First of all let me say that I realise that not all people who are not convinced of EP would use the arguments that I hope to interact with.

After that qualification, let me get to the point. Does it not surprise you to hear opponents of EP, and this includes Reformed ministers, say things like we can't be EP because the Psalter does not tell us enough about Christ (Iain Murray), or that its wrong to be EP because of the imprecatory psalms (like Ps. 137) that speak of dashing the offspring of the wicked against the stones (Isaac Watts et al).

How are such views consistent with believing in the inerrancy of Scripture?

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

They are not really being consistent with believing in the inerrancy of Scripture.... But I think it has alot to do with the dispensational theology which is permeating churches. Many, many people have come to "Reformed" Churches or to "Reformed" Theology but with previous theological baggages left over from their Arminian, Dispensational Days. They may have left dispensationalism but still have some aspects of its theology left over... I know I did for the past couple of years with regards to the Spirit dwelling permanently in OT Saints, Exclusive Psalmody, etc... I have worked through those issues but I am sure I still have some latent aspects from my bygone years that will arise....

As for Watts.. He was an extremist and a heretic in my books... He was more then dispensational to even denying some or the whole of the Psalms themselves and called them unfit for Christians..

He was not even Trinitarian which pulled him outside of Orthodoxy....

__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland

[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]

[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]

For most it probably has more to do with sufficiency than errancy.

__________________
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

Probably, but if the psalms are insufficient then why hasn't God added to them?

I guess that's the big question for the non-EPer. It would need to be shown that, while God gave the OT Church an inspired hymnal, he has now left the composition of praise songs up to us. Or it would need to be shown somehow that the Psalter was not the OT Church's inspired hymnal, I guess, in which case we'd really be in trouble since there's still no command for us to compose our own songs.

He has, it's called the New Testament.

__________________
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC

I must ask the question then, why should He? Are they to be a sufficient hymnal in themselves, is that what they were intended to be? If so, then I think this question could be asked, but it must be established first that they are necessarily a hymnal of their own and then we can ask questions over their sufficiency. For if they are not intended to be the hymnal of the church, then there isn't any reason for them to be sufficient to that end, nor is there any reason for the Sovereign to add to them in order to take them there.

Just my

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

So do the psalms not have tune names at the beginning, unlike any other part of scripture? Were not "the words of David and Asaph the Seer" used during congregational worship?

That doesn't mean that they are to be our hymnal or our only hymnal. If it did, then it would be necessary for them to be sufficient. To say that they are not sufficient as our sole hymnal when they aren't clearly meant to be is not a denial of the infalliability of Scripture, merely a statement of fact.

But then you will need to come up with the subjective grounds on which they are insufficient. The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God. So if God chose to inspire prophets to write songs in the Old Testament and then collect them into a book, and then command that they be sung, and then not do anything remotely similar in the NT, that does mean that they are meant to be our only hymnal.

I never argued that they were insufficient, I was just saying some of what has been said begs a few questions.

I am not fit at this point to argue over the Regulative principle. I will leave that to those more well versed.

WCF 21.1. But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

A "positive command" is not necessary. There is no "positive command" to baptize infants, and yet we do it.

Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
Christian ritual costs nothing and is worth nothing. True Christian religion costs all that we have and is worth everything.

And how will you differentiate between that which is "revealed in his own will" and that which is constituted of "the imaginations and devices of men?" Of course we need a positive command. We certainly don't look just for negative commands. There are an innumerable number of things that we could do under the auspices of worship and if we don't need positive commands then we could logically do any of those things.

We do have a positive command to put the sign of the covenant on our offspring. This is the substance of the command. "Baptism" and "Circumcision" are accidents.

A positive command is necessary... However, I am an Exclusive Psalmist Reformed Baptist so I will agree with your stance on no positive command to baptize infants.......

Here are a few in the OT:

There is a positive command that we sing more than the psalms...

And comparing that to...

we see that Paul draws a distinction between the pagan singing and Christian singing. Those sung by the heathen were from drunkenness and were sung for entertainment.

You can't really show that Col 3:16 refers exclusively to Psalms unless you use the Septuagint as your authoritative Scripture. And the confession of faith is clear that we should not use the Septuagint, but rather the original Hebrew as our authority.

