Thread: Sorry, but another question about the RPW

I'll address this first:

Originally Posted by packabacka

But for now, I would request that you not defend prescriptive psalmody with references to prayers and sermons not being verbatim from Scripture, as there is a clear qualitative difference among the three.

There is certainly a difference, but there are also similarities, particularly since there are prayers among the Psalms themselves. There is certainly preaching in them, as well, so I respectfully decline your request.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by packabacka

If I am on my to class and I start singing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," am I profaning God's worship by bringing in human inventions?

It makes for an informative study to look at the difference between the Hebrew words generally translated "meditation" and "worship." Meditation is not merely mental, but verbal also. The Hebrews did not simply think things through, but they uttered their deep thoughts. Worship, on the other hand, is a prostrating of oneself before a superior. According to Scripture, it is an exercise of the whole man, soul and body, not just a meditation. I would classify singing A Mighty Fortress as one walks to class as a meditation, not as worship.

Due to the religous content in the song "A Mighty Fortress" and others, the due purpose for such compositions is to worship God and to praise God by good intention of men as well as by the invented ways of men. But such good intention as well as such wonderful composition regarding to music, it does not justify the singing of those songs.

To singing a religous song which was written for the purpose of worshipping and praising God is an act of singing praises to God, such is an element of worship which must be ordained by God. You can offer thanks to God on your way to classroom as well as sing a psalm in the heart with understanding, but not using any human invention.

If this door be opened, the flood comes after that will be terrible and uncontrollable.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

I'll address this first:

Originally Posted by packabacka

But for now, I would request that you not defend prescriptive psalmody with references to prayers and sermons not being verbatim from Scripture, as there is a clear qualitative difference among the three.

There is certainly a difference, but there are also similarities, particularly since there are prayers among the Psalms themselves. There is certainly preaching in them, as well, so I respectfully decline your request.

My friend,

Prayer, preaching of God's word and singing of praise are 3 different elements of worship.

There are different requirements of piety regarding those elements, and some are different and some are the same.

Originally Posted by YXU

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

I'll address this first:

Originally Posted by packabacka

But for now, I would request that you not defend prescriptive psalmody with references to prayers and sermons not being verbatim from Scripture, as there is a clear qualitative difference among the three.

There is certainly a difference, but there are also similarities, particularly since there are prayers among the Psalms themselves. There is certainly preaching in them, as well, so I respectfully decline your request.

My friend,

Prayer, preaching of God's word and singing of praise are 3 different elements of worship.

There are different requirements of piety regarding those elements, and some are different and some are the same.

Who has said they are not? However each may contain substantial similarities in content and composition - including "uninspired" words.

One can pray a Psalm, or preach a Psalm or sing Scripture or pray Scripture or preach, pray and sing "uninspired" words.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Let's not make this abstract. Please cite the verses that speak of singing a new song, and then we can look at each one to determine the contextual evidences behind the meanings.

Certainly:

Results 1-9 of 9

1. Psalm 33:3
Sing to Him a new song;Play skillfully with a shout of joy.

2. Psalm 40:3
He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God;Many will see and fear And will trust in the LORD.

3. Psalm 96:1
Sing to the LORD a new song;Sing to the LORD, all the earth.

4. Psalm 98:1
O sing to the LORD a new song,For He has done wonderful things,His right hand and His holy arm have gained the victory for Him.

5. Psalm 144:9
I will sing a new song to You, O God;Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

6. Psalm 149:1
Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song,And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones.

7. Isaiah 42:10
Sing to the LORD a new song,Sing His praise from the end of the earth! You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it You islands, and those who dwell on them.

8. Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying, " Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

9. Revelation 14:3
And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth.

from here

Before we begin however:

Can we agree that Scripture commands us to be taught by the Psalms?

Can we agree that the Psalms and at least one extra-Psalmic verse states: "Sing to the Lord a new song?"

Can we agree that the term "new" normatively means either completely new and that the "new" can indeed imply "in a refreshed manner" but not frequently?

Can we agree that the Psalms themselves were at one time new songs outside of the previously decreed Temple liturgy?

Can we agree that we new covenant believers are no longer bound by the previously decreed Temple liturgy?

Can we agree that the Psalms do not sing directly of the revealed Name at which every knee shall bow, that is, Jesus (Philippians 2:10)?

Can we agree to discuss this in terms of Scripture and not tradition?

Can we agree that singing songs in worship of God is nowhere couched as a mystery in Scripture?

Can we agree that the RPW must be understood in terms of what God requires in worship as well as in terms of what God prohibits?

If we can agree on these things or make our presuppositions clear, I believe it will do much to move forward the conversation.

Originally Posted by YXU

If this door be opened, the flood comes after that will be terrible and uncontrollable.

Be sure, Xu, that you are closing the door that should be closed, and opening the one that should be opened. Be careful not to throw out the good with the bad; or to count all bad on unreasonable grounds.

There is a great lacking in the making of distinctions here. John Newton writing "Amazing Grace" is a far, far cry from an electric band rocking the church. The two are by no means the same. Opening the door, as Scripture commands, to people singing their praises is a different topic than opening the door to rock bands.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Can we agree that the RPW must be understood in terms of what God requires in worship as well as in terms of what God prohibits?

Well said, JD. In a previous post Ben suggests that non-EP neglects a strict RPW. I claim to uphold a stricter version of it than he.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by JohnV

Here are your assumptions:
The Psalms are the best; they are flawless; they are from God;
Writing a song is wanting something else than the Psalms;
Therefore writing other songs demonstrate dissatisfaction with what God has given.

Do these assumption necessarily follow? Are you sure that you judge people's motives correctly? Or are they your motives superimposed on other people?

