The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > The Church > Worship > A capella Exclusive Psalmody


A capella Exclusive Psalmody Sub-forum dedicated to the discussion of non-instrumental worship and the exclusive use of the Psalms per the Reformed Confessions. Participants are reminded to be respectful of the Reformed Confessions and to avoid ad hominem labels of Pharisaism simply because a brother is more scrupulous.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 02:23 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
EP, Split Thread From "What shall we sing?"

And how does one determine how much (or little) of a Psalm is acceptable to sing? I am thinking Psalm 119 - I assume no one actually sings the the whole thing at one time.
__________________
-JD
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 02:51 PM
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,956
Thanks: 906
Thanked 820 Times in 504 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
And how does one determine how much (or little) of a Psalm is acceptable to sing? I am thinking Psalm 119 - I assume no one actually sings the the whole thing at one time.
Well, since ministers are commanded to preach the Word and this doesn't entail reading entire chapters or entire books at a time (even though this obviously can be done), I would infer that the command to sing Psalms does not require singing the entire Psalm every time.
__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 03:19 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
So, based on your logic - a contemporary praise and worship song that contains some portion of the text of a Psalm is an appropriate expression of Psalmody?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 03:21 PM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
And how does one determine how much (or little) of a Psalm is acceptable to sing? I am thinking Psalm 119 - I assume no one actually sings the the whole thing at one time.
Well, since ministers are commanded to preach the Word and this doesn't entail reading entire chapters or entire books at a time (even though this obviously can be done), I would infer that the command to sing Psalms does not require singing the entire Psalm every time.
I think Davidus has just pointed out the difference between a circumstance of worship (how much of a psalm is sung) and an element of worship (what is sung).
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 03:35 PM
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,956
Thanks: 906
Thanked 820 Times in 504 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
So, based on your logic - a contemporary praise and worship song that contains some portion of the text of a Psalm is an appropriate expression of Psalmody?
No, according to my argument it would be as wrong to mix a portion of a Psalm with our own song as it would be to mix in a passage of Joe Schmoe with the book of Hebrews.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 03:55 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
To follow your logic - then preaching the Word of God should be exclusively the Word of God - no mixture of Joe Schmoe's interpretation of the Word?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 04:13 PM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
To follow your logic - then preaching the Word of God should be exclusively the Word of God - no mixture of Joe Schmoe's interpretation of the Word?
That is not what he is saying; God has established different rules for the different parts of worship. EP people do not believe that only inspired words should be used in worship, but that only inspired words should be used in singing. Why do we believe that uninspired words may be used in preaching and prayer? Because we believe that there is Biblical warrant for this in these elements of worship. However, we do not believe the there is Scriptural warrant for uninspired words in the elements of reading the word and singing.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 04:35 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
Thanks, Daniel - I am fairly familiar with the tenets of EP , just continuing to poke at the logic/rationale.

To wit: There are 3 forms of verbal expression in worship -

Preaching - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words

Praying - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words

and...

Singing

I have trouble following the logical progression that God allows 2 elements to be expressed with uninspired words and not the third.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 04:48 PM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
Thanks, Daniel - I am fairly familiar with the tenets of EP , just continuing to poke at the logic/rationale.

To wit: There are 3 forms of verbal expression in worship -

Preaching - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words

Praying - which may blend Scripture with uninspired words

and...

