(Redux) Exclusive Psalmody Debate

[panta dokimazete]

It is, to me, a bit too simple, to just say "hey, we should write brand new songs". That is WAY over-simplified.

And I hope you understand, it seems WAY to simplistic to say, "Hey, let's forget the command to sing new songs, and just stick with the Psalms, it is safer that way - we'll just legislate our way out of worshipping God with our whole heart, mind and strength by only having to compose new tunes!"

John specifically told us in 1 John 2:7 and 2 John 5 that the OLD commandment was the NEW commandment. The law has a NEW PERSPECTIVE about it. But the law does not change. Worship has a NEW perspective about it, but it does not change. We sing those songs, those Psalms, with theologically rich content.

You know - I was pondering these exact verses - compare what he says:

7Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.

To Isaiah's prophecy:

6"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness;
I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the people,
a light for the nations,
7to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
8I am the LORD; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
9Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them."
10Sing to the LORD a new song,
his praise from the end of the earth,

-----------------------

If the light has come and been revealed clearly, why would we not heed the command and sing completely new songs that celebrate with absolute clarity that which was known only in part and in darkness? Why not rejoice and obey the OLD command and sing NEW songs in the light of our NEW PERSPECTIVE?

 

[etexas]

Yes, it is often a separate book. There are a couple popular translations available. Some of the EP denominations use the "Psalms of David in Meter," an English translation created in 1650. My denomination uses the Book of Psalms for Singing, a more recent translation.

The Psalms in the above-mentioned translations mostly differ from the prose versions in syntax, that is, word order. With the amount of synonyms available in the English language and the flexibility made possible with some creativity in moving words around, the Psalms are set to meter and made to rhyme. The translations are done, as far as I know, from the original languages. However, our Psalter does also include a handful of selections to be chanted. These are taken straight out of the KJV, completely unaltered.

Intresting! As I noted in another thread the 1662 BCP has a Psalter, we use a Scottish Chant. Usually at least two are done in each communion. Thank you for helping me get a better grasp on the EP position. Grace and Peace.

 

[Davidius]

Intresting! As I noted in another thread the 1662 BCP has a Psalter, we use a Scottish Chant. Usually at least two are done in each communion. Thank you for helping me get a better grasp on the EP position. Grace and Peace.

I'm glad that I was able to help.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Joshua,

Thanks for your replies, however I don't think you answered my question about method.

[Dear moderator I understand your nervousness about the RPW coming up and a new thread being spawned. However, I'm not wanting to go there. My point is that there is an intimate connection between EP and the RPW. The method determines the outcome concering EP or not. Please rebuke me if necessary, but I'm not wanting to discuss RPW alone but always in connection with EP the topic of this thread].

I think I touched on that by asking him if he agreed with the RPW, or felt that I was misinterpreting the RPW. Does that answer your question, or, rather, his? It might be a disagreement on the RPW.

As people who believe in sola scripura our first port of call should be what scripture explicitly says. Let's leave the RPW aside for a moment, because there's so much disagreement about what it means.

Let's just see if we can find Scriptures that say we can only in public worship (again, does the NT speak of the gathering as "worship"?) do what is explicitly commanded. Once we answer this question, then we can make more informed conclusions about EP or not.

God bless you,

Marty.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

[Dear moderator I understand your nervousness about the RPW coming up and a new thread being spawned. However, I'm not wanting to go there. My point is that there is an intimate connection between EP and the RPW. The method determines the outcome concering EP or not. Please rebuke me if necessary, but I'm not wanting to discuss RPW alone but always in connection with EP the topic of this thread].
snip
Let's leave the RPW aside for a moment, because there's so much disagreement about what it means.

Marty,
Mod hat on.
Ok, but my experience is this will go a certain way and I'll probably regret it. Mod hat off.
Allow some corrections to perceptions. 1. Sola Scriptura applied to worship “is” the regulative principle. Divorcing the two in a Presbyterian’s mind is nonsensical. 2. While there is ignorant disagreement over what the RPW means, we do have historic definitions and there “should not” be any confusion on that score. I’m rehashing this definition posted some time ago on another thread.

The phrase "whatever is not commanded is forbidden" is a short definition of the RPW as I detail from this extract from my intro to the Smith/Lachman piece on worship in the 2005 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal. http://www.cpjournal.com
From: Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D. “Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore,” The Confessional Presbyterian (2005) 116.

