Thread: Psalmody and Worship

Originally Posted by blhowes

I recently attended a service where the pastor sang a song (he's part of the worship team as well as the preacher) that he hoped others could relate to as he had, which was about a person struggling between two positions - portraying the struggle between the flesh and the spirit. Kind of reminded me of music you might hear at a coffee house.

Allowing whatever the particular church leaders approve of may be good in most/many/some instances, but when I hear songs like this during a worship service, I tend to like the idea of EP more and more (that from a person who really loves singing the great hymns of the faith)

Music can be poorly made, have flat theology, horizontal equivalence in lieu of vertical holiness and adoration - I don't buy it, never have. You know when a song is praise to men and not praise to god.

EP is great because the psalms are entire in their praise and petition to the Lord in all moods a person can have, probably some we haven't even thought of yet. I am having a hard time believing, right now, that every hymnal should be kicked to the curb and recycled into the next eco-mega-church's eco-friendly insulation.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Not to be argumentative, but one could just as well use the same rationale for preaching and praying only Scripture.

Truth is - until we are in Heaven, there will be imperfect worship done by well-meaning, but imperfect people here on the earth.

That's not to say we give up striving, just be careful not to embrace extreme principles out of contra-reaction.

I agree that contra-reaction is a slippery slope to go down.
But there are fundamental differences between prayer, preaching, and singing the Psalms.

We are to use "reason" in preaching...
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. (Act 17:2-3)


How can we pray for those who "dispitefully use us" (Mat 5:44) if we are restricted to pray from the Scriptures only?
How would we confess our particular sins to God if we were restricted to pray the Scriptures?

And how would we sing new songs if we were constrained only to the Psalms?

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

And how would we sing new songs if we were constrained only to the Psalms?

With new songs, just as with biblically sound and doctrinally sound preaching, can't we discern between a song that is error and one that is not, just as we do with preaching. Or with church discipline - what is in line and what is not in line with biblical obedience? Are we not given wisdom to know what is Godly and ungodly? What was made for good and what was made for garbage?

Originally Posted by larryjf

But there are fundamental differences between prayer, preaching, and singing the Psalms.

I would agree that there are fundamental differences between, preaching, praying and psalmody (note the small "p" - referring to the term more generically) - particularly in application, but a fundamental similarity is that each element has some degree of "uninspired" composition. Once this is understood, then it simply becomes a matter of degree and regulation.

Again, when a Psalm speaks of singing a new song...wouldn't it be referring to itself since it is just being written?

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

And how would we sing new songs if we were constrained only to the Psalms?

With new songs, just as with biblically sound and doctrinally sound preaching, can't we discern between a song that is error and one that is not, just as we do with preaching. Or with church discipline - what is in line and what is not in line with biblical obedience? Are we not given wisdom to know what is Godly and ungodly? What was made for good and what was made for garbage?

1 Thess 5:21

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

I would agree that there are fundamental differences between, preaching, praying and psalmody (note the small "p" - referring to the term more generically) - particularly in application, but a fundamental similarity is that each element has some degree of "uninspired" composition. Once this is understood, then it simply becomes a matter of degree and regulation.

But you would have to show that this statement is true. I don't see the Scripture as giving authority to write songs to worship God, i do see them as giving authority to pray and preach with uninspired content.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Again, when a Psalm speaks of singing a new song...wouldn't it be referring to itself since it is just being written?

If it said "sing to the Lord this new song", sure...

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

1 Thess 5:21

Do you take that verse, in context, to refer to the regulated elements of worship?

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Originally Posted by larryjf

Again, when a Psalm speaks of singing a new song...wouldn't it be referring to itself since it is just being written?

If it said "sing to the Lord this new song", sure...

Technically it says "new song", not "a new song"

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Originally Posted by larryjf

Again, when a Psalm speaks of singing a new song...wouldn't it be referring to itself since it is just being written?

If it said "sing to the Lord this new song", sure...

Technically it says "new song", not "a new song"

Technically - boy, when that word comes out aren't we starting to walk a fine line?

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

I understand obedience and glory to God and why we should be in line with the commands of God. Is not "A Mighty Fortress" God-honoring and exalting?