Singing

I have trouble following the logical progression that God allows 2 elements to be expressed with uninspired words and not the third.
What about reading? May we blend uninspired words with inspired word when reading the Scriptures?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 05:15 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
Good question! I have heard it done to add clarity to the Scripture being read or to draw particular attention to a certain portion of the reading. Is there a positive command requiring the uninterrupted reading of Scripture?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 05:42 PM
Joshua's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,425
Blog Entries: 39
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 6,138 Times in 2,590 Posts
Moved Posts, after Split.
__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows....
God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to Joshua For This Useful Post:
jaybird0827 (02-23-2008)
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 06:56 PM
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,566
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
Good question! I have heard it done to add clarity to the Scripture being read or to draw particular attention to a certain portion of the reading. Is there a positive command requiring the uninterrupted reading of Scripture?
Quote:
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 1 Timothy 4:13
Moreover, if you read the account of Christ preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30) reading and preaching are distinguished. Indeed, in the passage Christ hands back the scroll which he was reading from to the attendant, and then starts preaching, thus clearly distinguishing between these two elements of worship.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 07:01 PM
KMK's Avatar
KMK KMK is offline.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wrightwood, CA
Posts: 8,606
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 3,597
Thanked 1,318 Times in 758 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
And how does one determine how much (or little) of a Psalm is acceptable to sing? I am thinking Psalm 119 - I assume no one actually sings the the whole thing at one time.
I think I remember an EPer saying that they do sing 119 in entirety. I cannot remember who it was...
__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 07:21 PM
ChristopherPaul's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 2,496
Thanks: 245
Thanked 166 Times in 101 Posts
I may be mistaken but I don't think the temple worship included a full singing (or chanting) of Psalm 119 in its entirety. It is originally broken up into sections.
__________________
Christopher Reeder
Husband to Kara, Father to Abigail (8), Caleb (7), Grace (5 1/2), Zoë (4), Elijah (2), Hannah (1), and Mary (due February 2010)

Member: Pilgrim Presbyterian Church (OPC), Raleigh, NC
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 09:11 PM
Semper Fidelis's Avatar
Dux Tyrranus
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northern Virgnia
Posts: 17,826
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 2,448
Thanked 6,035 Times in 2,448 Posts
J.D.,

I've certainly read Psalm 119 in its entirety in one sitting several times. It took less than the 45 minutes it used to take to sing about 5 songs in a Contemporary worship service. Seriously, I attended a Charismatic Church in Manassas where I used to think: "When are we going to stop singing this song." We would dwell on a single song with about 5 verses for about 10 minutes. It drove me nuts.

In reference to your original question and follow on points, I think you need to reckon with something that you're not noticing about Contemporary Worship songs and their use of the Psalms. They are tremendously imbalanced. Now this is not an argument for EP per se or an argument against the idea that a Contemporary rendition of the Psalms is possible but it is something you need to think about.

What do I mean?

Well, they leave the Psalms of lament relatively untouched. They leave Psalms like Psalm 2 untouched by and large except to pull out the parts they like. It's sort of like modern hymn singing of certain songs where the Cantor ahead of time says: "We're singing verse 1,2, and 4." Surprise, verse 3 is the verse that has the information about Sin and the Curse.

Even the Psalms that modern praise choruses pick out are imbalanced in their presentation. They sing Law essentially. I am indebted to Mike Horton for pointing this out on WHI once and he is spot on.

What do they quote:
"I will praise you...."
"I will worship...."
"I will bow down...."

Are those bad ideas? No. But the choruses leave out the introduction to the Psalm where the works of God for His people are being called to mind. They leave out all the "Gospel indicatives" of the mighty arm of the Lord and prefer to just sing about the response of the person to them.

Why? Because in doing so, most praise chorus writers are reflecting the "purpose driven" culture that ignore the Promises of God and the deeds of God and want to focus on what we will do for Him. They want to sing of the Law we we will be performing. Thus, Praise Choruses actually end up changing the theology of the Psalms themselves in some cases during the response of Gospel into the deeds of the flesh.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Semper Fidelis For This Useful Post:
ChristopherPaul (02-23-2008), Davidius (02-23-2008), DMcFadden (02-24-2008), jaybird0827 (02-25-2008), Jeff_Bartel (02-24-2008), Seb (02-23-2008)
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:00 PM
Joshua's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,425
Blog Entries: 39
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 6,138 Times in 2,590 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
I have trouble following the logical progression that God allows 2 elements to be expressed with uninspired words and not the third.
But I assume the EP advocate would say that they're not operating according to human logic; rather, by imperative command. We see examples of Christians both preaching and praying in manners other than Scripture verbatim. They were commanded to pray like this, etc. However, there are no examples of Christians singing "uninspired" hymnody; rather, only the hymns found in the Psalter.

This is something with which I am still struggling a bit; however, due to my current circumstance it is practically irrelevant. I don't see how using the "if you may only sing the Psalms (i.e. inspired words), then you may only preach inspired words and pray inspired prayers," argument is effective, because the fact is we have examples in scripture of the latter, but not the former.