The Westminster Assembly determined: “But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.” (Confession of Faith, 21.1). The Princeton professor, Dr. Samuel Miller, gives a succinct statement of the principle when he writes that since 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.”[4] A briefer statement still which sums up the Presbyterian principle of worship, is that in the worship of God, “Not to Command is to Forbid,”[5] or “Whatever is not commanded is forbidden.”[6]

As this brief definition can lead to misunderstanding, a necessarily corollary to this principle states that there are some circumstances “concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.” (Confession of Faith, 1.6). Defining these “circumstances,” is part and parcel with the discussion of what authority the church has in ordering the worship of God.
---------------
[4]. Presbyterianism the Truly Primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ, “The Worship of the Presbyterian Church” (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 64-65.
[5]. Samuel Rutherford, The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication (London, 1646) 96.
[6]. John B. Adger, “A Denial of Divine Right for Organs in Public Worship,” Southern Presbyterian Review, 20.1 (January 1869) 85.

 

[sotzo]

Let's just see if we can find Scriptures that say we can only in public worship (again, does the NT speak of the gathering as "worship"?) do what is explicitly commanded. Once we answer this question, then we can make more informed conclusions about EP or not.

Your approach is sound. However, probably only something that can be accomplished by study and prayer than on a thread.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Chris,

Thanks so much for allowing this discussion to proceed. I'll do my best to steer it away from just another RPW debate.

Marty,
Allow some corrections to perceptions. 1. Sola Scriptura applied to worship “is” the regulative principle. Divorcing the two in a Presbyterian’s mind is nonsensical. 2. While there is ignorant disagreement over what the RPW means, we do have historic definitions and there “should not” be any confusion on that score.

Yes, perhaps the divorce is nonsensical to Presbyterians and perhaps there shouldn't be confusion about the RPW from historic definitions. The reality however, is that intelligent people steeped in Puritan scholarship disagree over the RPW (one thinks, for example, of Mark Dever, a Puritan devotee, and his take on the RPW in his book The Deliberate Church, with which many would disagree).

Thus, rather than get sidetracked on a right definition of the RPW let's go back to first principles:

[1] Can anyone show that Scripture itself actually says that we can only do in the gathering what is explicitly commanded in Scripture itself?

[2] Then, however we answer [1] will determine then how we approach EP.

God bless,

Marty.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Dear Chris,
Yes, perhaps the divorce is nonsensical to Presbyterians and perhaps there shouldn't be confusion about the RPW from historic definitions. The reality however, is that intelligent people steeped in Puritan scholarship disagree over the RPW (one thinks, for example, of Mark Dever, a Puritan devotee, and his take on the RPW in his book The Deliberate Church, with which many would disagree).

Thus, rather than get sidetracked on a right definition of the RPW let's go back to first principles:

[1] Can anyone show that Scripture itself actually says that we can only do in the gathering what is explicitly commanded in Scripture itself?

[2] Then, however we answer [1] will determine then how we approach EP.

God bless,

Marty.

Marty,
You are basically asking and will get the scriptures traditionally used to support the RPW; I'm not sure your casting the question of going back to first principles really changes anything. Please also note Miller's definition of the RPW.

 

[beej6]

As a former music director, I've read most everything there is to read on "both sides" of this debate. Rather than 'exclusive psalmody' or, for all intents and purposes, 'exclusive hymnody' (which I believe to be a definite error), it would be better to be an 'inclusive psalmodist.' Confessionally, we must sing psalms, but not only Psalms but also any praise consistent with the NT.

The best essay defending biblical hymnody is Benjamin Shaw's essay in _The Worship of God._

 

[larryjf]

Here are some arguments against EP that i have used in the past...

• The NT casts much more light on our Savior and that should be expressed in our worship songs.
• Many hymns were written in the century before Christ and would have been used by Christ and His apostles.
• Other songs than those in the Hebrew Psalter were sung in the temple and synagogue services.
• The Psalter is part of the ceremonial worship of the OT and not to be exclusively used today.
• If I can hear the preaching of men, why not the songs of men.
• The Scripture does not tell us that particular words of songs are elements of worship.

Interested in reading the replies.

 

[Arch2k]

Here are some arguments against EP that i have used in the past...