Man can't decide what brings honor to God, we must follow God's directions to bring Him honor.

The very act of choosing a hymn written by man rather than a Psalm written by God, thereby setting up man's composition in the same place as God's, brings glory to man and not God.

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

I understand that the psalms cover everything. I don't know, it seems a bit legalistic and that when proper God-exalting hymns are sung by faith to honor the creator God, would it be a foul stench in His nose? Please help me.

Legalism is one of two things...

• Adding man-made commands to God's
• Believing that works themselves help to save us

But following a command that God gives us is certainly not legalism.

Okay, then if you follow that line of thought to jusify psalms singing only, then it logically ends with the preacher reading scripture only rather than a sermon written by man since everything we need is written in scripture.

(I missed reading that Panta has already made this point. I still don't understand why we can only sing psalms when scripture clearly says "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs".)

1 Thess 5:21 - why could you not use it as regulatory BECAUSE we are given a spirit of discernment to find what is good and to hold fast to it. Our expounding on the scriptures in pulpit - why not just get up and read the scriptures and say "Amen." Could not a lyrically written sermon be turned into verse with music accompaniment?

I just don't see how we can see one aspect under one precedent but another not? Why is the the sermon given up to fallibility and interpretation and okay yet the music has to be the psalms? Music has to be the psalms but the liturgy and the sermon is not held to the same precedent - purely biblical.

Originally Posted by Grace Alone

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

I understand obedience and glory to God and why we should be in line with the commands of God. Is not "A Mighty Fortress" God-honoring and exalting?

Man can't decide what brings honor to God, we must follow God's directions to bring Him honor.

The very act of choosing a hymn written by man rather than a Psalm written by God, thereby setting up man's composition in the same place as God's, brings glory to man and not God.

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

I understand that the psalms cover everything. I don't know, it seems a bit legalistic and that when proper God-exalting hymns are sung by faith to honor the creator God, would it be a foul stench in His nose? Please help me.

Legalism is one of two things...

• Adding man-made commands to God's
• Believing that works themselves help to save us

But following a command that God gives us is certainly not legalism.

Okay, then if you follow that line of thought to jusify psalms singing only, then it logically ends with the preacher reading scripture only rather than a sermon written by man since everything we need is written in scripture.

Except that the point is that God commands how to bring Him glory.
We are told in His Word to use reason to preach, and we are told to pray for things outside of the scope of Scripture. I'm not sure why folks keep bringing up parallels between preaching, praying, and singing...they're regulated differently in Scripture.

Originally Posted by Grace Alone

I still don't understand why we can only sing psalms when scripture clearly says "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs".

Because those are titles to different psalms in the Book of Psalms.
If you look at the Greek that is used in the NT for "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" and you look at the Greek OT (Septuagint)...you will find that these exact same words are the titles for different types of Psalms.

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

1 Thess 5:21 - why could you not use it as regulatory BECAUSE we are given a spirit of discernment to find what is good and to hold fast to it. Our expounding on the scriptures in pulpit - why not just get up and read the scriptures and say "Amen." Could not a lyrically written sermon be turned into verse with music accompaniment?

I just don't see how we can see one aspect under one precedent but another not? Why is the the sermon given up to fallibility and interpretation and okay yet the music has to be the psalms? Music has to be the psalms but the liturgy and the sermon is not held to the same precedent - purely biblical.

The Scripture regulates all of these elements...and as written in an earlier post (found here), Prayer is regulated to include things outside of Scripture, and Preaching is regulated to include using our reason to make Scripture clear.

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

If it said "sing to the Lord this new song", sure...

Technically it says "new song", not "a new song"

Technically - boy, when that word comes out aren't we starting to walk a fine line?

Yes, when someones argument stands on the word "this" or "a"...and that word is not even in the original language text, it should not be used as an argument for their position.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

1 Thess 5:21 - why could you not use it as regulatory BECAUSE we are given a spirit of discernment to find what is good and to hold fast to it. Our expounding on the scriptures in pulpit - why not just get up and read the scriptures and say "Amen." Could not a lyrically written sermon be turned into verse with music accompaniment?

