our singing?
Actually, I believe I'm simply consistently applying the EP argument to the worship element of prayer. I haven't quite seen my argument crumble yet, and there have thus far been a lot of posts on this thread.
So, the Holy Spirit does not assist us in our prayers? That's an interesting argument. Anyway, if you read Rom. 8:26 in it's context, it is clear from v. 27 that "He [the Holy Spirit] makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God." Yes, the Spirit assists us in our prayers -- but that assistance is no different in our singing. The context is showing that since we do not know what we ought to pray for, the Spirit prays on our behalf! What you're arguing here really does nothing to the essence of my argument.
Hmm. I could just as well argue that there isn't necessarily a parallel between "the word of Christ" and the "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," because I can't quite remember Christ composing any "psalms and hymns and spiritual" songs for me. (Of course I'm not denying the role of Christ's Spirit in the inspiration of all of Scripture, but you see your argument isn't absolutely necessary in the context of this verse being written in the NT.)
This connection between "Cain's unacceptable sacrifice" and "the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu" with the uninspired songs that I sing is your connection, not Scripture's connection.Please, do note: He does not say that we may sing only psalms -- in fact, Paul had written that we may sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs! (Which, by my estimation, are not psalms! And you are free to disagree.)
Which is, after all, a pure argument from silence when it comes to singing. That they prayed other words is easily answered with this: they were inspired.
That's not entirely correct.
Ministers are commanded to "preach the Word," would could be construed to mean that they must only say the inspired words of Scripture (without adding any uninspired comments). And as for prayer, we read in Luke 11:2, "So He said to them, 'When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, . . .'" This in the Greek is a direct command to say these words when we pray. Okay, so we don't have 150 to choose from as we do for singing, but nevertheless the EP argument can just as easily be applied to prayer, even though there is but 1 prayer that we are commanded to pray. 
See how you react to my argument for exclusive-Lord's-Prayer-praying? With all honesty, that's how I view exclusive-Psalm-singing -- it's just completely untenable, In my humble opinion. As much as you want to claim that singing and prayer are apples and oranges, I do believe that if you were to consistently apply your logic to other aspects of worship (like prayer, as one example) you'd end up in these knots. I could keep arguing my point, and I appreciate your interaction, but I don't believe anything's been said that proves my argument invalid thus far (you may happily believe otherwise). Anyway, I find it hard to post on a forum where at least half the people here believe that every Lord's Day I practice pure and simple idolatry merely because I sing uninspired songs (I don't claim to not be an idolater in the sense that, the Lord knows, I do sin). The EPers on this forum seem, in my opinion, to dominate in the worship forum -- everything, it seems, centers on this issue (like rubbing dirt into an open wound). It makes discussion real difficult.
Because of the way your logic went directly from God's Word regulating our "worship" to regulating our "praise"/singing, without consideration for prayer. It's no biggy, I don't think you limit worship to singing alone.
Years ago I read arguments in favor of EP -- including that red volume published by Greenville Seminary, Worship in the Presence of God (which I by and large found to be a very useful book, even if I did/do disagree with it on the point of EP). I could, of course, study the issue further (when I get the time!).
Jeff, I do believe I'd reached the purpose of my argumentation on this thread -- and I think I could keep arguing my point, but that it really wouldn't serve my purpose any longer.
Thanks, though, for your detailed response, nonetheless!
Well, this is the very attitude evident on this forum that I don't appreciate. You're right, my very goal in this argument is that we can worship the living God with the Apocrypha! Right! [Note: sarcasm.] I could just as easily say that your goal in the argument for EP is to manifest an arrogant sectarianism. I hardly believe you'd appreciate that! Anyway, just as we are not limited to inspired words in our prayers, we are not limited to inspired words in our songs -- but that hardly means we are at liberty to say anything we please in our prayers or our songs.
I have a feeling that you've missed my point entirely -- I commend to your reading ADKing's post above.
Okay, I'm sorry.
