A capella Exclusive PsalmodySub-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.
In a previous thread a debate about Exclusive Psalmody started, but must be moved to a new thread...
Quote:
jdlongmire said -
You are also presupposing the meaning of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" as definitively and exclusively the Psalms of David. Please give your rationale..
__________________
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]
Originally Posted by jdlongmire View Post
You are also presupposing the meaning of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" as definitively and exclusively the Psalms of David. Please give your rationale.
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).
When Paul wrote sing “Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs”, what did he mean?
What was the context he was writing in? What were Hymns in Paul’s Day? What was the Hymnal they used?
I would say that the bible defines what a hymn is, and it does. When Paul was writing “Psalms , Hymns, Spiritual Songs” the context of the day was “Psalms” There is no evidence that any man-made hymn was ever made in Paul’s Day. The first Hymns did not appear until between 256 and 336 A.D. when Arius wrote hymns to teach untarianism. So when Paul wrote “Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Song” he only had the Psalms in mind. The Psalms are broken up into Sub sections.. Some are Psalms, some are Hymns, and some are Songs. Some are a combination of two, or all three. But here we have the context of that era and that the bible defines what a Hymn is. Psalm 45 is called a Hymn of David, Psalm 82 is called a Psalm of Asaph and Psalm 125 is called a Song. So here the Bible defines the “Book of Psalms” as Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. That is what Paul is referring to.
Now the burden of proof must lie on the non-ep person to show that the bible means anything other then the Book of Psalms or proof that allows us to write our own praises by implict or explict command in the worship of God..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire
well - a hymn at the root is just another word for song. So a hymnal is a book of songs.
hymnal is just a "fancy" word for song book. So...yeah - unless it does not contain songs, the name defines the contents.
Here is a question for you - who defines what a song is?
When Paul wrote sing “Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs”, what did he mean? What was the context he was writing in?
Well - who was he writing to?
Quote:
What were Hymns in Paul’s Day?
The Western tradition of hymnody begins with the Homeric Hymns, a collection of ancient Greek hymns, the oldest of which were written in the 7th century BC in praise of the gods of Greek mythology. See here
Paul would know what a hymn was - just as Pliny would have.
That's why Paul qualified - "to the Lord" and "to God" in both instances he mentioned it - to differentiate it from the pagan hymn.
Quote:
What was the Hymnal they used?
Where is a hymnal mentioned?
Quote:
I would say that the bible defines what a hymn is, and it does. When Paul was writing “Psalms , Hymns, Spiritual Songs” the context of the day was “Psalms” There is no evidence that any man-made hymn was ever made in Paul’s Day. The first Hymns did not appear until between 256 and 336 A.D. when Arius wrote hymns to teach untarianism. So when Paul wrote “Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Song” he only had the Psalms in mind. The Psalms are broken up into Sub sections.. Some are Psalms, some are Hymns, and some are Songs. Some are a combination of two, or all three. But here we have the context of that era and that the bible defines what a Hymn is. Psalm 45 is called a Hymn of David, Psalm 82 is called a Psalm of Asaph and Psalm 125 is called a Song. So here the Bible defines the “Book of Psalms” as Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. That is what Paul is referring to.
Since there were hymns composed in Paul's day, this entire paragraph is incorrect and your premise is false.
Quote:
Now the burden of proof must lie on the non-ep person to show that the bible means anything other then the Book of Psalms or proof that allows us to write our own praises by implict or explict command in the worship of God..
And thus your conclusion is false.
Last edited by panta dokimazete; 06-02-2007 at 08:57 AM.
And do not be drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the holy spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.
Are we to address each other with EP?
Is there one among you who is suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful: Let him sing praise.
Can we sing praise that isn't included in the Psalms?
Wasn't the Didache used a hymn by the early Church?
Father we thank Thee who has planted
Thy holy name within our hearts.
Knowledge and faith and life immortal
Jesus The Son to us imparts.
Thou, Lord, didst make all for Thy pleasure,
Didst give man food for all his days,
Giving in Christ the bread eternal;
Thine is the power, be Thine the praise.
Watch o'er Thy Church, O Lord, in mercy,
Save it from evil, guard it still,
Perfect it in Thy love, unite it,
Cleansed and conformed unto Thy will.