I just don't see how we can see one aspect under one precedent but another not? Why is the the sermon given up to fallibility and interpretation and okay yet the music has to be the psalms? Music has to be the psalms but the liturgy and the sermon is not held to the same precedent - purely biblical.

The Scripture regulates all of these elements...and as written in an earlier post (found here), Prayer is regulated to include things outside of Scripture, and Preaching is regulated to include using our reason to make Scripture clear.

But when a harp is added in, the default leads us back to the psalms like a mandatory hyperlink? I understand you POV yet I am just asking about precedent and what I am gaining from this is that once music begins, one hammer of the keyboard, interpretation is ceased.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

1 Thess 5:21 - why could you not use it as regulatory BECAUSE we are given a spirit of discernment to find what is good and to hold fast to it. Our expounding on the scriptures in pulpit - why not just get up and read the scriptures and say "Amen." Could not a lyrically written sermon be turned into verse with music accompaniment?

I just don't see how we can see one aspect under one precedent but another not? Why is the the sermon given up to fallibility and interpretation and okay yet the music has to be the psalms? Music has to be the psalms but the liturgy and the sermon is not held to the same precedent - purely biblical.

The Scripture regulates all of these elements...and as written in an earlier post (found here), Prayer is regulated to include things outside of Scripture, and Preaching is regulated to include using our reason to make Scripture clear.

Granting the synonym useage for the Psalms (grudgingly - I still think Paul was referring to 3 forms common to the culture), the EP'er continues to overlook that we are commanded to be taught by the Psalms, that the Psalms teach us to sing a new song, so we must understand what that means in context for the NT priesthood of believers worshiping apart from the temple in spirit and truth.

In the OT - the new songs were written by David and others in priestly office, compiled and closed for that covenant period. So the command to sing an entirely new song was closed to the OT worshiper, except in the sense that the Psalms themselves contained "new songs" written for the Davidic type of OT temple worship.

In the NT - the Psalms - just as the entire OT - are renewed and refreshed in light of the revealed (and named!) Messiah. We are commanded to worship in spirit and truth freed from the requirement of temple worship, but not from the commanded elements that remain (preaching\teaching, praying and singing) and the new ordinances.

So, in context, we, the NT, new covenant church, are commanded to be taught by the Psalms. The Psalms command that we sing a new song. So, just as preaching and praying may have "uninspired" yet regulated content, so may our song.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Not to be argumentative, but one could just as well use the same rationale for preaching and praying only Scripture.

Truth is - until we are in Heaven, there will be imperfect worship done by well-meaning, but imperfect people here on the earth.

That's not to say we give up striving, just be careful not to embrace extreme principles out of contra-reaction.

JD,

One significant difference between prayer, preaching and singing is that in singing the content is immediately professed by all. You cannot withhold your "amen". This is one among other reasons to distinguish between the elements in worship. The Psalter is a canon of songs given to the Church to be professed by all in singing and it is all "amen".

Just my little 2 cents in this long discussion.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

So, in context, we, the NT, new covenant church, are commanded to be taught by the Psalms. The Psalms command that we sing a new song. So, just as preaching and praying may have "uninspired" yet regulated content, so may our song.

Except that, again, the "new" that is referenced in a particular psalm speaks of itself as it is a "new" psalm as it's being written. That's the immediate context of the term "new" as it is used in the Book of Psalms.

Certainly there is an aspect that we sing new Psalms, but that aspect is in singing the Psalms in light of the NT, having the full revelation of God to make our understanding of the Psalms more complete. Therefore we sing them anew because we sing them according to the New Covenant dispensation.

Originally Posted by Beth Ellen Nagle

JD,

One significant difference between prayer, preaching and singing is that in singing the content is immediately professed by all. You cannot withhold your "amen". This is one among other reasons to distinguish between the elements in worship. The Psalter is a canon of songs given to the Church to be professed by all in singing and it is all "amen".

Just my little 2 cents in this long discussion.

I understand your reasoning in light of your presupposition, but the entirety of worship is\should be communial\unified participation. The "amen" is for all the elements in unity.