Praise is something in which the whole congregation must actively and collectively participate in. Thus, it seems to follow that allowing for uninspired hymns in stated worship invites chaos (of which we see the fruits--some want "contemporary," others "traditional," so on and so forth).

Anyway, as noted, this is something I'm still working through...and am by no means trying come across as dogmatic, etc. It's just not as clear cut to me as it seems to be to other non-EPers. I look forward to the day when Rev. Winzer and Pastor Webb have the PB EP Debate. Goin' back to my corner.

Last edited by Joshua; 02-23-2008 at 10:23 PM. Reason: typos
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to Joshua For This Useful Post:
ChristopherPaul (02-23-2008)
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:17 PM
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,956
Thanks: 906
Thanked 820 Times in 504 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
I have trouble following the logical progression that God allows 2 elements to be expressed with uninspired words and not the third.
But I assume the EP advocate would say that they're not operating according to human logic; rather, by imperative command. We see examples of Christians both preaching and praying in manners other than Scripture verbatim. They were commanded to pray like this, etc. However, there are no examples of Christians singing "uninspired" hymodly; rather, only the hymns.
Thanks, Josh. I have only a coupe things to add/modify. It's not that we're rejecting "human logic" against some "divine logic" that works differently, unless by "human logic" one merely means man's tainted faculty which wants to do things its own way. The fact of the matter is that there's nothing illogical about God regulating the several elements of worship differently.

There is no formal "logical progression" involved in saying that God regulates singing differently from preaching or reading. No one arrived at this conclusion by making three deductions which all rely on each other. Each conclusion (i.e. regulations for each element of worship) is deduced individually from the premise of the RPW. We sing the Psalms, we read the Word, and we preach a sermon because these are the commands given in scripture. JD is certainly free to say that he just doesn't like this. Indeed, it is natural for man to not like God's way of doing things. But that's something different from saying that some kind of logical fallacy is involved.

Last edited by Davidius; 02-23-2008 at 10:41 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:29 PM
ChristopherPaul's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 2,496
Thanks: 245
Thanked 166 Times in 101 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua View Post
Praise is something in which the whole congregation must actively and collectively participate in. Thus, it seems to follow that allowing for uninspired hymns in stated worship invites chaos (of which we see the fruits--some want "contemporary," others "traditional," so on and so forth).
Josh brings up a good point here. In the case where reading, preaching, and praying are done in worship, these are done by the ordained minister who is in fact speaking on behalf of Christ Himself (although not inspired). See Luke 10:16, Romans 10:14, 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Hebrews 2:11.

But when it comes to the part of the worship service where the nonordained speak, they speak verbatim from the word of God. Only those who God calls to such offices to speak on His behalf may part from scripture in order to guide the flock.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:39 PM
R Harris's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 399
Thanks: 131
Thanked 197 Times in 89 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua View Post
Praise is something in which the whole congregation must actively and collectively participate in. Thus, it seems to follow that allowing for uninspired hymns in stated worship invites chaos (of which we see the fruits--some want "contemporary," others "traditional," so on and so forth).
Josh brings up a good point here. In the case where reading, preaching, and praying are done in worship, these are done by the ordained minister who is in fact speaking on behalf of Christ Himself (although not inspired). See Luke 10:16, Romans 10:14, 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Hebrews 2:11.

But when it comes to the part of the worship service where the nonordained speak, they speak verbatim from the word of God. Only those who God calls to such offices to speak on His behalf may part from scripture in order to guide the flock.

Hmmmmm . . . interesting points, I had not seen this presented in all of my studies of EP. If it has been presented, I obviously glossed over it.
__________________
Randy Harris
Heritage PCA Church
Oklahoma City, OK
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:42 PM
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,956
Thanks: 906
Thanked 820 Times in 504 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua View Post
Praise is something in which the whole congregation must actively and collectively participate in. Thus, it seems to follow that allowing for uninspired hymns in stated worship invites chaos (of which we see the fruits--some want "contemporary," others "traditional," so on and so forth).
Josh brings up a good point here. In the case where reading, preaching, and praying are done in worship, these are done by the ordained minister who is in fact speaking on behalf of Christ Himself (although not inspired). See Luke 10:16, Romans 10:14, 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Hebrews 2:11.