• The NT casts much more light on our Savior and that should be expressed in our worship songs.

Surely the Psalms speak of Christ and are to be sung in light of the new testament. But this does not necessitate composing new songs. Nowhere do we have apostolic example or command to compose new songs.

• Many hymns were written in the century before Christ and would have been used by Christ and His apostles.

This is not the case. Hymns were generally not allowed in the apostolic church. In fact, the Council of Laodicea in A.D. 360 forbade their use in the church.

• Other songs than those in the Hebrew Psalter were sung in the temple and synagogue services.

Inspired songs? Do you have examples?

• The Psalter is part of the ceremonial worship of the OT and not to be exclusively used today.

Then why would we be commanded in the N.T. to sing Psalms with grace in the heart? This is generally accepted by all reformed that we must at least sing SOME Psalms.

• If I can hear the preaching of men, why not the songs of men.

Because you have a God ordained office for preaching, and God has promised to bless the preaching of the Word. Where is the office for composing song? It expired with the closing of the Psalter.

Also, it is a seperate element of worship than preaching. I could just as easily argue that "If we are to only read the scriptures in worship, then should not we only sing the scriptures?"

• The Scripture does not tell us that particular words of songs are elements of worship.

Does it not list specific types of songs to be used in worship? Would you be comfortable singing "Mary had a little lamb" in worship? Why not? What songs are appropriate? Who makes those rules? Are the rules arbitrary?

 

[Davidius]

The NT casts much more light on our Savior and that should be expressed in our worship songs.

It's not up for you to decide what should and should not be done in worship.

Many hymns were written in the century before Christ and would have been used by Christ and His apostles.

Where is the evidence? As we've already said here, there is plenty of extant literature from that time period; we have no hymnals. By the way, the evidence needs to be biblical. Showing that people wrote hymns from extra-biblical sources doesn't mean that it's acceptable.

Other songs than those in the Hebrew Psalter were sung in the temple and synagogue services.

Another assertion. Do you have evidence to back this up? The only passages in the Old Testament I know of which tell us what they were singing in corporate worship say that "the songs of David and Asaph" were used. Again, your evidence needs to be from the bible if it can be acceptable in a discussion of the RPW and its implications.

The Psalter is part of the ceremonial worship of the OT and not to be exclusively used today.

Why not just go all the way? If the Psalter is tied specifically to ceremonial worship then it shouldn't be used at all. We don't still burn incense or offer sacrifices.

But the Psalter is not part of ceremonial worship. Instructions for ceremonial worship were given in Exodus and Leviticus. The writing of the Psalter took place over a long period of time, mostly after the ceremonial law had been given. Therefore your assertion that the Psalter is "part of ceremonial worship" is just plain wrong.

If I can hear the preaching of men, why not the songs of men.

We've gone over this many times before (even on this thread) so I won't bother going into it.

The Scripture does not tell us that particular words of songs are elements of worship.

Every issue can't be solved by pointing to a proof-text and saying "aha! got ya now!" The Scripture also doesn't say that God is a triune Being: one God in three persons. I'm not sure exactly what it would take to convince you here. Where does the Scripture say to sing whatever we want? Aside from exegesis of other passages why is not plain enough that God put 150 songs in the middle of our bible?

 

[Davidius]

One of the most amazing things about the non-EP position is how many of its proponents will often try to create their own subjective standards of what music is and is not acceptable in worship. They'll say some instruments and styles are unacceptable. They'll also say that 7-11 praise choruses are wrong. They'll also say that having dance teams to accompany the music is wrong. I find it unbearably frustrating but sometimes the desire to have one's cake and eat it too just makes me laugh. If you allow the hymns of man and instruments in worship then you have absolutely no reason to exclude certain instruments or musical/lyrical styles.

 

[panta dokimazete]

If you allow the hymns of man and instruments in worship then you have absolutely no reason to exclude certain instruments or musical/lyrical styles.

How did you go from trying to honor the biblical mandate to sing new songs to allowing dance in worship? non sequitur

Your bias is showing...

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

And I hope you understand, it seems WAY to simplistic to say, "Hey, let's forget the command to sing new songs, and just stick with the Psalms, it is safer that way - we'll just legislate our way out of worshipping God with our whole heart, mind and strength by only having to compose new tunes!"



You know - I was pondering these exact verses - compare what he says:

7Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.