Originally Posted by Beth Ellen Nagle

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Not to be argumentative, but one could just as well use the same rationale for preaching and praying only Scripture.

Truth is - until we are in Heaven, there will be imperfect worship done by well-meaning, but imperfect people here on the earth.

That's not to say we give up striving, just be careful not to embrace extreme principles out of contra-reaction.

JD,

One significant difference between prayer, preaching and singing is that in singing the content is immediately professed by all. You cannot withhold your "amen". This is one among other reasons to distinguish between the elements in worship. The Psalter is a canon of songs given to the Church to be professed by all in singing and it is all "amen".

Just my little 2 cents in this long discussion.

One can also do like I do; familliarize myself with song texts before singing them. Anything not an expression of biblical truth, I don't sing. I'm blessed in that I have worked only with thorougly biblical worship leaders: I can count the number of times I have objected to unbiblically themed song texts in the last 32 years on the fingers of 1 hand.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Except that, again, the "new" that is referenced in a particular psalm speaks of itself as it is a "new" psalm as it's being written. That's the immediate context of the term "new" as it is used in the Book of Psalms.

I don't think that I disagreed with this.

Certainly there is an aspect that we sing new Psalms, but that aspect is in singing the Psalms in light of the NT, having the full revelation of God to make our understanding of the Psalms more complete. Therefore we sing them anew because we sing them according to the New Covenant dispensation.

Certainly, but look at my earlier post - if we were commanded only to sing the Psalms, we would not be having this debate. We are, however, commanded to be taught by the Psalms in context of the new covenant.

In the same way that preaching and praying may now have uninspired elements, which they did not have in the OT, our new songs may also.

Let's consider Church history...

It wasn't until the 4th century that uninspired hymns began to be written (Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, p. 122)

These first uninspired hymns were created by heretics (G. I. Williamson, The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God, pp. 16-17)

So if the Church had the authority to write its own hymns, why didn't it do so in the first few centuries?

The reality is that we haven't found even 1 hymn fragment out of all the early Church documents that we have.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

In the same way that preaching and praying may now have uninspired elements, which they did not have in the OT, our new songs may also.

You are saying that in the OT they didn't have uninspired preaching and praying? I can't agree with that.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Certainly, but look at my earlier post - if we were commanded only to sing the Psalms, we would not be having this debate. We are, however, commanded to be taught by the Psalms in context of the new covenant.

I agree that we're to be taught by the Psalms, just like every other book in the Bible...that doesn't mean that we are to create new ones.

We are commanded to sing psalms, we are commanded to sing nothing other than psalms. The regulative principle does not give us the option of writing new songs because it is not commanded.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

In the same way that preaching and praying may now have uninspired elements, which they did not have in the OT, our new songs may also.

You are saying that in the OT they didn't have uninspired preaching and praying? I can't agree with that.

Please give an example of uninspired preaching or praying in OT Temple worship that was not punished by God?

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

In the same way that preaching and praying may now have uninspired elements, which they did not have in the OT, our new songs may also.

You are saying that in the OT they didn't have uninspired preaching and praying? I can't agree with that.

Please give an example of uninspired preaching or praying in OT Temple worship that was not punished by God?

Job prayed for his children.
Ezra explained the Scriptures to the people.

During the OT worship the priest would also have to pray for the sins of the people, and individuals were to pray for their own sins.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Certainly, but look at my earlier post - if we were commanded only to sing the Psalms, we would not be having this debate. We are, however, commanded to be taught by the Psalms in context of the new covenant.

I agree that we're to be taught by the Psalms, just like every other book in the Bible...that doesn't mean that we are to create new ones.

We are commanded to sing psalms, we are commanded to sing nothing other than psalms. The regulative principle does not give us the option of writing new songs because it is not commanded.

And I say non sequitur, sorry. EP creates an unnecessary tension between the command and compliance, thus violating the RPW.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Originally Posted by larryjf

You are saying that in the OT they didn't have uninspired preaching and praying? I can't agree with that.

Please give an example of uninspired preaching or praying in OT Temple worship that was not punished by God?

Job prayed for his children.
Ezra explained the Scriptures to the people.