And where exactly is the additional hymnbook in the NT?

Nice try Larry, but the Confession teaches exclusive psalmody. Moreover, the Septuagint was the Bible used in the apostolic church, and so since the terms psalms, hymns and songs are all used in the LXX to describe psalms then we have no reason to presume that they refer to human inventions. Furthermore, please explain to me from Scripture what the difference is between a hymn and a song? And how can the words of mere men be described as the "word of Christ". Why is there not a gift of hymn writing mentioned in the NT? Who is now authorised to compose hymns?

You are confusing a positive command with an explicit command, which is a straw man version of the RPW, a positive command includes what can be deduced by good and necessary consequence (i.e. can include infant baptism, women coming to the Lord's Supper etc.).

First, Col. 3 and Eph. 5 are known as Triadic Expression very common to Hebrew Culture and First Century Christians... We must think like a First Century Christian and not put our modern terminology onto the scripture...

Second, Personally I have NO trouble using the Septuagint which is dated 3rd Century B.C. and the Masoretic Hebrew Text is dated 4th century A.D. Which came first? Plus Christ used the Septuagint and quoted from it..

Oh, man...I really don't want to get into this again, but I'll make a few short comments.

First of all, you should be an Exclusive Psalmodist if you want to talk about the Confession. Thankfully, there are honest individuals (like, as I have been told, our own Fred Greco) who don't pretend that the Confession allows for hymns and take exception to it in this matter.

Next, the Confession also says that we are to interpret Scripture with Scripture. Therefore please tell me what "hymns" and "spiritual songs" are, if the terms are being used as anything other than a form of Triadic Expression, and please use Scripture.

Next, the phrase says "sing" them, not "write" them. So it seems that Paul is talking about an extant body of material. If you disagree, please bridge that gap for me, too, with Scripture.

Please show where the Confession teaches "exclusive" psalmody.

Yes, the LXX describes Psalms as you have posted. But no, we are not to look to the Septuagint for settling disputes.

The difference between a hymn and a song...
A "hymn" would be much more simple, while a "song" would be a more structured metrical composition.

The "word of Christ" is not a reference to songs, but to the preaching of the word of God. And yes, preaching is done through the words of mere men.

For your last question you are presuming that there needs to be authorization to make praise songs to God.

I would also point out that Paul actually quoted from hymns and songs that were sung in his time and outside of the book of Psalms (Phil 2:6-11; Eph 5:14; 2 Tim 2:11-13)

Since thread has started, just a fair warning, that since the EP debate will begin in the next week or two or so, DV, pursuant to how the debate rules are set, this thread or any others will get closed for the duration of the formal debate and there will be a moratorium on all things EP as far as new threads as well.

__________________
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

Those are interesting definitions. In which passages did you find them? I asked that you use scripture to interpret scripture.

Also, I didn't say "song," I (and Paul) said "spiritual song." When the word "spiritual" is used in other contexts, does it have to do with man or with the Holy Spirit? Paul says the "law" is spiritual. Is it from man? He talks about "spiritual gifts." Who gives those? Are "spiritual blessings" from man? Why are people spiritual? Because they are indwelt by the Spirit. Just do a search for "spiritual" at biblegateway.

I wasn't answering your post, i was answering Daniel Ritchie.

Your ideas on the word "spiritual" are interesting, but have nothing to do with the debate. You would have to show that "spiritual" always meant that it was written in the Scripture for it to have anything to do with the questions at hand.

It has to do with the debate because of, once again, the allegory of faith. We must deal with the issue of defining terms. In important matters such as these we, in accordance with the Confession, allow scripture to interpret itself. It would require strong evidence, indeed, to take a word that means one thing in many other occurrences and give it a new definition (that, of course, helpfully reinforces your conclusion already) in this one place. I encourage you again to look at the usage of the word "spiritual" in the New Testament.