To Isaiah's prophecy:

6"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness;
I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the people,
a light for the nations,
7to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
8I am the LORD; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
9Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them."
10Sing to the LORD a new song,
his praise from the end of the earth,

-----------------------

If the light has come and been revealed clearly, why would we not heed the command and sing completely new songs that celebrate with absolute clarity that which was known only in part and in darkness? Why not rejoice and obey the OLD command and sing NEW songs in the light of our NEW PERSPECTIVE?

JD, you are oversimplifying the need to construct songs that God has not specirfically told you to constuct. Have you run through the Pslams and thier historical context to find out if those new songs have already been constructed or not? Or are you assuming that every command in every verse is something for "you" in that regard.

Let me quote someone, "It is true that very often in the Scriptures new occasions call for the composition of new songs, but it equally true that very often in the Scriptures new compositions call fot eh composition of new prophetic prose to interpret the occasion in relation to God's redemptive-historical plan. And as the latter can in no way be urged in support of an open canon, so the former can in no way be urged in favor of an open psalter. For the advocate of the use of uninspired hymns in owrship to prove his case from such biblical-theological considerations, he would have to show that consistently thoughout the Scriptures, new occasions call for the composition and use in worship of new uninspired sons. The evidence, however, will not support such an assertiaon."

Which is why I asked what I asked in my last post of considering how they are used in thier historical context, and I reaffirm the need to trace whether those new songs were in fact constructed, or that you have a license to add anything to worship in that regard.

"The psalter very clearly arose out of a context in which the production of inspired worship song was the norm, not the xception, in liturgical practice."

Which I think is why a great question to ask is, post Christ's ascension, 1) when was the first hymn sung in church, and 2) when was the first instrument used in church and why.

The answer to both those would scare you.

Praise is a divine command concerning theological truths that are used in the worship of God, as God sees them, and requiring inspired songwriters to write those songs to add into the Psalter (God's divine book of praise) would require the canon to remain open. Another scary thought. The canon of Scripture is closed, and no new songs, until the consummation (a new persspective again in the new age) will require a new song. For now, we will simplyt have to do with what God gave us in the Psalter,w hich speaks volumes about Christ.

The psalter is the only inspired songbook known. It is a unique collection of praise. God desires to see only Christ in us, and thus, only the Word of God through us. This is why preachers preach THE WORD, and we are to live THE WORD and we are to sing THE WORD.

Also, as a note, which no one addressed that I saw, one must make a distinction of OT worship with the Temple and the worship accomplished in the synagogue. The church is patterned after the synagogue, not the temple.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

And I hope you understand, it seems WAY to simplistic to say, "Hey, let's forget the command to sing new songs, and just stick with the Psalms, it is safer that way - we'll just legislate our way out of worshipping God with our whole heart, mind and strength by only having to compose new tunes!"



You know - I was pondering these exact verses - compare what he says:

7Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8At the same time, it is a new commandment that I am writing to you, which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.

To Isaiah's prophecy:

6"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness;
I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the people,
a light for the nations,
7to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
8I am the LORD; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
9Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them."
10Sing to the LORD a new song,
his praise from the end of the earth,

-----------------------

If the light has come and been revealed clearly, why would we not heed the command and sing completely new songs that celebrate with absolute clarity that which was known only in part and in darkness? Why not rejoice and obey the OLD command and sing NEW songs in the light of our NEW PERSPECTIVE?

JD, you are oversimplifying the need to construct songs that God has not specirfically told you to constuct. Have you run through the Pslams and thier historical context to find out if those new songs have already been constructed or not? Or are you assuming that every command in every verse is something for "you" in that regard.

Let me quote someone, "It is true that very often in the Scriptures new occasions call for the composition of new songs, but it equally true that very often in the Scriptures new compositions call fot eh composition of new prophetic prose to interpret the occasion in relation to God's redemptive-historical plan. And as the latter can in no way be urged in support of an open canon, so the former can in no way be urged in favor of an open psalter. For the advocate of the use of uninspired hymns in owrship to prove his case from such biblical-theological considerations, he would have to show that consistently thoughout the Scriptures, new occasions call for the composition and use in worship of new uninspired sons. The evidence, however, will not support such an assertiaon."

