You say that this is "explicit command", and "fairly clear", that we can know "exactly" that God forbids other songs. John Newton went against "explicit command", you say; and "God tells us exactly how He is to be worshiped". Until now I understood that EP stood on your version of the RPW, and that EP did not have specific Scripture to prove itself. May I ask then that you provide this "explicit command", and/or show us the Church's doctrinal instruction so that we may know "exactly" that this is the case?

It makes no difference whether you assert that John Newton despised the Psalms or that he worshiped untruthfully, or that he went against explicit command. It works out the same: John Newton does not belong in our Reformed histories as someone to look up to as a shining example of faith.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Chris:

I am using John Newton as an example of what is being said against all true believers and worshipers of God who do not follow the EP arguments. If it is said against him then it is said against us who sing his great hymn in worship. If you allow the EP to suggest a charge of unfaithfulness against those who are not EP, then you should also allow non-EP to charge the EP people with unfaithfulness. The point is, if it is wrong to do so, then it should be wrong for both sides.

I came to the defense of good Reformed folk who worship God with all their heart, who do not despise the Psalms at all, not one bit, and who believe from Scripture that God calls us to express our praises in the form of song. We do not despise the Psalms or think any less of them, nor are dissatisfied with them in any way when we are inspired by them to write songs of worship to God. That is a notion peculiar only to the EP people, not to us.

Fair is fair. Do not comdemn us who are also faithful to God but disagree with you.

John,
Drop the Newton topic and kindred.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/sorr...tml#post485756

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

The only passage that commands that we be filled with the spirit is attached to singing music, thanksgiving, and submission. These are not devoid of truth in the least.

(Eph 5:18) And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

(Eph 5:19) Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

(Eph 5:20) Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

(Eph 5:21) Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

This was addresed towards panta dokimazete. I am not sure I am correct here but new songs in a plural sense seems a bit overboard. But I might be mistaken. I am struggling with the command that we are to write new songs for worship. Especially in light of the stuff that people are singing in Churches today.

I referenced the following to show what the New Song for the New Covenant should be. It is the type fulfilled and the anti-type revealed. Most modern worship music doesn't do this in my opinion. It also seems to hypnotic unlike the songs revealed in scripture.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Doctrinal positions have some consequence of error and sin. The baptists here don't get bent out of shape about the consequence of padeobaptism belief to their position. I suggest you do likewise on this topic and stick to the discussion of the doctrine in question.

We should keep a distinction between what's going on in many churches in the way of modern music and practices. Just because I am not EP that does not mean that I am not opposed to bringing guitars and drums and empty repetitious songs into the worship services. I am not in favour of overhead projections of lyrics either. "New songs" does not necessarily mean approval of modern trends in music writing and music presentation either.

As a Puritan Board Freshman I will wade into this water with caution. Our God is a Mystery and we can't know His every thought. But why would the God who never changes and seemed to enjoy being Worshiped with musical instruments; who has declared in His Word that there is music in Heaven where He will be Worshiped eternally, make a choice not to be Worshiped with music during the Kingdom age?

Could it be that He wants the trumpet that marks His Christ's return to be the first musical instrument to be heard in Worship? Or could it really be as simple as God testing the writers of the Creeds with a tricky doctrine to see if people could be tricked into actually worshiping with music not made only in their hearts but possibly with a drum? But God could take no pleasure in this drummers sin, for God takes no joy in sin. But still some would say that this drummer did sin because he drummed during Worship, something that God was only pleased with in the Past, and will be pleased again with in the future. (Unless some say, "There is no proof that those harps in Rev. 5:8 were played.")

My mind is spinning after reading this thread. I never dreamed i would hear, "when does new mean "new?" I once heard someone argue over what the meaning of the word "is" is but that was argued by a person simply wanting to win a arguement, not really trying to get people over to his side.

So my default position is that the Bible makes it's doctrines clear and the more clear a doctrine is, the more sure the doctrine is to be taught. I'll stick with what is clear to me. I think God has clearly said He enjoys being worshiped with music and song.

__________________
Alan Hughes
PCA
Lake Zurich, Illinois

If you think I'm a Hyper-Calvinist, God planned that thought before the foundation of the Earth. If you try to tell me that God only planned some things and not all things, then your problem is with God not me.

Hi John, I just wanted to ask you about this statement. I wonder with what scriptural argument do you keep guitars and drums out of worship? Why do you think they are not appropriate and while other instruments are? Do you think that what is appropriate is relative to each persons opinions as to what is appropriate?

I ask these questions because it seems that many who say they agree with the RPW are very arbitrary in applying it. I don't think worship is a thing that we should be arbitrary about.

__________________
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

Traci:

This is an aside from the topic of this thread. I'll answer, but I don't know if it is appropriate.