Well, I'm not denying anyone's sincerity, and -- please understand this -- I do not want to denounce anyone for not following the regulative principle. I think they are mistaken, but I am not going to call anyone a blasphemer or heretic for disagreeing with me. We are all trying to sort this thing out.

That being said, if people choose to add some uninspired song (even if it's really good), it still expresses some implicit dissatisfaction with the psalms. It is not malicious, it is probably not intentional, but it nonetheless is some sort of disapprobation. The best way to demonstrate this is through Leviticus 10:1-2:

Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.

They were killed by the LORD not because they were insincere, not because they had done something forbidden, but because they had done something which was not commanded. Likewise, we need to make sure we do what God commands. We are to worship in Spirit and in truth. We cannot forget the latter.

But that's not my main point. If the Psalms are so replete with recommendations and commendations from God concerning the joy and faith of God's people as expressed in their songs of worship, who are we to then say that God is not pleased with such praise and worship? God is pleased with joyful noise, how much more with organized music? If God repeated says that He is pleased with this, why should we doubt it?

God said He was pleased with them because they were following His commands by singing psalms and following His instituted ceremonial laws. That is what we are to do as well; therefore, a capella exclusive psalmody.

I think that it is rather the other way around, that some men are trumping the Psalms by putting rules in place which the Bible never intended. The Psalms themselves are an answer to EP. All you have to do is read them yourself to see that. I'm barely halfway through the Psalms and I have page after page after page of references concerning what God has to say about the praise and worship that He approves in the form of song.

Can you please cite whatever passages would refute exclusive psalmody?

Ben:

Do you want me to answer now, or would you prefer to wait until you are done with JD's comments?

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

One can pray a Psalm, or preach a Psalm or sing Scripture or pray Scripture or preach, pray and sing "uninspired" words.

The fact that a Psalm can be prayed or even preached from does not change the fact that prayer and sermons are subject to uninspired additions, while worship is not, unless God explicitly commands it (which is the topic of other verses speaking of "a new song"). Unless you can cite some Scripture to justify placing all three of these in a similar category of allowable non-inspiration, I do not see how you can justify prescriptive psalmody.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Results 1-9 of 9

First, I just want to thank you for showing me that I can do a specific word/phrase search on Bible Gateway. I appreciate it.

1. Psalm 33:3
Sing to Him a new song;Play skillfully with a shout of joy.

First off, how does this verse justify composing a new, uninspired song which would then be used in worship? How does the context lead to that? The prescriptive psalmody position is not the "default" until I prove otherwise; you need to provide contextual evidence as well. If you want to say, "New means new," then you are equivalent to the Arminian who exclaims "all means all."

Second, imagine you are writing a letter to your family after you have been distanced from them. If you begin the letter with "I am writing you a new letter," would not the "new letter" obviously be the one being written, and not an additional one? Likewise with the "new song" in this verse. We are singing Him a new song, the one that is being sung at that instant we are singing it.

Third, it most certainly can mean new in the sense of "fresh" or "rejuvenated"; i.e., we are singing the same song with a new meaning behind it. Indeed, this really seems to fit the bill given the New Covenant implications of the language in the Psalms.

2. Psalm 40:3
He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God;Many will see and fear And will trust in the LORD.

If God is putting a new song in my mouth, then clearly we are not composing new, uninspired ones. In fact, this seems to heavily substantiate the fact that the "new songs" being spoken of are solely God-breathed. In fact, the past tense in this verse indicates that "new" is not referring to a future new song, but a song that is new in the sense of being fresh.

3. Psalm 96:1
Sing to the LORD a new song;Sing to the LORD, all the earth.

See #1.

4. Psalm 98:1
O sing to the LORD a new song,For He has done wonderful things,His right hand and His holy arm have gained the victory for Him.

See #1.

5. Psalm 144:9
I will sing a new song to You, O God;Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

This is not really prescriptive of singing new songs, but merely a declaration that David will sing a new song.

6. Psalm 149:1
Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song,And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones.

See #1.

7. Isaiah 42:10
Sing to the LORD a new song,Sing His praise from the end of the earth! You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it You islands, and those who dwell on them.

See #1.

8. Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying, " Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

This is descriptive of a song, and not prescriptive of writing new songs.

9. Revelation 14:3
And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth.

See #8.

Before we begin however:

Can we agree that Scripture commands us to be taught by the Psalms?

Can we agree that the Psalms and at least one extra-Psalmic verse states: "Sing to the Lord a new song?"

Yes to these.

Can we agree that the term "new" normatively means either completely new and that the "new" can indeed imply "in a refreshed manner" but not frequently?

If the context indicates that "new" means "completely new," then we will accept that denotation. If the context indicates otherwise, we will do otherwise.

Can we agree that the Psalms themselves were at one time new songs outside of the previously decreed Temple liturgy?

Can we agree that we new covenant believers are no longer bound by the previously decreed Temple liturgy?

Yes.

Can we agree that the Psalms do not sing directly of the revealed Name at which every knee shall bow, that is, Jesus (Philippians 2:10)?

Yes, but that does not mean that we are not singing towards or speaking of Jesus. The actual syllables don't matter a thing.

Can we agree to discuss this in terms of Scripture and not tradition?

Can we agree that singing songs in worship of God is nowhere couched as a mystery in Scripture?

Yes.

Can we agree that the RPW must be understood in terms of what God requires in worship as well as in terms of what God prohibits?

As long as we understand that the terms we are speaking of is that everything that God commands is required and everything not commanded is forbidden. In that case, yes.

Originally Posted by JohnV

Ben:

Do you want me to answer now, or would you prefer to wait until you are done with JD's comments?

You can make a new thread if you'd like.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Originally Posted by packabacka

Let's not make this abstract. Please cite the verses that speak of singing a new song, and then we can look at each one to determine the contextual evidences behind the meanings.

