Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua  Evie, please forgive me. I'm back and forth between the PB and doing other things, so maybe I'm quiet confused. What I'm saying (and please forgive me if you already know this and I'm just an idiot) is that if the non EPer believes that Eph. 5 and Col. 3 include the Psalter and non-Canonical Hymns, then he shouldn't be okay with a church that sings only the Psalms. So, I wasn't really trying to argue EP so much as I'm trying to understand how the non EPer, in good conscience, could say that he would be okay with singing only the Psalms, in light of the fact that He believes the RPW and believes that non-Canonical hymns are authorized (thus commanded) in worship. |
I see what you are saying. If psalms = the psalter and hymns and songs = something else, then clearly, we are commanded to sing both songs that are part of the psalter
and songs that are not. I am just arguing that psalms, hymns, and songs could consist of
both inspired and uninspired songs. It is clear, as I understand it, that certain of the psalms are labeled as hymns and songs. If so, a non-EPer could consider that
either an inspired hymn or song (from the psalter) or a non-inspired song could fulfill the commandment. But maybe no non-EPer actually thinks this!