Which is why I asked what I asked in my last post of considering how they are used in thier historical context, and I reaffirm the need to trace whether those new songs were in fact constructed, or that you have a license to add anything to worship in that regard.

"The psalter very clearly arose out of a context in which the production of inspired worship song was the norm, not the xception, in liturgical practice."

Which I think is why a great question to ask is, post Christ's ascension, 1) when was the first hymn sung in church, and 2) when was the first instrument used in church and why.

The answer to both those would scare you.

Praise is a divine command concerning theological truths that are used in the worship of God, as God sees them, and requiring inspired songwriters to write those songs to add into the Psalter (God's divine book of praise) would require the canon to remain open. Another scary thought. The canon of Scripture is closed, and no new songs, until the consummation (a new persspective again in the new age) will require a new song. For now, we will simplyt have to do with what God gave us in the Psalter,w hich speaks volumes about Christ.

The psalter is the only inspired songbook known. It is a unique collection of praise. God desires to see only Christ in us, and thus, only the Word of God through us. This is why preachers preach THE WORD, and we are to live THE WORD and we are to sing THE WORD.

Also, as a note, which no one addressed that I saw, one must make a distinction of OT worship with the Temple and the worship accomplished in the synagogue. The church is patterned after the synagogue, not the temple.

 

[larryjf]

Regarding the statement that when i said...

* Many hymns were written in the century before Christ and would have been used by Christ and His apostles.

...This is not the case.

I reply (From History of Early Christian Literature)...

The Psalms of Solomon are the well-known Pharisaic hymns, composed in the last century before Christ and extant in Greek in a few manuscripts. They once stood at the end of the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus, after the New Testament and the two Letters of Clement, for they are listed in its table of contents, although they have long since been lost from the manuscript.

 

[larryjf]

My post:

* If I can hear the preaching of men, why not the songs of men.

The reply:

Because you have a God ordained office for preaching, and God has promised to bless the preaching of the Word. Where is the office for composing song? It expired with the closing of the Psalter.

Yes, i agree with this reply to my post. That makes perfect sense to me.

 

[larryjf]

Other songs than those in the Hebrew Psalter were sung in the temple and synagogue services.

Another assertion. Do you have evidence to back this up? The only passages in the Old Testament I know of which tell us what they were singing in corporate worship say that "the songs of David and Asaph" were used. Again, your evidence needs to be from the bible if it can be acceptable in a discussion of the RPW and its implications.

Why would it have to be from the Bible as i am not speaking of RPW but of the history of the Church?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Regarding the statement that when i said...

...This is not the case.

Definitely not the case. The first uninspired hymn was written in the 4th century, and the first instrument used in the church was in the eighth century.

The early church must have been really theologically screwed up, and woefully spiritually depleated for waiting so long after Christ ascended to get moving on writing a few "new songs" to worship Him by, eh? About, oh, 10 generations of Christians on "new songs", and oh, 25 generations before an instrument was seen? Hmmm.

And no wonder, the first "uninspired" hymn was written by Arius to teach theologically weak Christians his doctrine. Who wants to follow Arius - maybe I should make a new poll?

And the first instrument was inducted in the ROMAN church by Pope Vitalian in the eighth century. Anyone know what it was - It was an organ, and even the priests and monks told him not to.

Really think about that. The early church, for the first 400 years of its existence after Christ's asecnsion, sung Psalms with no instruments. Synagogue worship!

And it was not until 800 years later that the first instrument entered the Christian church.

Hmmmm.

(Church history and historical theology can be such a drag to modern Christians sometimes, eh?)

 

[larryjf]

Where does the Scripture say to sing whatever we want? Aside from exegesis of other passages why is not plain enough that God put 150 songs in the middle of our bible?

Asking where in Scripture it says to sing other than Psalms, but then restricting exegesis of other passages of Scripture kind of ties my hands here.
Clearly i believe that those passages of Scripture tell us specifically to sing "hymns" (col 3:16).

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, this has probably been dealt with in a different thread, but could you explain the EP position on this. How do Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 *dictate* the 150 psalms only? Why is it necessary to interpret 'psalmois', 'humnois' and 'odais pneumatikais' as referring to the 150 psalms in particular? I understand that it can be interpreted that way, but why is it necessary?