As grain, once scattered on the hillsides,
Was in the broken bread made one,
So from all lands Thy Church be gathered
Into Thy kingdom by Thy Son.
From the Didache, AD 40-60
One from Clement of Alexandria, AD 150-215.
Shepherd of eager youth,
Guiding in love and truth
Through devious ways,
Christ our triumphant King,
We come Thy name to sing,
And here we children bring,
Our songs of praise.
Thou art our holy Lord,
The all-subduing Word,
Healer of strife;
Thou didst Thyself abase,
That from our sin's disgrace
Thou mightest save our race
And give us life.
Ever be Thou our Guide,
Our shepherd, and our pride.
Our staff and song.
Jesus, Thou Christ of God,
By Thy eternal word,
Lead us where Thou hast trod;
Make our faith strong.
Conscience may lash us, but it cannot replenish a languishing life. Conscience may be God's word and minister to you, telling you of your faults and your follies and your destitution. It may point out, but it will never supply you. Christ must give you new life. Hart has well expressed it: "He to the feeble and the faint, His mighty aid makes known; and when their languid life is spent, supplies it with His own." - J. K. Popham
First thought of mine is that this is coming from "Wikipedia" a source where every with a keyboard can change things...... No respected school or college will allow wikipedia to even be cited in research papers....
Second thought is that Christian hymnody is not defined by pagan culture even if what it says is true.. Christian hymnody is defined by the bible, by His holy Word. And by what God Commands through his Word...
Regardless if Pagans had hymns or not makes no difference to how Christians define what a Hymn is. You simply can not find any evidence in scripture of any non-inspired hymns that is suppose to be sung for worship.
The burden of proof still lies on the non-epper...
I will stick with my last post.....
Michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire
Well - who was he writing to?
The Western tradition of hymnody begins with the Homeric Hymns, a collection of ancient Greek hymns, the oldest of which were written in the 7th century BC in praise of the gods of Greek mythology. See here
Paul would know what a hymn was - just as Pliny would have.
That's why he qualified - "to the Lord" and "to God" in both instances he mentioned it - to differentiate it from the pagan hymn - most likely Diana.
Where is a hymnal mentioned?
Since there were hymns composed in Paul's day, this entire paragraph is incorrect and your premise is false.
My bible says "Is any cheerful: Let him sing Psalms" but even IF it can be translated into "Sing Praise", makes no difference since the Book of Psalms is translated as the "Book of Praises"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM
Is there one among you who is suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful: Let him sing praise.
The Didache (Διδαχὴ, Koine Greek for "Teaching") is the common name of a brief early Christian treatise (c. 50–160), containing instructions for Christian communities. The text is possibly the first written catechism, with three main sections dealing with Christian lessons, rituals such as baptism and eucharist, and Church organization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM
Wasn't the Didache used a hymn by the early Church?
Father we thank Thee who has planted
Thy holy name within our hearts.
Knowledge and faith and life immortal
Jesus The Son to us imparts.
Thou, Lord, didst make all for Thy pleasure,
Didst give man food for all his days,
Giving in Christ the bread eternal;
Thine is the power, be Thine the praise.
Watch o'er Thy Church, O Lord, in mercy,
Save it from evil, guard it still,
Perfect it in Thy love, unite it,
Cleansed and conformed unto Thy will.
As grain, once scattered on the hillsides,
Was in the broken bread made one,
So from all lands Thy Church be gathered
Into Thy kingdom by Thy Son.
First thought of mine is that this is coming from "Wikipedia" a source where every with a keyboard can change things...... No respected school or college will allow wikipedia to even be cited in research papers....
Second thought is that Christian hymnody is not defined by pagan culture even if what it says is true.. Christian hymnody is defined by the bible, by His holy Word. And by what God Commands through his Word...
Regardless if Pagans had hymns or not makes no difference to how Christians define what a Hymn is. You simply can not find any evidence in scripture of any non-inspired hymns that is suppose to be sung for worship.
The burden of proof still lies on the non-epper...
I will stick with my last post.....
Michael
so...your counter to my argument is I used Wiki as a source? ...ok...you do understand that this is not a specious claim? That I can get many corroborating sources? Wiki was just convenient.
Again - you build an argument with false premises, thus your conclusion is false.