As you may likely be able to tell, I play the guitar myself. I have learned to play some psalms and hymns in a very appropriate manner. I have played for my daughter's wedding being very, very careful as to how I presented it. I know what it is to play a musical instrument in worship. I've played both the organ and the piano for worship services.

Being arbitrary about it is something I learned early to work against. I had an excellent mentor.

I find nothing wrong with the guitar itself, or drums themselves. There is so much more that can be done with them than what is being done with them today.

Experience tells me, though, that people do not know how to differentiate properly. Bringing in the guitar has little to do with the guitar itself; it brings in a whole new cultural influence. This is not about the guitar, but about the music that people automatically think is justified just because the guitar is OK for worship services.

So I would use Scriptures which address the appropriateness of what is being sung and how it is being sung. I would also argue about the limitations of the guitar, although those limitations are being pushed back more and more. If we can divorce these abilities from the cultural influences, then we're talking a whole different thing.

The use of "worship" in the NT includes physical gesture and action.

1 Cor 14:25, "And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth."

Rev. 3:9, "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

Rev. 4:10, "The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne."

Rev. 19:10, "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Worship is primarily a matter of the heart, but it also includes the preoccupation of the body. At work one can serve the Lord by doing all unto Him, but if the body is occupied milling timber it cannot be also utilised to worship Him in the proper sense of that term.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Surely I do - I also believe a hermeneutic should be as simple as it needs to be and not one shred more complicated than it must.

In fact, I have conceded (grudgingly) one potentially faulty premise that the EP'er has constructed. That is the synonym usage of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs as primarily and exclusively referential to the 150 Psalms.

However, I take the words of the apostle literally when he says to be taught by the Psalms.

I then examine the Psalms for what they teach in context as a new covenant believer desiring to worship God in Spirit and Truth.

Those Psalms teach a variety of things concerning worship and praxis.

Among them are several instances of the positive command - sing to the Lord (or Him) a new song.

I then ask myself in a non-skeptical manner, since this is the Lord speaking in His Word - what is the simplest interpretation of these positive commands?

Well, as a new covenant believer, it seems a good and necessary consequence that the NT church may compose and sing new songs of praise in the fullness of understanding that the old covenant only spoke of in types and shadows.

So, new and "uninspired" songs along with the 150 Psalms are required and commanded for sung worship and thus aligned with the RPW.

__________________
-JD

I sense that there is another difference at work in this topic than that of how we view the RPW. I believe I also see a difference in how we regard worship. I know it is broader than this, but a reduction of the difference could be expressed by a narrower view which sees only formal worship as worship, and on the other extreme every act done in appreciation and adoration of a sovereign God being worship. As I said, I know it isn't so black and white, that there are many in-between ideas of worship, varying from one extreme to the other; yet this difference seems to showing itself in this thread.

I am personally persuaded that resting EP on the RPW is disregard to what the RPW really is. It goes against Reformed teaching and practice to do that. I am also persuaded that there is formal worship in a strict sense, but also that there is informal worship, and that all of life is worship in a sense; but that we should not confuse one form of worship with another. Singing or whistling a hymn while working comes from a joy in the heart that comes from daily moment-to-moment worship. This is also there in formal worship, but formal worship is something that extends the meaning of worship to include not only others but also the necessary regulations required so that everything be done decently and orderly. Those regulations would change with the setting, but worship itself is still worship.

A good follow up question to my earlier post is - although we all may sing new songs, who is allowed/qualified to compose them?

"Sing a new song to the Lord." If this were to mean, "compose and sing a new song to the Lord," whenever an individual sang "Amazing Grace" he would not be composing/singing a new song to the Lord; ergo, he would be disobeying the "prescription" to compose and sing a new song. If the composing and singing of a new song were merely permitted, and one were still at liberty to sing an old song, then the command is no longer a command but merely a permission. But the RPW "regulates" worship, it does not merely give permission.

Question: Does this passage teach us that such "new songs" originate with God and that he has graciously given us, in the Psalms, that which is acceptable praise unto him?

__________________
~Jay~
Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
disabled - cancer
Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church

zzzzzz ...

Hi, Matthew

I think my previous post begins to approach this concern.

We are all commanded to sing a new song - we are not, however, all commanded to compose new songs for worship any more than we are all commanded to be teachers.

Those whom are called and qualified to compose new songs do so for the edification of the body in corporate worship, just as some do in terms of preaching and praying.

At this point you have undermined your argument that "sing a new song" implies "compose a new song." You now have no basis for saying that "new songs" allow for uninspired songs.

To further address your concern - the apostle commands us to sing the 150 Psalms as well as to be taught by them to sing new songs, thus we are commanded to sing the "new" and the "old" songs. Just as we are to be taught and admonished by the "Old" Testament and the "New".

Not either/or, but both/and.

Sorry, I don't follow - how can one sing a new song unless it is composed?

I believe so. There is no basis for concluding that "sing a new song" equates to "compose a new song."