Certainly:

Results 1-9 of 9

1. Psalm 33:3
Sing to Him a new song;Play skillfully with a shout of joy.

2. Psalm 40:3
He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God;Many will see and fear And will trust in the LORD.

3. Psalm 96:1
Sing to the LORD a new song;Sing to the LORD, all the earth.

4. Psalm 98:1
O sing to the LORD a new song,For He has done wonderful things,His right hand and His holy arm have gained the victory for Him.

5. Psalm 144:9
I will sing a new song to You, O God;Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

6. Psalm 149:1
Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song,And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones.

7. Isaiah 42:10
Sing to the LORD a new song,Sing His praise from the end of the earth! You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it You islands, and those who dwell on them.

8. Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying, " Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

9. Revelation 14:3
And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth.

from here

Before we begin however:

Can we agree that Scripture commands us to be taught by the Psalms?

Can we agree that the Psalms and at least one extra-Psalmic verse states: "Sing to the Lord a new song?"

Can we agree that the term "new" normatively means either completely new and that the "new" can indeed imply "in a refreshed manner" but not frequently?

Can we agree that the Psalms themselves were at one time new songs outside of the previously decreed Temple liturgy?

Can we agree that we new covenant believers are no longer bound by the previously decreed Temple liturgy?

Can we agree that the Psalms do not sing directly of the revealed Name at which every knee shall bow, that is, Jesus (Philippians 2:10)?

Can we agree to discuss this in terms of Scripture and not tradition?

Can we agree that singing songs in worship of God is nowhere couched as a mystery in Scripture?

Can we agree that the RPW must be understood in terms of what God requires in worship as well as in terms of what God prohibits?

If we can agree on these things or make our presuppositions clear, I believe it will do much to move forward the conversation.

Sir,

I believe Rev. Schwertly has answered all of your objections in his examination of Psalmody in a systematic way. If you really want to see the defense of Psalmody regarding the objections raised, you can read his paper on that. At:
A Brief Examination of Exclusive Psalmody

My own answers to some of your questions:
It is a blasphemy to say that Psalms are not suitable because it does not have the word Jesus in it. It totally contradicts with Jesus himself. (Luke 24:44, II Tim 3:15-17) As far as I know, many of the prophecies regarding our Messiah were quoted by the Apostles from Psalms. To bow down to Jesus does not mean to bow down when you hear the name Jesus, definitely not. Rather, is to bow down to his authority, kingship and his loving mercy, the name is just external. Let me use a financial accounting word, substance over form.

We are not dispensationlists, all things in the OT, unless abrogated, are all binding to us. Singing of psalms is not a ceremonial event, but the musical instruments are.

The new songs to be is not hard to understand: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thye neighbour as thyself. Over these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - Matthew 22:37-40 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." -John 14:34
This could be the meaning of the new songs, the same as we say God's mercy is new everyday. Also, I believe it can mean other new Psalms written by the prophet. The evidence is that, you cannot find any evidence of uninspired songs be used in the whole scripture in the worship of God.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

One can pray a Psalm, or preach a Psalm or sing Scripture or pray Scripture or preach, pray and sing "uninspired" words.

The fact that a Psalm can be prayed or even preached from does not change the fact that prayer and sermons are subject to uninspired additions, while worship is not, unless God explicitly commands it (which is the topic of other verses speaking of "a new song"). Unless you can cite some Scripture to justify placing all three of these in a similar category of allowable non-inspiration, I do not see how you can justify prescriptive psalmody.

Singing alone is not considered corporate worship. Worship is the continuum of elements (singing, praying, preaching, practice (the ordinances and offering).

The only thing you offer here is an assertion based on a convoluted hermeneutic, while I offer an elegant Scriptural solution in terms of corporate worship:

We are commanded to be taught by the Psalms.
The Psalms command new songs.
We are commanded to sing new songs.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Results 1-9 of 9
First, I just want to thank you for showing me that I can do a specific word/phrase search on Bible Gateway. I appreciate it.

Pleasure

1. Psalm 33:3
Sing to Him a new song;Play skillfully with a shout of joy.

First off, how does this verse justify composing a new, uninspired song which would then be used in worship? How does the context lead to that? The prescriptive psalmody position is not the "default" until I prove otherwise; you need to provide contextual evidence as well. If you want to say, "New means new," then you are equivalent to the Arminian who exclaims "all means all."

This is a cop-out - commonly referred to as guilt by association or a red-herring. Election is a mystery - singing new songs is not.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Second, imagine you are writing a letter to your family after you have been distanced from them. If you begin the letter with "I am writing you a new letter," would not the "new letter" obviously be the one being written, and not an additional one? Likewise with the "new song" in this verse. We are singing Him a new song, the one that is being sung at that instant we are singing it.

Except the Psalmist (bless him!) did not say - "I am singing unto the Lord this new song!"

Originally Posted by packabacka

Third, it most certainly can mean new in the sense of "fresh" or "rejuvenated"; i.e., we are singing the same song with a new meaning behind it. Indeed, this really seems to fit the bill given the New Covenant implications of the language in the Psalms.

Certainly, if you disregard the fact that we are to also be taught by the Psalms. I agree we can sing the Psalms in a renewed/refreshed manner - and if we were commanded only to sing them, fini. BUT - we are to be taught by them, also. And they clearly teach the new covenant believer to sing new songs in the sense that the song itself has new elements of the new covenant as compared to the old songs of the old covenant.

2. Psalm 40:3
He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God; Many will see and fear And will trust in the LORD.

Originally Posted by packabacka

If God is putting a new song in my mouth, then clearly we are not composing new, uninspired ones. In fact, this seems to heavily substantiate the fact that the "new songs" being spoken of are solely God-breathed. In fact, the past tense in this verse indicates that "new" is not referring to a future new song, but a song that is new in the sense of being fresh.

