EP, Split Thread From "What shall we sing?"

[panta dokimazete]

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.

[Davidius]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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.

[panta dokimazete]

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?

[Daniel Ritchie]

Originally Posted by Davidius

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).

[Davidius]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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.

[panta dokimazete]

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?

[Daniel Ritchie]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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.

[panta dokimazete]

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.

[Daniel Ritchie]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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?

[panta dokimazete]

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?

[Joshua]

Moved Posts, after Split.

[Daniel Ritchie]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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?

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.

[KMK]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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...

[ChristopherPaul]

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.

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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.

[Davidius]

Originally Posted by joshua

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.

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally Posted by joshua

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.

[R Harris]

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

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.

[Davidius]

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

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.

Originally Posted by R Harris

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.

[panta dokimazete]

Did we ever get an answer to the question about how much of a Psalm must be sung to be considered Psalmody?

[panta dokimazete]

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?

[AV1611]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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).

[NaphtaliPress]

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.

Originally Posted by ChristopherPaul

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.

[Jeff_Bartel]

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.

[NaphtaliPress]

Yes; well evidently it is easier to convince them the Westminster divines preclude it than that the standards are correct in doing so.

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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.

[NaphtaliPress]

If you wish to respond about responsive readings, see this new thread.
Responsive Readings, are they Westminsterian, are they Biblical?

[armourbearer]

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.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

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.

[panta dokimazete]

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.

[LAYMAN JOE]

JD,
You do not believe the singing of Psalms are prescribed in Scripture?

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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.

[panta dokimazete]

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?

[panta dokimazete]

Originally Posted by LAYMAN JOE

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.

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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.

[panta dokimazete]

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"?

[R Harris]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

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.)

[panta dokimazete]

I think the earlier text illuminates "each one" is not "each and every one" for each element mentioned:

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?

[R Harris]

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

I think the earlier text illuminates "each one" is not "each and every one" for each element mentioned:

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.