And this takes us back to your assertion that "hymn" and "spiritual song" are something other than the 150 Psalms. If this is so, then you must demonstrate what these things are from Scripture if you agree with me that the Regulative Principle of Worship is a true guide. If you attempt to define them yourself, apart from the allegory of faith, then you are saying that God has commanded us to do something but has given us no guidelines for that thing in His revelation. The EPers are at least trying to maintain the allegory of faith by a) providing other examples of Triadic Expression in scripture and thereby showing that this literary device is by no means awkward, mysterious or uncommon for the biblical authors, b) looking at the titles of the Psalms, c) pointing out that scripture gives us no definition of those words, d) pointing to passages like the one where Jesus and the disciples "sing a hymn (lit. they "hymn")" after the Passover meal, i.e. the Hillel psalms (113-118).

And with that I shall bow out. We could round and round about this for days, as has happened many a time, but I don't think that we would cover any new ground. I know that these positions have been much more ably defended by more learned men in other threads.

Where is this "positive command to put the sign of the covenant on our offspring"? Substance/accidence are philosophical/theological categories to help us understand what God requires, but God nowhere positively commands us "baptize your infants." Don't confuse good and necessary consequence with an explicit, positive command.

There isn't one. My concern is that you are applying a valid dogma of the church (the sufficiency of Scripture) to a situation it's not meant to address. Scripture is sufficient for all things, but it doesn't logically follow that therefore those who deny exclusive psalmody have denied the sufficiency of Scripture (which says that all Scripture is sufficient, and not that only the Psalms are sufficient). What John Frame has done with the regulative principle in applying it to all-of-life, you have done with the sufficiency of Scripture in regards to exclusive psalmody. The problem in both cases is that the doctrine (whether RPW or the sufficiency of Scripture) is being applied to an illegitimate situation, one that it was never intended to address.

I'll respond to this since you and I were discussing a topic different than Larry and I.

The Abrahamic Covenant by nature is an "everlasting covenant" and God commanded Abraham to put a certain sign on his children, saying that this would be a part of what we do to remember the covenant forever. The removal of the foreskin and the consequent application only to males are accidents. The substance of both signs is the signification of new life, be it the removal of sin or the cleansing with water. They signify the same thing. This is what I mean when I say that we have a positive command to apply the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace on our offspring, which appears 'accidentally' in two forms throughout redemptive history.

We're not asserting a broad insufficiency. No one said that non-EPers completely deny the doctrine of sufficiency of scripture. We believe that the RPW only allows for the singing of Psalms. Others disagree with us, but many of them do not agree on grounds allowed by the RPW. They say things like "We don't believe that Christ is openly mentioned enough in the Psalms." They have their own idea about what worship is supposed to look like instead of extracting their understanding from Scripture. Then, when the Psalms don't match up to their preconceived requirements, they say that we must write our own songs. This is not an argument from the RPW, which is what is required in matters of worship. It is an argument of sufficiency within the context of worship based on a false understanding of what proper worship is.

But "good an necessary consequence" is not a "positive command." Where are we positively commanded to worship on the first day of the week?

Larry, since EP has never been on my agenda as of yet, I make no public staement against it nor for it. I am obviously prematurely not agreeing with it. But you provided an arguement in another thread that 'convinced' me in my infancy of even hearing about this debate. It was something about types and shadows, and why limit ourselves to worshipping/singing to God when we have the full revealed Gospel. I agree 100% (you said something to this effect). Can you repeat it here for me to see again?

__________________
N. Robert
RCA

"Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

This proves my point, StaunchPresbyterian. This is not an argument that has anything to do with the RPW. It is based on the supposed insufficiency of the Psalter in spite of arguments based on the biblically and confessionally required Regulative Principle. It doesn't matter what any one of us thinks worship should look like.

CC, did you mean to addy this point to me or staunch presby? I am not entering this dialogue, all I said was Larry spoke in the past and presented an arguement against EP that satisfied me. But again, I am not a barometer on this subject. The heat is too great on a matter than I am not moved to get anxious about. Its about 57 on my list. It falls between serving half moons or Glazed Do-nuts for our fellowship coffee time after service, and repainting the lines a darker yellow in our parking lot.

Nicholas,

Sorry for the confusion. I did mean to address SP but was using your statement as an example of something I said to him earlier.