Except he didn't say a new Scripture in the Psalmist's mouth - the Lord puts new prayers and new sermons in our mouths today and we don't consider them Scripture. Look at the intent and the action - a new song of praise so that many will see and fear and trust in the Lord. Who is our revealed Lord?

3. Psalm 96:1
Sing to the LORD a new song;Sing to the LORD, all the earth.

See #1.

and my response

4. Psalm 98:1
O sing to the LORD a new song,For He has done wonderful things,His right hand and His holy arm have gained the victory for Him.

See #1.

and my response

5. Psalm 144:9
I will sing a new song to You, O God;Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

Originally Posted by packabacka

This is not really prescriptive of singing new songs, but merely a declaration that David will sing a new song.

Yah - but is it prescriptive for the new covenant believer? Yup.

6. Psalm 149:1
Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song,And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones.

See #1.

and my response

7. Isaiah 42:10
Sing to the LORD a new song,Sing His praise from the end of the earth! You who go down to the sea, and all that is in it You islands, and those who dwell on them.

See #1.

and my response besides - this is a non-Psalmic instance - I would have been interested to see your rebuttal.

8. Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying, " Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Originally Posted by packabacka

This is descriptive of a song, and not prescriptive of writing new songs.

It demonstrates consistent old covenant, new covenant, covenant fulfillment praxis.

9. Revelation 14:3
And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth.

See #8.

and my response

Originally Posted by JD

Can we agree that the Psalms do not sing directly of the revealed Name at which every knee shall bow, that is, Jesus (Philippians 2:10)?

Originally Posted by packabacka

Yes, but that does not mean that we are not singing towards or speaking of Jesus. The actual syllables don't matter a thing.

Really? So it is ok to make the name of Jesus irrelevant in worship? Interesting. Reason trumps the Father's transmission of His Son's name in the vernacular.

I guess you could read Scripture and exchange the name Jesus for Satan or a profanity and it wouldn't mean a thing?

Originally Posted by JD

Can we agree that the RPW must be understood in terms of what God requires in worship as well as in terms of what God prohibits?

Originally Posted by packabacka

As long as we understand that the terms we are speaking of is that everything that God commands is required and everything not commanded is forbidden. In that case, yes.

sure - not sure what the refining point is, but ok

Originally Posted by YXU

Sir,

I believe Rev. Schwertly has answered all of your objections in his examination of Psalmody in a systematic way. If you really want to see the defense of Psalmody regarding the objections raised, you can read his paper on that. At:
A Brief Examination of Exclusive Psalmody

I have read the piece a couple of times - it is built on a false premise, so all the conclusions are faulty.

My own answers to some of your questions:
It is a blasphemy to say that Psalms are not suitable because it does not have the word Jesus in it. It totally contradicts with Jesus himself. (Luke 24:44, II Tim 3:15-17) As far as I know, many of the prophecies regarding our Messiah were quoted by the Apostles from Psalms.

I think you are debating a strawman here - the Psalms are perfectly suitable for worship, just not without new song, too - otherwise Scripture contradicts itself.

To bow down to Jesus does not mean to bow down when you hear the name Jesus, definitely not. Rather, is to bow down to his authority, kingship and his loving mercy, the name is just external. Let me use a financial accounting word, substance over form.

Again - accounting for English being not your native tongue - I believe you are interacting with an argument I am not making.

We are not dispensationlists, all things in the OT, unless abrogated, are all binding to us.

AMEN! Except EP is abrogated here:

Colossians 3:16
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

See? The Psalms teach new covenant believers that we can sing a new song

The new songs to be is not hard to understand: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thye neighbour as thyself. Over these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - Matthew 22:37-40 "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." -John 14:34
This could be the meaning of the new songs, the same as we say God's mercy is new everyday. Also, I believe it can mean other new Psalms written by the prophet. The evidence is that, you cannot find any evidence of uninspired songs be used in the whole scripture in the worship of God.

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

The evidence simply points to the transitory nature of the new covenant church's "uninspired" new songs. Just as we have no uninspired prayers or preaching from the early church, yet continue to produce them.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Singing alone is not considered corporate worship. Worship is the continuum of elements (singing, praying, preaching, practice (the ordinances and offering).

Oh yes, I understand that. My point is simply that the singing aspect of worship is not given the leeway that praying and preaching are. By "worship" I meant the singing aspect of worship, and in retrospect I should have used more precise terminology. Thank you for the correction.

This is a cop-out - commonly referred to as guilt by association or a red-herring. Election is a mystery - singing new songs is not.

My point is that you ought to provide positive evidence for your side as well. This argument is not one where the burden of proof is solely on EPers. I am not appealing to mystery or silence by any means.

Except the Psalmist (bless him!) did not say - "I am singing unto the Lord this new song!"

The phrase "sing unto the Lord a new song" can most certainly be tantamount in meaning. This would be analogous to a person shouting, "Praise God in the highest!" -- he would not be actually exhorting others in his vicinity to start to praise God, but rather he would just be praising God via that exhortation. Likewise with this.

Certainly, if you disregard the fact that we are to also be taught by the Psalms. I agree we can sing the Psalms in a renewed/refreshed manner - and if we were commanded only to sing them, fini. BUT - we are to be taught by them, also. And they clearly teach the new covenant believer to sing new songs in the sense that the song itself has new elements of the new covenant as compared to the old songs of the old covenant.

I'm sorry if I hastily agreed to this earlier, but where are your Scripture proofs for the claim that we are to be taught by the Psalms in this manner?

Except he didn't say a new Scripture in the Psalmist's mouth - the Lord puts new prayers and new sermons in our mouths today and we don't consider them Scripture. Look at the intent and the action - a new song of praise so that many will see and fear and trust in the Lord. Who is our revealed Lord?