Could you explain this inconsistency? Also, in response to an earlier post of yours, could you show where the (so-called) "fact that the Psalter itself was given to be an inspired manual of praise for the church of all ages" comes from?Because of the way your logic went directly from God's Word regulating our "worship" to regulating our "praise"/singing, without consideration for prayer. It's no biggy, I don't think you limit worship to singing alone.
So, do you really only pray the Lord's Prayer?
Okay, thank you for your detailed response. I see what you are saying now, but I still don't believe it follows (if only because I believe the comparison with singing/public reading is being over-emphasized; it is clear that many of the Psalms themselves are prayers). We are not required to use inspired words in our prayers (which is what I was arguing, for sake of argument, above) -- but that does not mean we may pray in any way we please (for example, in the name of Baal). The songs that are composed for worship are likewise limited in their words, just as our prayers ought to be based on God's Word. I realize you disagree (in regards to our liberty of composing songs), but I do not believe it is logically necessary to conclude that then "one may as well argue for the use of the Apocrypha in reading as argue for the use of man made hymns for singing" (I do see, though, how you could conclude such if you suppose singing were like public reading--but then what is your argument from Scripture that singing ought to be compared to the public reading of God's Word instead of prayer?).
The inconsistency I find to be in the parallel with prayer. It is argued that in prayer we have freedom of composition, then why not in praise? But the parallel is seen to be irrelevant when we look at public reading, where we acknowledge we do not have freedom of composition, but are bound to canonicity. Now praise more resembles public reading than public prayer because praise requires a set form, whereas prayer does not. It then comes down to a question of whose forms we are going to utilise. And it is in that context that I say, one may as well argue for the use of the Apocrypha in reading as argue for the use of man made hymns for singing.
Well, you claimed that it was a "fact" that it's the song-book for the "church of all ages" -- but that cannot possibly be true, unless you're going to believe Adam, Abraham, etc., had access to this book of songs (as a side note: did these men, and other patriarchs, sing to the Lord? We have nothing to suggest that they did not do so -- if they did, they certainly didn't sing the Psalms of David). Anyway, as I see it, the mere historical account doesn't prove the "fact"-ness of your statement.
I would argue in the very same way I would against the position of exclusive psalmody -- it's simply an overly "rigorist" application of the RPW. That was, in fact, the whole point of this thread! If you consistently apply a rigorist application of the RPW (such as is done in exclusive psalmody) to other aspects of worship, you end up with these strained arguments. No one honestly believes we ought to limit our praying to the Lord's Prayer -- so why would anyone believe we ought to limit our singing to the Psalms? That was my argument.
Well, I don't see that argument in the pages of Scripture -- nor do I believe that to be a good and necessary consequence from Scripture. That the psalms themselves are forms of prayer seem to me an adequate response to your claim that singing is more like public reading than prayer. Even so, why not apply your logic consistently to the entire "form" of the order of worship?
If that were the case, I fail to see why that "binding nature" doesn't likewise apply to the command to pray the Lord's Prayer. It seems to me advocates of exclusive psalmody fail to apply their logic to other aspects of worship, and that in itself is sufficient cause for me not to adhere to EP.
I would argue in the very same way I would against the position of exclusive psalmody -- it's simply an overly "rigorist" application of the RPW. That was, in fact, the whole point of this thread! If you consistently apply a rigorist application of the RPW (such as is done in exclusive psalmody) to other aspects of worship, you end up with these strained arguments. No one honestly believes we ought to limit our praying to the Lord's Prayer -- so why would anyone believe we ought to limit our singing to the Psalms? That was my argument.
I would argue in the very same way I would against the position of exclusive psalmody -- it's simply an overly "rigorist" application of the RPW. That was, in fact, the whole point of this thread! If you consistently apply a rigorist application of the RPW (such as is done in exclusive psalmody) to other aspects of worship, you end up with these strained arguments. No one honestly believes we ought to limit our praying to the Lord's Prayer -- so why would anyone believe we ought to limit our singing to the Psalms? That was my argument.