This thread has proceeded apace since this was written, but I will try to provide an answer nonetheless since it was specifically directed to me. If I understand correctly, Pastor Klein, you would like to know what compels the inspired psalms interpretation of Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16. First, I would say the reason is to be found in the fact that the apostle is telling them to sing what already exists, not to create what does not exist. Secondly, the apostle uses these three terms in addressing two different churches, so the terms are specifically related to a concept which was common amongst the churches. Thirdly, the inspired Psalter already existed, and its compositions were designated by the three terms which the apostle uses. Fourthly, we know of no other compositions which were designated by the use of these terms within the context of NT church worship except for the extraordinary situation at Corinth where individuals engaged in "inspired" psalmody (1 Cor. 14), and it is not made clear how the apostle regarded such a practice. Given the absence of any other information in the NT relative to the practice of congregational singing, and given our commitment to only worship God in the way that He has appointed, I conclude that Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 provides compelling evidence that only inspired psalms should be sung in the public worship of God. The only wise God would not have given liberty to sing other songs in congregational worship without making some provision for their orderly composition and introduction. This is a particularly impressive fact when it is considered what lengths were taken towards the composing of songs fit to be sung in congregational worship under the OT, and the fact those compositions were tied to the prophetic function.

 

[larryjf]

Rev. Winzer,

First, I would say the reason is to be found in the fact that the apostle is telling them to sing what already exists, not to create what does not exist.

If hymns outside of the Psalms did not exist is the source that i quoted in this post in error or am i misreading it?

 

[MW]

If hymns outside of the Psalms did not exist is the source that i quoted in this post in error or am i misreading it?

Off the top of my head, it would come down to whether or not the Psalms of Solomon would pass for "spiritual songs." Intertestamental lit. is an area I have not studied adequately, but I have read the Psalms of Solomon because of interest in NT background. I would say that they reflect the hope of an earthly Messianic kingdom (which the reformed tradition calls a Jewish fiction). The key feature of the OT Psalter's eschatology is its emphasis on nearness to God and heavenly orientation.

 

[Davidius]

How did you go from trying to honor the biblical mandate to sing new songs to allowing dance in worship? non sequitur

Your bias is showing...

Which bias would that be?. I can give just as much "biblical proof" that we should be dancing in the aisles as you can give that we should be writing our own songs. But I know that many non-EPers would reject "Praise Him with the tambourine and dance" while at the same time championing "sing a new song" to protect their precious hymns.

 

[Davidius]

Asking where in Scripture it says to sing other than Psalms, but then restricting exegesis of other passages of Scripture kind of ties my hands here.
Clearly i believe that those passages of Scripture tell us specifically to sing "hymns" (col 3:16).

Hey Larry,

Forgive my lack of clarity. I only meant that I agree to a certain extent that there is not one single verse that contains the entire EP argument. However, that shouldn't bother us because it is that way for many important Christian doctrines. We both know that sometimes it takes a little more than simple prooftexting. I was just saying that if we take a step back from the close-up exegesis of individual passages (like Col 3:16) for a moment, then I find it very telling to begin with that God put 150 songs in a hymnal in the middle of our bibles. I find it so compelling that I would really need some good reason to go back to singing other songs.

Concerning your quotation of col 3:16 I would commend you to the reading of Mr. Winzer's comment which he wrote just previous to this one I'm writing as well as several other ones on the subject he has written within the span of this thread.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

A very nice and succinct statement of the EP case from Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16.

Rev. Winzer, this has probably been dealt with in a different thread, but could you explain the EP position on this. How do Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 *dictate* the 150 psalms only? Why is it necessary to interpret 'psalmois', 'humnois' and 'odais pneumatikais' as referring to the 150 psalms in particular? I understand that it can be interpreted that way, but why is it necessary?

This thread has proceeded apace since this was written, but I will try to provide an answer nonetheless since it was specifically directed to me. If I understand correctly, Pastor Klein, you would like to know what compels the inspired psalms interpretation of Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16. First, I would say the reason is to be found in the fact that the apostle is telling them to sing what already exists, not to create what does not exist. Secondly, the apostle uses these three terms in addressing two different churches, so the terms are specifically related to a concept which was common amongst the churches. Thirdly, the inspired Psalter already existed, and its compositions were designated by the three terms which the apostle uses. Fourthly, we know of no other compositions which were designated by the use of these terms within the context of NT church worship except for the extraordinary situation at Corinth where individuals engaged in "inspired" psalmody (1 Cor. 14), and it is not made clear how the apostle regarded such a practice. Given the absence of any other information in the NT relative to the practice of congregational singing, and given our commitment to only worship God in the way that He has appointed, I conclude that Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 provides compelling evidence that only inspired psalms should be sung in the public worship of God. The only wise God would not have given liberty to sing other songs in congregational worship without making some provision for their orderly composition and introduction. This is a particularly impressive fact when it is considered what lengths were taken towards the composing of songs fit to be sung in congregational worship under the OT, and the fact those compositions were tied to the prophetic function.