That is a good point. Although, it is irrespective of EP's truthfulness. If EP is true, then the songs God is placing in us are only psalms; if not, then not.

Yah - but is it prescriptive for the new covenant believer? Yup.

How so? Also, from reading this, how can you actually infer that the psalmist is referring to a newly composed song? That just seems to strain the text so much. This verse especially falls under the "new"="present" category.

and my response besides - this is a non-Psalmic instance - I would have been interested to see your rebuttal.

It's still an exclamation of praise in the same vein, so I figured they were equivalent for the most part.

It demonstrates consistent old covenant, new covenant, covenant fulfillment praxis.

But it doesn't logically follow to say that uninspired songs are allowed in worship. The Bible's recording of eople singing a new song in the future is not the Bible's commandment to sing uninspired songs in worship.

Really? So it is ok to make the name of Jesus irrelevant in worship? Interesting. Reason trumps God transmission of His Son's name in the vernacular.

The denotation and connotation are what counts. Even the verse that says, "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" is not necessarily referring to those specific syllables.

I guess you could read Scripture and exchange the name Jesus for Satan or a profanity and it wouldn't mean a thing?

No, it would. My point is that as long as we are speaking about Jesus, it isn't especially crucial to refer to Him as Jesus. We can call Him Lord, King of kings, Christ, Redeemer, etc. This is not to allow all language (not by any means), but it is not to restrict it to the syllables of Jesus. Besides, where exactly does God command that the specific name of "Jesus" be used in our worship? What kinds of parameters are assigned to that? Are we supposed to use it in every song? Every other song? Etc.

sure - not sure what the refining point is, but ok

I was ensuring that the negative aspect of the RPW entailed everything that is not commanded by God.

Blessings.

All,

One request I would like to make is that we set aside any kind of personal or emotional convictions regarding what should be the case in worship. For example, it was brought up that Newton's "Amazing Grace" seems far too God-exalting to be reasonably excluded from worship. We may think that, but it is not what we think that matters.

I am not trying to make an ad hominem here, but I am just asking that we check our hearts. I was previously averse to the implications of the RPW, and it was due to my rebellion against God's Word. The "it just makes sense" part of the doctrine came after I submitted myself to the Holy Scriptures.

All the best.

I'm sorry if I hastily agreed to this earlier, but where are your Scripture proofs for the claim that we are to be taught by the Psalms in this manner?

So you now you disagree that we are to be taught by the Psalms?

Originally Posted by pacbak

How so? Also, from reading this, how can you actually infer that the psalmist is referring to a newly composed song? That just seems to strain the text so much. This verse especially falls under the "new"="present" category.

Speaks to praxis.

It's still an exclamation of praise in the same vein, so I figured they were equivalent for the most part.

They are equivalent and they break the rationale that the command to sing new songs is self-referential.

But it doesn't logically follow to say that uninspired songs are allowed in worship. The Bible's recording of eople singing a new song in the future is not the Bible's commandment to sing uninspired songs in worship.

It is substantiation for PP, and irrelevant to EP.

Originally Posted by pacbak

The denotation and connotation are what counts. Even the verse that says, "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow" is not necessarily referring to those specific syllables.

oy, can you say semantics?

Originally Posted by JD

I guess you could read Scripture and exchange the name Jesus for Satan or a profanity and it wouldn't mean a thing?

Originally Posted by pacbak

No, it would. My point is that as long as we are speaking about Jesus, it isn't especially crucial to refer to Him as Jesus. We can call Him Lord, King of kings, Christ, Redeemer, etc. This is not to allow all language (not by any means), but it is not to restrict it to the syllables of Jesus. Besides, where exactly does God command that the specific name of "Jesus" be used in our worship? What kinds of parameters are assigned to that? Are we supposed to use it in every song? Every other song? Etc.

Ugh - so, how are you supposed to chew the bread in communion? How should you pick up the cup? left handed? right handed? etc... please don't mix trivia, circumstance and semantics with the proclamation of my Lord's name. God put those syllables together for a purpose - to objectify the Name is...wrong.

Originally Posted by packabacka

I am not trying to make an ad hominem here, but I am just asking that we check our hearts. I was previously averse to the implications of the RPW, and it was due to my rebellion against God's Word. The "it just makes sense" part of the doctrine came after I submitted myself to the Holy Scriptures.

So, you are proposing that all non-EP'ers are in rebellion against God's Word?

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

So you now you disagree that we are to be taught by the Psalms?

No, I am merely asking for a citation that we are to be taught by the Psalms in that manner, i.e., that we are to learn from the Psalms how to compose other uninspired songs for corporate worship.

Originally Posted by pacbak

How so? Also, from reading this, how can you actually infer that the psalmist is referring to a newly composed song? That just seems to strain the text so much. This verse especially falls under the "new"="present" category.

Speaks to praxis.

How does a mention of the saints' singing a song during the eschaton imply that we are to sing uninspired songs in worship?

They are equivalent and they break the rationale that the command to sing new songs is self-referential.

What do you mean by the "rationale that the command to sing new songs is self-referential"?

Ugh - so, how are you supposed to chew the bread in communion? How should you pick up the cup? left handed? right handed? etc... please don't mix trivia, circumstance and semantics with the proclamation of my Lord's name. God put those syllables together for a purpose - to objectify the Name is...wrong.

We are still referring to His name! Besides, it's just in song: we are not banning the word "Jesus" from the worship service; we are simply demanding that we only worship in the way God has prescribed. And where did God ever demand that the word "Jesus" be used specifically in sung worship?

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

So, you are proposing that all non-EP'ers are in rebellion against God's Word?

No, not necessarily. I'm asking that our positions be due to our searching the Scriptures and not due to "There's no way God would want that!"