But when it comes to the part of the worship service where the nonordained speak, they speak verbatim from the word of God. Only those who God calls to such offices to speak on His behalf may part from scripture in order to guide the flock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harris View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua View Post
Praise is something in which the whole congregation must actively and collectively participate in. Thus, it seems to follow that allowing for uninspired hymns in stated worship invites chaos (of which we see the fruits--some want "contemporary," others "traditional," so on and so forth).
Josh brings up a good point here. In the case where reading, preaching, and praying are done in worship, these are done by the ordained minister who is in fact speaking on behalf of Christ Himself (although not inspired). See Luke 10:16, Romans 10:14, 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Hebrews 2:11.

But when it comes to the part of the worship service where the nonordained speak, they speak verbatim from the word of God. Only those who God calls to such offices to speak on His behalf may part from scripture in order to guide the flock.

Hmmmmm . . . interesting points, I had not seen this presented in all of my studies of EP. If it has been presented, I obviously glossed over it.
Makes sense to me! Don't force me to sing some overly sentimental praise chorus with questionable doctrinal content.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:53 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
Did we ever get an answer to the question about how much of a Psalm must be sung to be considered Psalmody?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 02-23-2008, 11:56 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
Quote:
But when it comes to the part of the worship service where the nonordained speak, they speak verbatim from the word of God. Only those who God calls to such offices to speak on His behalf may part from scripture in order to guide the flock.
What if a minister or officer wrote the song?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:48 AM
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2,802
Thanks: 197
Thanked 394 Times in 256 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
Did we ever get an answer to the question about how much of a Psalm must be sung to be considered Psalmody?
An observation; this is a question but really it only an issue for very very long psalms of which there are relatively few.

Psalm 119 has been divided up into stanzas by the Spirit of God and the minister would be free to choose as many or as few of these for his congregation to sing.

That there are questions to be answered here on how much of a psalm ought be sung I hope you will agree that psalms are to be sung. I think Daniel explained well that the difference is one of elements (psalm singing) and circumstances (which strophes / stanzas of the psalms).
__________________
Richard
CofE
UK
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 08:10 AM
NaphtaliPress's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 12,497
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 1,589
Thanked 2,012 Times in 1,111 Posts
This is but to follow up on this just a bit.

I was on another discussion forum and someone raised the point that Presbyterians were long resistant to things like responsive readings. So I made the point that the Westminster Standards limit the pubic reading of the Word of God in Worship to pastors and teachers and the divines never envisioned responsive readings and their doctrine precludes it (IOW they don't mention any special element of responsive reading so such would have to go under reading of the scriptures, but they limit who may do that). That was a bit more than he wanted to say, but after I made the case from the DfPW and LC156, he decided he had another exception to the Standards to take. See the proof texts on the first clause of LC156 and "Of the Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures" in the Westminster Directory for Public Worship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua View Post
Praise is something in which the whole congregation must actively and collectively participate in. Thus, it seems to follow that allowing for uninspired hymns in stated worship invites chaos (of which we see the fruits--some want "contemporary," others "traditional," so on and so forth).
Josh brings up a good point here. In the case where reading, preaching, and praying are done in worship, these are done by the ordained minister who is in fact speaking on behalf of Christ Himself (although not inspired). See Luke 10:16, Romans 10:14, 2 Corinthians 5:20 and Hebrews 2:11.

But when it comes to the part of the worship service where the nonordained speak, they speak verbatim from the word of God. Only those who God calls to such offices to speak on His behalf may part from scripture in order to guide the flock.
__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
Westminster Letter Press
The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 08:28 AM
Jeff_Bartel's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wichita, Kansas
Posts: 4,131
Thanks: 273
Thanked 200 Times in 112 Posts
I totally agree Chris and have argued this quite extensively in the past. It is very hard to convince people of this though! They usually bring up dialogical worship as a scriptural principle to be used in conjunction with the RPW.
__________________
Jeff Bartel
Mechanical Engineer
Member - Trinity Reformed Church - RPCNA