 

[larryjf]

Hey Larry,

Forgive my lack of clarity. I only meant that I agree to a certain extent that there is not one single verse that contains the entire EP argument. However, that shouldn't bother us because it is that way for many important Christian doctrines. We both know that sometimes it takes a little more than simple prooftexting. I was just saying that if we take a step back from the close-up exegesis of individual passages (like Col 3:16) for a moment, then I find it very telling to begin with that God put 150 songs in a hymnal in the middle of our bibles. I find it so compelling that I would really need some good reason to go back to singing other songs.

Concerning your quotation of col 3:16 I would commend you to the reading of Mr. Winzer's comment which he wrote just previous to this one I'm writing as well as several other ones on the subject he has written within the span of this thread.

I am not convinced by Rev. Winzer's comments regarding Col 3:16.

As i stated above there is evidence of hymns that were sung by the Pharisees that are not found in the Book of Psalms, and they predate Christ.

There are also the Odes of Solomon that were written around the middle of the second century.

In the Bodmer Papyri there is a hymn...
Hymn the Father, ye saints;
Sing to the Mother, ye virgins.
Let us hymn them and exalt them highly, ye saints.
Be ye exalted, brides and bridegrooms,
For ye have found your bridegroom, Christ.
Drink of the wine, brides and bridegrooms.

And Eph 5:14 seems to be part of a hymn as well...
Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.

So to suggest that nothing but the Psalms were sung until the time of Arius seems to be erroneous.

 

[Coram Deo]

Did All the Jews sing from the Psalms of Solomon? Were they used in the Temple?

My answer is no... Here is Why:

The Psalms of Solomon are a group of eighteen psalms (religious songs or poems) that are not part of any scriptural canon. The Psalms of Solomon (I keep wanting to type "Saruman" from the Lord of the Rings ) anyway The Psalms of Solomon are link to the Essenes of Qumran, who separated themselves from what they saw as a wicked world, and alternately to the Pharisees in opposition to the Sadducees who generally supported the Maccabees.

Background on the Essenes

The Essenes (sg. Essene, IPA: [ɛˈsin]) were followers of a religious way of living in Judaism that flourished from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. Many scholars argue that there were a number of separate but related groups that had in common mystic, eschatological, and ascetic beliefs that were referred to as the "Essenes". There are also contemporary movements which identify themselves as Essenes.

Point 1 - Psalms of Solomon were not viewed as canon by the Jews or the Temple Priest.

Point 2 - They were created by Essenes, a mystic, ascetic jewish sect. Not mainstream in other words and more likely occultic... They were also a small sect..

Point 3 - No other scripture speaks of the Psalms of Solomon, or to sing them.

Conclusion - The Psalms of Solomon falls under Pseudepigrapha and are spurious at best, false doctrine at worst made by a mystic group and were not held by the Jews to be sung nor are there any record of their use in the temple...

Michael

I am not convinced by Rev. Winzer's comments regarding Col 3:16.

As i stated above there is evidence of hymns that were sung by the Pharisees that are not found in the Book of Psalms, and they predate Christ.

There are also the Odes of Solomon that were written around the middle of the second century.

In the Bodmer Papyri there is a hymn...
Hymn the Father, ye saints;
Sing to the Mother, ye virgins.
Let us hymn them and exalt them highly, ye saints.
Be ye exalted, brides and bridegrooms,
For ye have found your bridegroom, Christ.
Drink of the wine, brides and bridegrooms.

And Eph 5:14 seems to be part of a hymn as well...
Awake, O sleeper,
and arise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you.

So to suggest that nothing but the Psalms were sung until the time of Arius seems to be erroneous.

 

[etexas]

My Church has an organ. That evil thing! I never could play it! It could only be pure evil.