Originally Posted by YXU

If this door be opened, the flood comes after that will be terrible and uncontrollable.

Not if the action is carefully defined. On the one hand, you carefully define the differences between preaching, praying, and singing, and you have discriminated well. On the other hand, you conflate all religious devotion into the single category of "worship," thereby negating the variety of devotional actions prescribed and described by Scripture.

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by JohnV

Ben:

Do you want me to answer now, or would you prefer to wait until you are done with JD's comments?

You can make a new thread if you'd like.

I would like to participate in this one too, Ben. For me one at a time is enough. We can split the thread later.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by YXU

If this door be opened, the flood comes after that will be terrible and uncontrollable.

Not if the action is carefully defined. On the one hand, you carefully define the differences between preaching, praying, and singing, and you have discriminated well. On the other hand, you conflate all religious devotion into the single category of "worship," thereby negating the variety of devotional actions prescribed and described by Scripture.

Rev. Winzer,
I admire your acuteness in logic and excellent rhetoric in all of your statements. I read some old posts and noticed your powerful arguments in those debates, although other have some good grounds.

You say that I confused religious devotion with worship, I didn't. On the contrary, I confirmed that religious devotion is different than worship. You have already confirmed that singing of praise is an element of worship, and then you are making singing of praise a devotional activity, or at least suitable to devotional activities. There is no scriptual proof that a devotion is conducted by singing of praise. I see reading of God's word as applicable to both an element of worship as well as devotion, but not the singing of praise, for there is no biblical support.

On the other hand, modern hymns are ways invented by men to praise and worship God according to their own imagination. It is an arbitrary statement you made to say that a man singing such hymns designed for such an obvious purpose is not an act of worship.

Anyway, I maybe wrong, if you can provide me with scripture to support your view, I will submit to the scripture.

Regards,

YX

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Originally Posted by packabacka

I am not trying to make an ad hominem here, but I am just asking that we check our hearts. I was previously averse to the implications of the RPW, and it was due to my rebellion against God's Word. The "it just makes sense" part of the doctrine came after I submitted myself to the Holy Scriptures.

So, you are proposing that all non-EP'ers are in rebellion against God's Word?

Rebellion is a strong word. It has specific meaning in scripture.

1 Samuel 15:23 23 "For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry."

No matter what side of the EP debate a person is on they should not accuse the other side of rebellion. We certainly can state that we believe the brother with whom we disagree holds a contrary view and is in error. That is fair game. We need to watch our rhetoric beyond this.

going to bed now - see ya'll tomorrow sometimes

For the record, my post never said or implied that either side of the EP issue is rebellious to God's Word -- and if it did, I am recanting it now.

I said that my lack of understanding was due to my rebellion. I was trying to figure what I wanted the RPW to be prior to figuring out what it was. I was trying to conform God to myself rather than the opposite. Fortunately, God opened my eyes.

YXU,

I believe you misunderstand Rev. Winzer's stance. He is not advocating for hymnody in worship -- he is merely saying why singing a hymn on my own when, for instance, taking a walk, is not breaching the RPW. Although, I don't want to misrepresent him, and I will therefore stop at that.

Originally Posted by YXU

You say that I confused religious devotion with worship, I didn't.

I apologise if I implied you were confusing the two; that wasn't my intention. I only meant that the categories you were using were a conflation. Such a mixture of ideas would mean that all singing must fall under the genus of "worship." If that is the case, then an individual would not be permitted to "sing" except when he had the specific intention of drawing near to God with body and soul. This would make for a very restricted devotional life.

It might be helpful to distinguish what uninspired hymnodists intend by the composition of their songs, and the use an exclusive psalmodist might make of those songs. If I am preaching, and in a poetical strain quote the words, "Were the whole realm of nature mine," it cannot be said that I am engaging in that part of worship called "singing." If on a Monday morning I hum the tune of Rockingham while on my daily walk and muse on the same words, that cannot be called worship, but is really meditation. If on Tuesday morning I replace the humming with the words themselves, it doesn't cease being meditation simply because I have joined words and tune together.

But if it's Wednesday morning...

Originally Posted by packabacka

But if it's Wednesday morning...

You will have to tune in tomorrow.

Seriously, personally I am content to devotionally meditate on the Psalms, especially because they are not so theologically abstract as the old hymns, and they have a boldness of expression uninspired men dare nor employ; but if I benefit from those theological abstractions as a source of personal meditation, I cannot see why this would be blameworthy while profitting from a good theological book is recommended.

Originally Posted by packabacka

All,

One request I would like to make is that we set aside any kind of personal or emotional convictions regarding what should be the case in worship. For example, it was brought up that Newton's "Amazing Grace" seems far too God-exalting to be reasonably excluded from worship. We may think that, but it is not what we think that matters.

I am not trying to make an ad hominem here, but I am just asking that we check our hearts. I was previously averse to the implications of the RPW, and it was due to my rebellion against God's Word. The "it just makes sense" part of the doctrine came after I submitted myself to the Holy Scriptures.

All the best.

Ben:

I think I can agree with this request.

But it seems that you perhaps mistook my meaning. So let me explain a bit.

I was not saying that "Amazing Grace" is far too God-exalting to be reasonably excluded from worship. I was not appealing to or relying on any emotional or personal conviction. I was answering to the assertion that writing a song of praise is expressing dissatisfaction with the Psalms, that it is as if saying that the Psalms are not good enough. This assumption is peculiar to EP; it is what EP-ers say and not what non-EP-ers say. And certainly John Newton's "Amazing Grace" is a good example of this.

But let me go back a few steps so as to make my point clearer.

The RPW is not itself a doctrine, but is a formula stemming out of the Second Commandment. The command to see to God's commands, and to neither add to nor subtract from them, is part of the Second Commandment. The RPW itself received a proper name only recently in church history.

