Implications of being non-EP and how we view the EP position... NON-EP only please!

[SolaScriptura]

Well, Josh, I realize you've stated you are not EP, and I believe that you are being honest, but now in my opinion you do make statements that lead me to wonder how deeply you have reflected on what it means for something to have been commanded with the corollary and corresponding consequence of what it means when we refuse to do something that has been commanded. The matter boils down to the simple principle of how we regard a view that explicitly refuses to do what has been commanded.

But thank you for your thoughtful interaction. Now I'm going to go finish importing my massive music library into iTunes on my new MacBook. Later!

 

[Covenant Joel]

I may not have a theologically proper reason for this, but intuitively I understand that not every RPW violation is of equal gravity. Issues of serious commitment to othodox interpretation and application of Scripture factor in. So while I have profound issues with the EP position and I won't attend their churches unless I'm compelled by necessity, I'm not going to say they're outside the pale any more than I'd say that of anti-paedobaptists who I also believe violate the RPW.

I believe that God only accepts worship He commands, and therefore He will only accept "un-inspired" songs if He has commanded they be sung. And if I believe that He has commanded they be sung, then when I encounter a view that principially refuses to sing those songs in a context in which I believe they have been commanded to be sung, then I cannot escape the conclusion that I must find that view out of accord. I may concur that they are sincere Christians - just as are Lutherans or Baptists or Evangelicals - but that doesn't mean that I have to grant the legitimacy or viability of their practice, just as I am not going to grant the legitimacy of the practice of Lutherans or Baptists or Evangelicals where it contradicts my own.

Two questions come to mind as I reflect on what you've said here:

(1) Do you think that the element/form distinction is invalid? That is, that God doesn't specifically command us to sing extrabiblical or biblical songs, but simply that he commands us to sing songs that are honoring to him, leaving the form that this takes up to us. I guess as I'm reflecting on it, I'm seeing that the issue isn't an RPW violation necessarily (though as I said, I see your point and would have to reflect on it more), but that it is a difference in the application/form that the element takes.

(2) What is the practical force of your point? E.g., let's say the Reformed churches in your area are holding a joint service, perhaps on Reformation day, perhaps for no reason at all. One or more of the churches is EP. Would you consider it wrong, for the sake of your brothers' conscience, to sing psalms only at the event? Or would you insist on having hymns in the service (though they would certainly be allowed to refrain from singing the uninspired songs)?

I ask this because your position does make sense. If I understand it correctly, you're basically just saying that Scripture commands the singing of extrabiblical hymns, and that therefore to prohibit such songs is a violation of Christian liberty and God's instructions for worship. That makes sense, though it seems to me that the element/form distinction helps with this.

 

[gene_mingo]

Well, Josh, I realize you've stated you are not EP, and I believe that you are being honest, but now in my opinion you do make statements that lead me to wonder how deeply you have reflected on what it means for something to have been commanded with the corollary and corresponding consequence of what it means when we refuse to do something that has been commanded. The matter boils down to the simple principle of how we regard a view that explicitly refuses to do what has been commanded.

But thank you for your thoughtful interaction. Now I'm going to go finish importing my massive music library into iTunes on my new MacBook. Later!

Ben, I have examined this issue with some detail. I just see you making the same mistake as the EPer. They point to you and say you have violated the RPW and you point back and accuse them of the same (granted I am speaking very generally here). You categorically deny that a psalm can be a hymn. All I am saying is that psalms not only are hymns, but models for the future compositions of hymns. So both the EP and non-EP position fulfill the biblical command of worship. The only place they are wrong is when they accuse the other of violating the RPW.

 

[Rich Koster]

If you are a non-EPer, do you believe that the New Testament prescribes the singing of songs other than the the hymnal of the old covenant, or do you believe that the New Testament merely allows their use?

I believe that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are pleasing to the Lord, so using all or some would still fall within the set of that which was called pleasing. I believe EP is just as pleasing because those who, by individual and/or group conscience, limit themselves to one part of the set are not violating anything. I hope I wrote that understandably. My example: Vanilla ,chocolate and strawberry ice cream is pleasing to me. So any one or combination of them would also be pleasing. However, don't bring me pistachio and argue, hey, it's ice cream too.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Well, Josh, I realize you've stated you are not EP, and I believe that you are being honest, but now in my opinion you do make statements that lead me to wonder how deeply you have reflected on what it means for something to have been commanded with the corollary and corresponding consequence of what it means when we refuse to do something that has been commanded. The matter boils down to the simple principle of how we regard a view that explicitly refuses to do what has been commanded.