Let me just say here: I'm not EP, but I'm not arguing for or against it on this thread. What I'm saying is that we all need to be careful about how we talk about it. I agree that the arguments against EP that are mentioned in your quote are illegitimate, and so I am in no way defending them. My point is that some of the comments given by EPers on this thread are also illegitimate. There is no "positive command" to baptize our infants or worship on the Lord's Day. I know why we do these things, though, and would of course argue from Scripture in support of these practices -- but not on the basis of "positive command," rather, on the basis of "good and necessary consequence" -- infant baptism because it is a sign of the covenant, the actual rite being accidental, as you said; I worship on the Lord's Day because of the example of the Apostles in conjunction with the fourth commandment.

If someone buys the EP argument, then yes, singing anything but Psalms would seem to deny the sufficiency of Scripture -- but if you don't buy the EP argument, then it's an illegitimate argument against those who are non-EP. I can just as easily say that Scripture says we are to sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs -- right there I have a positive command to sing texts besides the Psalms. You can say that I've misinterpreted "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs," but you can't say I've in any sense denied the sufficiency of Scripture since my view comes from Scripture. The ground of the discussion has left the more general principles (like the RPW and the sufficiency of Scripture) to an exegetical discussion of what "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is referring to. One could just as easily say that EPers have denied the sufficiency of Scripture by appealing to the uninspired headings of the Psalms in the LXX -- you see, the argument cuts both ways.

The Psalms speak of Christ, but if I say that the Psalms don't speak with the same fulness that the NT does about him, you can't really object to that -- the sufficiency of Scripture, as a doctrine we all believe, deals with all of Scripture (not just the Psalms). Again, only when you presuppose EP to be true can you say anyone is in any sense denying the sufficiency of Scripture if they sing hymns. Has the Lord provided us with a sufficient song-book in Scripture? This is only a question that needs to be asked if you think Scripture itself leads to you to ask the question. Non-EPers think it's an unnecessary question to begin with; EPers think it's a necessary question. You can't adequately critique another's view (non-EP) presupposing your own view (EP) to be correct without first establishing the validity of your own view.

In other words, the question ("Has the Lord provided us with a sufficient song-book in Scripture?") is a complex question with embedded presuppositions -- you may accept those presuppositions, but others do not, and given their presuppositions, they may not in their own mind be denying the sufficiency of Scripture and it would be uncharitable to claim they were.

Sorry, my brain is all over the place at this point and maybe I should just bow out of the conversation.

Shouldn't Worship and how we worship be considered number 1 on a list since that is the "chief end of man", and the reason we are saved for, that is to worship. John Calvin thought that worship and what we do in worship was even more important then Justification by faith alone because of the fact that we are justified and created for the purpose to worship God.

The First Commandment determines who we worship, the true living God. The second commandment determines how the true God is to be worshiped. The Third Commandment determines that we worship him truly and the name we use. The fourth commandment determines the day we worship....

What more can be important?

Oh you mean your attempt to stack the deck as you imply in post number 30? Saying something like, If you disagree, the RPW only allows you to disagree in certain way? SO not only does the RPW tell us, what is proper woorship, it narrows the way one can argue about whats going on in worship? So when Larry said why would we only sing of shadows and types, the RPW calls a foul because that language is not allowed in this game? Pretty strict rules you are presenting here CC. Kinda like saying, Ill race you across the pool, but you cant use your arms, but I can!!

I can't quite find the post you are referring to, but i remember saying something like that.
Some other things to consider are...

We are commanded to sing "new" songs in Isaiah.

In Luke 4 Jesus quotes part of Isa 42, and He says "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled..." (Lk 4:21)

And if the only place that EP folks can define "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is from the LXX, then they should consider how the LXX defines those terms in other areas as well.
Just as an example, the LXX also uses psalmos in places outside of the Psalms (1 Sam 16:16-17; 2 Ki 3:15; Amos 5:23). This is enough to show that psalmos does not only refer to God-ordained songs to be sung in worship. This word is used to translate more than one underlying Hebrew word that have a wide variety of meaning.

This doesn't make any sense. If the RPW tells us what proper worship is then yes, it narrows what we can use to argue about worship. That should be self evident.

Your pool analogy is off, too. I never said that Larry can't use something and I can. I said that we should both use the scriptures, since that is what is required by the Confession and the RPW.