We know that hymns existed - we know that Paul's audience would contextually understand the difference between a psalm and a hymn - or the Psalms and a hymn from a cultural standpoint, which is why he qualified the object.
Paul's audience would contextually understand by not some pagan nongodly culture (This is where we get into trouble again with cultural relevancy) but by the Hebrew Scriptures. How does God through the Hebrew Scripture defines Hymns.. That is the question.. And of course through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Paul...
The Hebrew Scripture Stand! It defines Hymns as Psalms as evident in the Book of Psalms itself..
Basic hermeneutics. "Scripture interpret Scripture" Not Pagan Culture!!!!!
Michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire
we know that Paul's audience would contextually understand the difference between a psalm and a hymn. or the Psalms and a hymn from a cultural standpoint.
Paul's audience would contextually understand by not some pagan nongodly culture (This is where we get into trouble again with cultural relevancy) but by the Hebrew Scriptures. How does God through the Hebrew Scripture defines Hymns.. That is the question.. And of course through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Paul...
Michael
So - let me make sure I understand you - we should divorce the cultural context from the text?
So when Paul wrote “Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Song” he only had the Psalms in mind.
So we can interpret that verse as saying "Psalms, Psalms, and Psalms?" There is no compelling evidence that these only refer to the book of Psalms.
The only evidence i have heard of is to bring the Septuagint into play and show that it uses these same terms in the Psalms to describe the songs.
And 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 words that have a wide variety of meaning.
Even if we were to only sing the inspired words of God, why only the Psalms? There are other songs in the Bible that are not in the Psalms.
And what a shame it would be to sing songs in the NT Church that did not contain the name of Christ.
__________________
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.
Pagan Culture is always against God's Laws.. What is surprising??
Let me answer you with a question...
Lets take the issue of divorce. (Some) christians teach that there is two ways the Scripture allows for a person to get a divorce. (My personal belief is leaning to no reason but that is another topic). But let us take the two reason clause... Now our culture defines divorce for hundreds of reasons... They call it divorce yet it transgresses God's moral law and is not biblically called divorce. But the Cultural Context tells us it's divorce... Now let us roll this into Hymnody. Just because Pagan culture has Religious Hymns to their Gods does not make it Hymns. Again they are in rebellion against the true God and are self-centered and want their own ways. They call them Hymns, but are they REALLY Hymns... No, because the Scriptures including the Old Testament Hebrew portion of Scripture defines what a Biblical Hymn is... It is a Psalm..... Paul who was also Hebrew and knowing the Hebrew Scripture would KNOW what a real hymn was and used it in context of Scripture is saying not what pagan culture says....
Michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire
So - let me make sure I understand you - we should divorce the cultural context from the text?
Pagan Culture is always against God's Laws.. What is surprising??
You are confusing the issue - when we exegete Scripture - should we completely disregard the cultural context to whom it was written?
That is - should we disregard anything that may be understood about the language, culture and history of the people, places and culture in context to the Scripture?
The word hymn - why did Paul use the word? Why not, as someone suggested, just say singing Psalms? Should we not ask ourselves what the context of the language was?
Most of what you have written has already been answer... I would also recommend reading "The Songs of Zion" if you need more information about it.
But I will answer your last two questions... which are
"Even if we were to only sing the inspired words of God, why only the Psalms? There are other songs in the Bible that are not in the Psalms. And what a shame it would be to sing songs in the NT Church that did not contain the name of Christ."
Why only the Psalms, because we have a complete Psalter that God has provided, if he wanted those other songs in the psalter he would have put them in there...... He did not, so we are not to sing them in worship.
Second question.... We are told to Pray in the name of Christ, we are never ever told to Sing in the name of Christ. BUT, Christ is throughout the Psalms. Almost every Psalm is about Christ and his life, death, and resurrection.. The Psalms are about Christ and his other names the Annointed one, the Holy one, etc... We are singing about Christ.. That is all we are told to do....
Michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryjf
So we can interpret that verse as saying "Psalms, Psalms, and Psalms?" There is no compelling evidence that these only refer to the book of Psalms.
The only evidence i have heard of is to bring the Septuagint into play and show that it uses these same terms in the Psalms to describe the songs.
And 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 words that have a wide variety of meaning.
Even if we were to only sing the inspired words of God, why only the Psalms? There are other songs in the Bible that are not in the Psalms.