But thank you for your thoughtful interaction. Now I'm going to go finish importing my massive music library into iTunes on my new MacBook. Later!

Ben, I have examined this issue with some detail. I just see you making the same mistake as the EPer. They point to you and say you have violated the RPW and you point back and accuse them of the same (granted I am speaking very generally here). You categorically deny that a psalm can be a hymn. All I am saying is that psalms not only are hymns, but models for the future compositions of hymns. So both the EP and non-EP position fulfill the biblical command of worship. The only place they are wrong is when they accuse the other of violating the RPW.

If psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are NOT referring to the same thing, then what we are commanded to do is to sing Psalms AND...
To sing Psalms(period) ignores the AND and thus violates the RPW.

If, however, this is a triadic expression, then Psalms AND violates the commandment and the RPW.

Thus, how one understands these two verses determines what they believe to be consistent with the RPW which, in turn, necessarily leads them to believe sincerely that the other view is a violation.

 

[calgal]

We are not EP nor will we be EP for many reasons Ben has articulated. When we were first married, DH and I had a very brief conversation about EP. The end result was NO as in we will not attend an EP church (unless a relative has an event: wedding, baptism or funeral therein) nor seek membership in an EP church. We choose to worship in a church that incorporates Psalms AND Hymns AND Songs of Praise (said church will not have the horrid 7/11 songs in its psalter or song book). We do not consider EP outside the pale: these folks are trinitarian but we do consider EP a deal breaker when looking at a new church (and we are in a church search).

 

[JBaldwin]

I have wrestled over this issue a lot over the years, because I am a musician. To hold to EP, especially in the non-instrumental category would seriously change the way in which I worship and how I minister within the church. Ben, to respond to your comment about "familial affinity", yes, I've thought about it a lot.

I believe we are commanded to sing psalms AND hymns AND spiritual songs, though I don't believe that we are expected to sing from each category every time we meet for worship. The purpose (based on my understanding of Colossians) is for teaching and admonishing one another and to express thanks. I don't know how one could possibly teach and admonish with nothing but the psalter since it excludes so much of what is found in the New Testament.

I have not really considered whether or not someone was violating the RPW with their position EP or non-EP. I have considered that many non-EPers have violated the RPW by not being careful to ensure the music they use in worship is in accordance with the command to teach, admonish and give thanks to God. I have also thought that my EP brothers and sisters are missing out by excluding what God allows. It is not my position to judge.

 

[seajayrice]

There is no middle ground for the diligent exegete. Either one sings Psalms exclusively or one sings Psalms and Hymns. Yet does either position violate the RPW or constitute sin? I don't think so.

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I have also thought that my EP brothers and sisters are missing out by excluding what God allows.

They're not just missing out, they're saying that you are engaging in deviant worship for not being EP. It isn't just their conscience at stake, it is that they would dare bind yours.

I have a peer chaplain - actually, he's not a peer, he's two grades senior to me, but he's a fellow student in my class - and he's a 7th Day Adventist. Now, he is quite convinced that only by faith in Christ will one be saved. But of course, he doesn't eat pork. I asked him, "Do you think it is a sin to eat pork?" He said, "Of course I do." To which I said,"If you simply said that you don't eat pork, that would be one thing. But for you to say it is a sin to eat pork... that, I believe, is sin."

Of course, he protested. But by calling something a violation of God's law with the guilt associated therewith, he has implicitly burdened (if not bound) the conscience of those to whom he applies the label because they're left wondering, "Am I sinning?" after having been declared as such by this man in his ministerial office.

I believe it is analogous to the EPer. It isn't just that they don't sing hymns in corporate worship. It is that they say it is verboten. It is that they label the practice as out of accord with the RPW - that means it is sin - and thereby call evil what we believe the Lord calls good.

And you're fine with it?

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

My dear sweet, cuddly EP brethren... despite what you may think of me based upon my strong words, I really am a nice guy who would love to get together and smoke a stogie with you. If you don't believe me, try me.

 

[Pergamum]

They're not just missing out, they're saying that you are engaging in deviant worship for not being EP. It isn't just their conscience at stake, it is that they would dare bind yours.

I have often thought the same thing.

I once met a TR and EP pastor who was attempting to plant a reformed church in one fairly large metro area in the south because "there was not a faithful church" in that whole city and he wanted to "introduce a gospel witness" to that city....

.....what he meant was that, despite many solid baptist and pca churches, that he was going to plant a TR and EP church in that region.


I found that I had a hard time being enthused about his effort.