If we put our own presuppositions in first place, and then read these into the texts of the Bible, then we would be breaking this commandment. That is, if we have our minds made up before we read Scripture, then we are in violation of the Second Commandment. Putting anything before God and His Word is breaking this commandment.

If, as some have asserted, EP-ers presuppose their conclusions, imposing preconvictions onto the texts, reading the texts to mean that we sing only the Psalms when this very interpretation is the thing in question; and if EP-ers insist that they have the RPW as grounds for their convictions, then EP-ers are breaking the Second Commandment in claiming to uphold the RPW, an obvious contradiction.

If, on the other hand, the verses themselves indicate clearly that we are to sing only the Psalms, then it should be enough that EP-ers should stand on Scripture.

However, EP-ers have unanimously agreed that they cannot cite any Scripture as proof, but stand instead on the RPW. They claim that the Bible does not command new songs, so new songs are forbidden. (If they are going to stand on the RPW then let them say what they believe the RPW to say: new songs are forbidden.) How do they know that new songs are not commanded? By imposing their conclusions on all the texts that refer to songs. They see no command to sing songs in addition to the Psalms, though they are found in many places.

But before you get stuck on the obvious question, "Where does it say that?" I would like to show you that song writers like John Newton do not despise the Psalms when they write their own songs.

You have suggested that someone who writes other songs shows a dissatisfaction with the Psalms, that this insinuates that the Psalms are not enough. Thus someone like John Newton openly declared dissatisfaction with the Psalms when he wrote his own song. I'm pretty sure that this would be news to John Newton, but that's not the point. The point is that there is nothing in Bible or in the Catechisms or the Confession to indicate to John Newton that God was not pleased with his worship by means of that song "Amazing Grace". The Standards try to cover all the elements of worship adequately, so as to lead to proper instruction in faith and worship, and to guard the church as to pure doctrine. And yet not a word that John Newton may turn to so that he may be warned that he has despised the Word of God by writing his own song. Not one word. He did exactly as WCF, XXI, v directed, word for word. By what direction was he to know that writing his own song was a despising of the Word of God? When has the church ever made such a ruling, that he may turn to it and be instructed?

Such a thought would have been far from his mind. If he had had in mind that the Psalms were not good enough to express what he felt, then why would he have stuck to strenously to the Psalms in his verses? Why would he have also been such a champion of Scripture as he was? Why would he be remembered so fondly and warmly in the histories of the Reformed churches? I hardly know about him, and yet it comes as a shock to me that he was one to despise the Word of God. I am sure that he had the highest of regard for the Psalms and all of God's Word.


I am writing this also JD. JD, be careful in commending new songs that you do not to say that the Psalms are not good enough. John Newton would never have said that, feeling strongly opposed to such a notion. And yet he felt quite free to write a new song. I am sure that in his heart he had the highest regard for the Psalms as fitting praise, and had no intention of detracting from them, nor had the slightest thought that he did so by writing his own song.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by YXU

You say that I confused religious devotion with worship, I didn't.

I apologise if I implied you were confusing the two; that wasn't my intention. I only meant that the categories you were using were a conflation. Such a mixture of ideas would mean that all singing must fall under the genus of "worship." If that is the case, then an individual would not be permitted to "sing" except when he had the specific intention of drawing near to God with body and soul. This would make for a very restricted devotional life.

It might be helpful to distinguish what uninspired hymnodists intend by the composition of their songs, and the use an exclusive psalmodist might make of those songs. If I am preaching, and in a poetical strain quote the words, "Were the whole realm of nature mine," it cannot be said that I am engaging in that part of worship called "singing." If on a Monday morning I hum the tune of Rockingham while on my daily walk and muse on the same words, that cannot be called worship, but is really meditation. If on Tuesday morning I replace the humming with the words themselves, it doesn't cease being meditation simply because I have joined words and tune together.

In my understanding, meditating on God's Word is mulling it over, contemplating what it says, applying it to my heart.

Worship, as you said previously, encompasses the entire being in adoration. Apart from corporate worship, for the believer, is not every act of whole-hearted obedience and living worship of God? Even our work is to be whole-hearted for the Lord.

So then, couldn't even mediatation on God's Word or a song of adoration to God be worship? Or do I have to be in a particular setting, in a particular position of my body and using speciific words when I worship? Are not our whole lives to be worship to God?

As I read your posts, I get the impression (and I may be wrong) that you believe worship is a compartmenatized activity. So then what difference does it make if I say with my whole heart in love to my God (as I believe the writer meant) "where the whole realm of nature mine that were an offering far to small, love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all" or if I sing it? If it is done in adoration of my God with a pure heart? Does the fact that it is not verbatim from the Psalms make it sin? I find nothing doctrinally wrong with those words.

2 quick points:

1. I never, ever, ever want anyone to think I am proposing that the Psalms are not "good enough" - the Psalms are magnificent in their scope, spiritual depth and comfort.

2. There is no either/or concerning the Psalms as songs of worship - there is only both/and. Just as we have the liberty of blending inspired and uninspired words in other elements of worship, so we have been given this liberty in singing praise.

The benefit of this liberty is that we may sing praises that explicity address the new covenant in our song, just as we may do in our prayers, preaching and practice.

Blessings!

Reguarding the fact that we should be taught by the Psalms is set in 2 Timothy 3:16.

And if one is violating the EP principle set out by the RPW then they are accused of Rebellion and violating the RPW. I have seen this more than not. But we don't need to use the sharpness of tone in discussing it.

BTW, I have been taught EP from Covenanters when I was a member in the RPCNA and I am not EP.