During the OT worship the priest would also have to pray for the sins of the people, and individuals were to pray for their own sins.

Let's make sure we are precise - please point to a Scriptural example of unpunished uninspired and proclaimed preaching or praying in OT Temple worship.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Let's make sure we are precise - please point to a Scriptural example of unpunished uninspired and proclaimed preaching or praying in OT Temple worship.

That's like asking for a Scriptural example of females taking communion.
You have not been able to prove your presumption that there were only inspired prayers and preaching

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Certainly, but look at my earlier post - if we were commanded only to sing the Psalms, we would not be having this debate. We are, however, commanded to be taught by the Psalms in context of the new covenant.

I agree that we're to be taught by the Psalms, just like every other book in the Bible...that doesn't mean that we are to create new ones.

We are commanded to sing psalms, we are commanded to sing nothing other than psalms. The regulative principle does not give us the option of writing new songs because it is not commanded.

And I say non sequitur, sorry. EP creates an unnecessary tension between the command and compliance, thus violating the RPW.

I don't know the "tension" that you are talking about.
The RPW basically tells us that we worship God how He commands to be worshiped. So unless we are commanded to create and sing new songs they can't fall within the lines of the RPW.

And please don't bring up the Psalms mentioning "new songs"...we've been through that, it's referring to the particular song that it's written in because it would have been new.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Let's make sure we are precise - please point to a Scriptural example of unpunished uninspired and proclaimed preaching or praying in OT Temple worship.

That's like asking for a Scriptural example of females taking communion.
You have not been able to prove your presumption that there were only inspired prayers and preaching

Larry, I am not presuming, OT Temple worship was strictly regulated as to what was spoken and who spoke, prayed or sung, there were no proclaimed unauthorized uninspired activities.

Originally Posted by larryjf

I don't know the "tension" that you are talking about.
The RPW basically tells us that we worship God how He commands to be worshiped. So unless we are commanded to create and sing new songs they can't fall within the lines of the RPW.

1. We, the NT new covenant church, are commanded to be taught by the Psalms.

2. The Psalms command a new song be sung.

And please don't bring up the Psalms mentioning "new songs"...we've been through that, it's referring to the particular song that it's written in because it would have been new.

Again - I did not disagree with the original context, you just refuse to understand that the NT context is different in application. So, I'll stop wasting your and my time by circling and circling.

Much the same way Doug and I have agreed to disagree

Blessings!

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Larry, I am not presuming, OT Temple worship was strictly regulated as to what was spoken and who spoke, prayed or sung, there were no proclaimed unauthorized uninspired activities.

Then please back it up with a Scriptural example that shows only inspired preaching and praying was allowed.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Again - I did not disagree with the original context, you just refuse to understand that the NT context is different in application. So, I'll stop wasting your and my time by circling and circling.

You are stating that the NT context interprets the OT "new song" as creating and singing new songs for the NT Church...but you never show where in the NT this is done.

If that was the NT context as the apostles understood it, why didn't they write and/or sing uninspired hymns? There is not a shred of solid evidence that any uninspired hymns were written before the 4th century.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

And how would we sing new songs if we were constrained only to the Psalms?

They are not "new" in construction but new as in our hearts sing a new song, different from that which we sang with our old hearts...

It is a difference in the person singing the same song with a new heart not a new song with new words.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Larry, I am not presuming, OT Temple worship was strictly regulated as to what was spoken and who spoke, prayed or sung, there were no proclaimed unauthorized uninspired activities.

Then please back it up with a Scriptural example that shows only inspired preaching and praying was allowed.

According to your own standard, the burden of proof resides with you.

Originally Posted by larryjf

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Again - I did not disagree with the original context, you just refuse to understand that the NT context is different in application. So, I'll stop wasting your and my time by circling and circling.

You are stating that the NT context interprets the OT "new song" as creating and singing new songs for the NT Church...but you never show where in the NT this is done.

If that was the NT context as the apostles understood it, why didn't they write and/or sing uninspired hymns? There is not a shred of solid evidence that any uninspired hymns were written before the 4th century.

circle, circle...