"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism" (The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 08:50 AM
NaphtaliPress's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 12,497
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 1,589
Thanked 2,012 Times in 1,111 Posts
Yes; well evidently it is easier to convince them the Westminster divines preclude it than that the standards are correct in doing so.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:05 AM
ChristopherPaul's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 2,496
Thanks: 245
Thanked 166 Times in 101 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
Quote:
But when it comes to the part of the worship service where the nonordained speak, they speak verbatim from the word of God. Only those who God calls to such offices to speak on His behalf may part from scripture in order to guide the flock.
What if a minister or officer wrote the song?
At the least all non-inspired songs should be written or approved by the ministers of the word if they are to be used in worship; however, in this case the EP proponent can argue that even if a Minister is to write a sermon or a prayer, that does not mean that the laity can read it in the assembly. The same holds true with song.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:52 AM
NaphtaliPress's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 12,497
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 1,589
Thanked 2,012 Times in 1,111 Posts
If you wish to respond about responsive readings, see this new thread.
Responsive Readings, are they Westminsterian, are they Biblical?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 07:59 PM
armourbearer's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,334
Thanks: 916
Thanked 5,328 Times in 1,952 Posts
Here is a thought or two. When one preaches or prays, no "form" is followed, because these are individual actions; the congregation judges what is being said and adds their Amen as they see fit. When the congregation sings, all sing, and so a "form" is unavoidable; there is no opportunity to judge what is being sung, and so the congregation should be convinced beforehand that what is sung is true (an argument in itself that the material sung should be inspired). From this it will be seen that singing is by very nature a different element from praying or preaching by virtue of the fact that it includes the whole congregation. If God made provision for individuals to sing, then a case might be made for following the same pattern in singing as is done for praying and preaching. As it stands, there is no such instruction to be found in the Word of God, and therefore singing must follow the specific rules provided for singing, and cannot incorporate the extempore provision made for preaching and prayer.
__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to armourbearer For This Useful Post:
Augusta (02-25-2008), jaybird0827 (02-25-2008), Joshua (02-24-2008), Pilgrim (02-25-2008), VirginiaHuguenot (02-24-2008)
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 08:01 PM
Joshua's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 22,425
Blog Entries: 39
Thanks: 2,918
Thanked 6,138 Times in 2,590 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
Here is a thought or two. When one preaches or prays, no "form" is followed, because these are individual actions; the congregation judges what is being said and adds their Amen as they see fit. When the congregation sings, all sing, and so a "form" is unavoidable; there is no opportunity to judge what is being sung, and so the congregation should be convinced beforehand that what is sung is true (an argument in itself that the material sung should be inspired). From this it will be seen that singing is by very nature a different element from praying or preaching by virtue of the fact that it includes the whole congregation. If God made provision for individuals to sing, then a case might be made for following the same pattern in singing as is done for praying and preaching. As it stands, there is no such instruction to be found in the Word of God, and therefore singing must follow the specific rules provided for singing, and cannot incorporate the extempore provision made for preaching and prayer.
Thank you, Rev. Winzer! I was attempting (poorly so) to express this with one of my earlier statements (the one that Christopher Paul quoted), but didn't really make the case.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:02 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
unless the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, in which case a new song is prescribed and may follow the rules for preaching and prayer...

1 Corinthians 14:26

26What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:17 PM
LAYMAN JOE's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 843
Thanks: 150
Thanked 66 Times in 54 Posts
JD,
You do not believe the singing of Psalms are prescribed in Scripture?
__________________
Joe
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte
SC
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:21 PM
armourbearer's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,334
Thanks: 916
Thanked 5,328 Times in 1,952 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
26What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification.
First, this is what was happening in the church of Corinth -- descriptive. But Paul tells them what to do in order to rectify this mess -- prescriptive. Secondly, Paul's measures were adapted to the continuing use of extraordinary revelation, and therefore only applicable for that situation -- the use of an extraordinary gift is no rule to an ordinary situation.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:26 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
So, say, as a cessationist, you remove the revelation and tongues part - are you saying the prescription for the descriptive action (assembly) is not relevant now for the things that remain?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:30 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAYMAN JOE View Post
JD,
You do not believe the singing of Psalms are prescribed in Scripture?
Certainly I do!