I am not saying that John Newton was malicious or spiteful of God's Word in any way, and I thought I transmitted that successfully earlier. People can be sincere and incorrect. We can worship in Spirit but not in truth. That is possible, as the story of the unauthorized fire in Leviticus 10 tells us. Nadab and Abihu were slain by God not because they were emotionally averse to Him, not because they were wanting to profane His word, not even because they did what was explicitly forbidden -- but because they did not do as He explicitly commanded.

Likewise with John Newton. His lyrics are great. The song is great. I enjoy it much, and I know that he wrote it from the bottom of his heart out of deep affections for God. But if it were contrary to God's command, then it is contrary to God's command and forbidden in worship. Period.

Originally Posted by JohnV

How do they know that new songs are not commanded? By imposing their conclusions on all the texts that refer to songs. They see no command to sing songs in addition to the Psalms, though they are found in many places.

On the contrary, I would vehemently state that we know new songs are not commanded because all the texts speaking of "new songs" are not mandates to compose new songs, and this is contextually evidenced. As I said before, do not be akin to the Arminian and exclaim, "New means new!" If you want to demonstrate that our presuppositions are distorting the text, then please evince it. Otherwise it is nothing but a divisive ad hominem.

I think the text is fairly clear. We do not add to or subtract from God's command, and God tells us exactly how He is to be worshiped. He gave us an entire book of worship songs, and He commanded us to sing them, and He did not command anything else. Therefore, everything else is forbidden. Of course, if you disagree, let it be in the fact that God did command something else and not that we are letting our presuppositions blind us.

Originally Posted by packabacka

I am not saying that John Newton was malicious or spiteful of God's Word in any way, and I thought I transmitted that successfully earlier. People can be sincere and incorrect.

Yes; I believe you did.

Moderator note: Folks, this thread will not continue down this particular avenue. It will be done if that is the case. EP folks think they are right; and non EP folks think they are; each obviously thinks there are ramifications to the opposing view that involve sinning. It's not personal. Discuss the issues.

Also - I will repeat.

In this context:

"All means all"

and

"New means new"

Are not equivalent arguments.

God's election and singing new songs as new covenant believers are contextually mystery vs liberty in God's decrees.

Has God ever NOT elected? No.

Has God ever required new songs from His people? Yes.

Does He require them today?

Yes.

New covenant believers are to be taught by the Psalms in regards to worship songs.

The Psalms teach that we should sing new songs and act as the model for these new songs.

This is not mysterious.

Originally Posted by packabacka

People can be sincere and incorrect. We can worship in Spirit but not in truth. That is possible, as the story of the unauthorized fire in Leviticus 10 tells us. Nadab and Abihu were slain by God not because they were emotionally averse to Him, not because they were wanting to profane His word, not even because they did what was explicitly forbidden -- but because they did not do as He explicitly commanded.

I am finding the statement above hard to fathom in the context of this thread. There is a false worship and a worship that is accepted. There is a false faith that does look like a true faith but is found out to be void and empty in the end. And I am not so sure that Nadab and Abihu were not emotionally averse to God. I can't make that distinction since the scripture is silent on this issue, unless I have missed something.

Concerning the Spirit and Truth, they go hand in Hand.

(Joh 4:23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

(Joh 4:24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

(Joh 16:13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

(Joh 16:14) He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

(Eph 5:9) (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

(Eph 5:10) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

Personally, I don't think you can separate the Spirit and truth.

Now Concerning NEW SONGS....

I am also not convinced that the phrase new songs (as in a plural sense) is biblical. The New Song still has the same mystery of redemption but now in the New Covenant it is revealed in Christ.

(Rev 5:9) And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

(Rev 5:10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

In this context:

"All means all"

and

"New means new"

Are not equivalent arguments.

I'm not saying that they necessarily are. I am merely asking that we ensure that the passages speaking of new songs are truly commanding us to compose new, uninspired song. I am only requesting an evidenced hermeneutic. That is all that I meant by what I said. Not only should we give prooftexts that speak of new songs, but also we should say what exactly the "sing a new song" means. Surely you can agree with this.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I am finding the statement above [we can worship in spirit but not in truth] hard to fathom in the context of this thread. There is a false worship and a worship that is accepted. There is a false faith that does look like a true faith but is found out to be void and empty in the end. And I am not so sure that Nadab and Abihu were not emotionally averse to God. I can't make that distinction since the scripture is silent on this issue, unless I have missed something.

Leviticus 10:1 states that fire consumed them because they had not prepared the fire as God commanded them. I would say that it said nothing about their emotional state because God acted irrespective of their emotional states.

Concerning the Spirit and Truth, they go hand in Hand. [...] Personally, I don't think you can separate the Spirit and truth.

I have always seen this described as having great affections and great doctrine being taught. Could you tell me what else these can refer to?

The Bible verses you brought up spoke of true worshipers worshiping in both spirit and truth, but not that it is impossible to have one without the other. They do say that it is impossible to have one without the other and maintain true worship, but they do not say that only one can be lacking in any given situation.

I am also not convinced that the phrase new songs (as in a plural sense) is biblical. The New Song still has the same mystery of redemption but now in the New Covenant it is revealed in Christ.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. How are you tying this in with EP? What do you mean that the phrase isn't biblical?

Originally Posted by YXU

My friend,

Tunes are circumstances of psalm singing, it should be easy to sung at the corporate worship.

The Bible records singing of psalms as an element of worship and commands us to sing praises to God, and there cannot be found any record in Bible about uninspired pieces be sung at the worship of God.

This point begs the question. Of course you can argue that nothing no uninspired song is recorded in Scripture, because we presuppose that everything in Scripture is inspired, therefore if it is recorded in Scripture, it is inspired. But traditionally exclusive psalmists do not argue that we can sing any inspired text, but only the psalms. The question then is do we see people singing songs outside of the 150 psalms, and the answer is yes.