If "new song" means "new words," then it must be composed. This is your basic argument as to why uninspired songs should be permitted. I am pointing out that a prescription does not merely permit, but requires. If that is the case, then every individual who is commanded to sing "new words" must necessarily compose new words to be sung, and that only once. Once the words have been sung they are not "new" any more.

so - to follow your reasoning - when the Lord creates in us a new heart, in the next instant it becomes an old heart?

And when He creates a new heaven and a new earth, they, at some point, become old?

And the New Testament is now actually the Old Testament?

Sorry, this reasoning is very confusing to me.

This is your reasoning, not mine. You claim that "new song" must require "new words," not me. I am perfectly content with the orthodox teaching that "new" refers to the circumstances in which the song is sung, not to the nature of the song.

I'm sorry and with all due respect - I think you are flogging a strawman.

Please explain where I am recommending "new words" and in what context.

Gabriel, it is possible for Scripture to record an instance where people sing uninspired song. The song need not be printed in Scripture (and therefore inspired), just stated as an instance. That is, if the Bible were to explicitly sing, "and they sang hymns composed by men, and God was pleased," it would be an instance of an uninspired song.

Also, what you are claiming is not that he was fallaciously begging the question, but rather stating a meaningless truism.

And that is the point in dispute...

__________________
Ben Maas. . . . .Facebook
In college, attending First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Ada, OH, and
Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Belle Center, OH
When at home, attending Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC), Mansfield, OH

“Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.”
-Jonathan Edwards-

Not really - the point in dispute (as I see it) is whether Scripture commands that new covenant believers sing new songs along with the Psalms.

You are appealing to the command to sing a new song as warrant to compose uninspired songs; therefore your argument assumes new songs require new words. If you accepted that a new song allows for an old song to be sung in new circumstances, you would undercut the basis on which you allege uninspired songs are necessitated by the command to sing new songs.

I agree that much "Christian worship music" written today does not show the type fulfilled and the anti-type revealed but is in contrast, hypnotic. But some good CWM is being written. 20 years ago a good friend wrote a beautiful anthem on these verses.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham,
BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
I once sat in darkness, and waited for the sun to shine.
I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
– John Deacon -

I think this is the only significant place at which we disagree. I believe we are to be taught by the Psalms, and thus we should learn through the beautiful worship songs of God, but I do not think "sing a new song" in those contexts implies that we are to compose and sing uninspired songs in worship -- reading over the Psalms does not seem like an exhortation to actually sing it, just like a congregation singing "Praise the Lord!" are not actually encouraging other people to praise the Lord (everyone else already is!).

We have gone over the interpretation of those specific passages before, so I don't think we can do anything else at this point.

JD, what I believe the brother is saying is that if we are commanded to sing a new song, then we are not merely allowed to sing a new song, but we are required to sing it -- the essence of the RPW. Further, that means that every song we use must be actually new, i.e., it must be newly composed. And if you argue that it does not have to be newly composed each time it is sung, then you undercut your basis from the beginning when you stated that the "new song" mandated to be sung in the Psalms refers to a newly composed song.

Is that right, Rev. Winzer?

Ok, to strain the gnat - the argument assumes an arrangement of words that may contain an arrangement of words in an old way and include words that are arranged in such a way as to reference new circumstance as they are contextualized in the truth of the new covenant.

I do and it doesn't - anymore than preaching the OT in light of the new circumstance undercuts commanded, yet uninspired, preaching from the NT.

Exactly right. One is not at liberty to swap sailing vessels in the middle of a regatta.

You can't support your supposition that new songs requires uninspired songs so you revert back to your conflation of the elements of worship. Please stick to the argument being discussed.

If one is a non-EP'er, it is not conflation in terms of having "uninspired" content.

Only if one accepts that "new" implies totally and completely newly composed every time - which we know that it doesn't - otherwise the Psalms contradict themselves. By the EP'ers own rationale, "new" can mean both "totally new" and "in a refreshed context", so the uninspired new song can be composed, then sung completely new and in a refreshed context afterwards.

And after this, I am done with semantic loops - let the reader judge.

You are utilising a different argument to avoid facing the difficulties presented to your new songs argument. Please deal with the new songs difficulty first, and if you decide to abandon that then we can look at your preaching analogy.

Hence you have no basis for assuming "new songs" necesarily means "totally new;" by your own admission you are reading this idea into the term.

Matthew, I can see that I am being forced to debate only on your terms, so, respectfully, I, once more, am bowing out of the thread.

Maybe another time, packabacka.

Pax to all.

You are being challenged to account for the way you are using terms to establish an argument; but to bow out of the thread is you choice. Blessings!

Thanks, I feel like there has been sufficient iteration and definition for either case to use as substantiation and the law of diminishing returns is certainly being evidentiated.

Blessings to you, as well.

See you next time!