Furthermore, I believe the Psalms are prescriptive for worship. That is - all forms and elements of worship described in the Psalms not specifically revoked in the NT are allowed for the church. I believe this is in line with the RPW.

Last edited by panta dokimazete; 02-24-2008 at 09:33 PM. Reason: misused "remanded" and did not like "removed"
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:47 PM
armourbearer's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,334
Thanks: 916
Thanked 5,328 Times in 1,952 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
So, say, as a cessationist, you remove the revelation and tongues part - are you saying the prescription for the descriptive action (assembly) is not relevant now for the things that remain?
It's relevant in terms of analogous application to an ordinary situation. It isn't normative for determining what actions should take place in congregational gatherings. From the NT as a whole we see what should take place under an ordinary situation, and from 1 Cor. 14 we may deduce principles which apply to this situation; e..g., seeking to edifying others by engaging in one activity with one speaker at a time, and ensuring all communication is intelligible. That is the main thrust of the passage. Then there are other lessons to be drawn from the details of the passage; e.g., because preaching is thought to be a kind of ordinary prophesying, the rules about other prophets judging what is prophesied would also be applicable to preaching. One might also argue from the greater to the lesser: if extraordinary revelation does not give warrant to a woman to speak, then ordinary revelation less so. But the passage could only be a justification for individual singing in the situation of continuing special revelation, which I would maintain is now ceased; and in the case of 1st Corinthians we must remember that the apostle intended to set everything in a proper order when he came personally amongst them, 1 Cor. 11:34, so we should not be surprised to see him providing temporary solutions to a situation which was in complete confusion.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 02-24-2008, 10:11 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
Quote:
1 Corinthians 14:26

26What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification.

I am willing to concede that Paul was writing to correct the praxis of the Corinthians, but not the elements of assembly.

I am also willing to concede, in principle, that all elements described are not mandated for the post-apostolic church.

For those elements that remain - I believe it is substantiation to the elements of assembly and is useful in the overall praxis of church assembly.

I think it would be worthwhile to understand who the "each one" refers to in context - would that be "each one of the ordained officers" or "each and every one"?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 02-25-2008, 02:11 PM
R Harris's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 399
Thanks: 131
Thanked 197 Times in 89 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
Quote:
1 Corinthians 14:26

26What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification.
I think it would be worthwhile to understand who the "each one" refers to in context - would that be "each one of the ordained officers" or "each and every one"?
From my study of numerous authors and the Greek text, I am convinced that when Paul says "each one has a psalm," he is using the distributive case. In other words, if I look out over a congregation, and they have their psalters open to a particular Psalm, I can legitimately say "each one has a psalm."

Otherwise, IMHO, you would HAVE to cede to the observation that everyone in the congregation has made up a psalm - a highly unlikely event.

Note carefully that in all of the spiritual gifts that Paul talks about in I Corinthians chapters 12-14, there is no mention of "hymn writing" as a spiritual gift, nor any description of what a qualified "hymn writer" must have to do it for the congregation. I find that fact to be highly significant. (Note that there is no hint that the interpretations of the tongues were sung - they were spoken.)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to R Harris For This Useful Post:
ChristopherPaul (02-26-2008)
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 02-25-2008, 08:20 PM
Puritanboard Postgraduate
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 716
Thanked 420 Times in 309 Posts
I think the earlier text illuminates "each one" is not "each and every one" for each element mentioned:

Quote:
1 Cor 2:

7Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?

30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 02-25-2008, 11:49 PM
R Harris's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 399
Thanks: 131
Thanked 197 Times in 89 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
I think the earlier text illuminates "each one" is not "each and every one" for each element mentioned:

Quote:
1 Cor 2:

7Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

28And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

29All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?

30All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

Where is the "each one" in this passage?

Paul is talking about individual gifts here, while in the I Corinthians 14 passage he is talking about congregational worship in verses 25-27. Two very different things, so it would be no means be out of the question for him to use "each one" in a distributive sense. Again, I am not making this up, this sense is noted by several reformed commentators I have read.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
67 Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69