And what a shame it would be to sing songs in the NT Church that did not contain the name of Christ.
It is interesting that the Bible defines what the "New Song" is in the rest of the Scripture... The New Song IS the book of Psalms... Sung in a new light of Christ revelation and our changed hearts... We sing the Psalms in Newiness of Quality NOT quantity.......
The book of Psalms speaks of singing the New Song and it is talking about the Psalms themselves....
I would also look up the word "Cadash" which is used for "New" in the "New Song", it means new in quality not quantity.......
Michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryjf
After Isaiah speaks of Christ coming doesn't he tell us to sing a "new" song??
It is interesting that the Bible defines what the "New Song" is in the rest of the Scripture... The New Song IS the book of Psalms... Sung in a new light of Christ revelation and our changed hearts... We sing the Psalms in Newiness of Quality NOT quantity.......
The book of Psalms speaks of singing the New Song and it is talking about the Psalms themselves....
I would also look up the word "Cadash" which is used for "New" in the "New Song", it means new in quality not quantity.......
Michael
You may have had a point if Isaiah were written before the Psalms.
So now instead of the plain reading of Scripture, you have to "tweak" the meaning of new and hymn and spiritual song, etc...
I really wish Paul would have better defined his meaning on such an important point of scripture... had he done so, he could have kept the church from sinning on so many occasions.
Perhaps we have lost that letter sometime shortly after he had written it.
__________________
1st Kings 18:21 - "And Elijah came near to all the people and said, 'How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.' And the people did not answer him a word." (ESV)
Joshua H.
Layman - Sound Guy - Children's Sunday School Teacher
Fayetteville First Baptist
Fayetteville, Ohio
I would also look up the word "Cadash" which is used for "New" in the "New Song", it means new in quality not quantity.......
I believe chadash simply means "new", "new thing", "something new."
And there are references to new songs being sung in Revelation where the words are quoted from us as not being in the Psalms...
I have no problem with adhering to Scripture and singing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." I do have a problem with adding to the Scripture so that it reads "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as found in the book of Psalms alone."
I recently heard a lecture called "The Eschatology of the Psalms." It was a great lecture. We were taught that when you see the term "new song" in the Psalms and in Rev. that it is reference to our future eternal state. The "new song" is our singing about the great things God has done in history and his promise of our glory to come in Christ. That is why they sang a "new song", Christ is the fulfillment of the "new song" and why we sing a "new song." Therefore the Psalms are relevant and proclaim Christ and his work on the cross.
I heard someone give a reference to a book about this subject and I hope they will pipe up and give it again. I would like to do a fuller study of this.
__________________ Traci
Lynnwood OPC "I have taken all my good deeds, and all my bad deeds, and cast them through each other in a heap before the Lord, and fled from both, and betaken myself to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in him I have sweet peace."--David Dickson
I recently heard a lecture called "The Eschatology of the Psalms." It was a great lecture. We were taught that when you see the term "new song" in the Psalms and in Rev. that it is reference to our future eternal state. The "new song" is our singing about the great things God has done in history and his promise of our glory to come in Christ. That is why they sang a "new song", Christ is the fulfillment of the "new song" and why we sing a "new song."
I hope you see that having to put "new song" in quotes is problematic for me.
Just like I'd have problems with "new heart" and "new spirit"...
Ezekiel 36:26
And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Quote:
Therefore the Psalms are relevant and proclaim Christ and his work on the cross.
I have no problem with that - just the EXCLUSIVE use of the Psalms for this purpose.
Off point, but - The Psalms weren't used exclusively for singing, anyway - they were quoted in writings and spoken. If they were allowed to be utilized with such flexibility - why not other Scripture used in song?
The point being that to use "new song" to mean warrant to actually write songs of praise is clearly strained. Especially when you consider what the psalmist is saying when he uses it. He is refering to the savior and the great things he has done.
The point being that to use "new song" to mean warrant to actually write songs of praise is clearly strained. Especially when you consider what the psalmist is saying when he uses it. He is refering to the savior and the great things he has done.
I believe we were talking about how Isaiah used the term new song, not the Psalmist.
To suggest that Isaiah is not referring to new songs when he says new songs seems quite strained to me.
Linear Mode