 

[Bradwardine]

One of the practical difficulties of the EP position (stated previously as"The Psalms are inspired, infallible, inerrant and God's only Heaven-sent Praise Book") is that the Psalms that are sung are effectively paraphrases of the Hebrew Psalms - ie to put them in a metrical / rhyming form to sing with Western tonal scales requires the text to be altered. I dearly love the Scottish Metrical Psalms but I am not blind to the fact that they paraphrases (and therefore not to be treated directly as 'infallible and inerrant' as they would be closer to an NLT than an ESV ! ).

 

[SolaScriptura]

Craig - I wish I was in Scotland for a vacation. If I was, would you have a meal with me?

 

[sdesocio]

Ben, I really appreciate this question. I grew up in the RPCNA and found myself out of accord and thus had to move to a different denomination (I ended up in the PCA) .

I'd say, the NT gives a clean command to sing to the Lord, and that we find no command to only sing from the book of Psalms, even in the OT. I don't think we have enough scriptural evidence to say that the Hymnal of the Old Covenant was the book of Psalms. We can learn from 2nd temple sources the way the psalms were included in the life of the israelites around Jesus' time but, I think calling it a "hymnal" forces a perspective on the Scripture that the Scripture does not present. Many are to be sung, not all and really we do not have enough examples from Scripture to clearly explain how the Psalms were used in the regular worship of God in the OT.

The other issue is that those who hold to the EP position do not all agree on the exegesis of Eph 5 & Col 3. In the RPCNA I knew of two major views: Some argue that the word Spiritual was a modifier that encapsulated the three nouns. (Spiritual Songs, Spiritual Hymns, and Spiritual Psalms) and that Spiritual specifically meant Spirit inspired. Others argue that Paul was referring to the titles of different Psalms found in the OT book of Psalms. The challenge then is that these two views can come to different conclusions. One would allow for the singing of anything Inspired by the Spirit, the other would allow for only the singing from the book of Psalms.

I disagreed with both RP views of those texts. (I agree with Clowney's assessment of Eph 5 and Col 3,which can be found on page 136 of The Church)

With that being said: I think it would be appropriate to sing only psalms in a church for a time (but not for a long time). In the same way that we might say it would be appropriate to spend a season focused on one part of Scripture (but that It would be wrong to neglect the whole counsel of God). To look fondly on a practice that only focused on one part of Scripture seems to be akin to having a red letter book of the Bible. ('Let's just read the sermon on the mount thats the really inspired stuff!')
I would however see an overlap in the way we interact with reformed baptists and those who hold the EP view. An error but an error that does not remove one from the kingdom.
Some fall into Legalism and others do not. Legalism is a sin, but so is judging a brother out of turn, rather than following Pauls instruction from Romans 14.
What we must admit is that in every tradition there will be inconsistencies (Roman 7). Im not sure what is more consistent the EP who says its not a sin or the one who does. And Im not sure exactly how to interact with them since after all many EPer's do not share the same exegesis of key texts for their argument.

It is hard to care for a weaker brother, but it is something that is important.

 

[Herald]

Of course, he protested. But by calling something a violation of God's law with the guilt associated therewith, he has implicitly burdened (if not bound) the conscience of those to whom he applies the label because they're left wondering, "Am I sinning?" after having been declared as such by this man in his ministerial office.

Ben, but wouldn't this be the case with whatever doctrinal belief we may hold to that puts us at odds with our brother? I'm not referring to preferences that hold zero doctrinal significance; such as whether I prefer a silk tie over a knit tie. I am talking about more weighty issues such as baptism and sabbath observance (just to name two). If I believe that those who believe the opposite of me on these issues are in sin, am I binding their consciences if I make known my convictions during a conversation? Is that any different than the EPer who is convinced that his practice is the scriptural position? Don't misunderstand me. I am not an EPer. Even though I believe EP is a misinterpretation of the Word of God, I understand why EPers believe it is a the proper interpretation. I'm asking whether we fault them anymore than we we would fault a brother who differs with us on baptism, the sabbath, ecclesiology etc.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Of course, he protested. But by calling something a violation of God's law with the guilt associated therewith, he has implicitly burdened (if not bound) the conscience of those to whom he applies the label because they're left wondering, "Am I sinning?" after having been declared as such by this man in his ministerial office.

Ben, but wouldn't this be the case with whatever doctrinal belief we may hold to that puts us at odds with our brother? I'm not referring to preferences that hold zero doctrinal significance; such as whether I prefer a silk tie over a knit tie. I am talking about more weighty issues such as baptism and sabbath observance (just to name two). If I believe that those who believe the opposite of me on these issues are in sin, am I binding their consciences if I make known my convictions during a conversation? Is that any different than the EPer who is convinced that his practice is the scriptural position? Don't misunderstand me. I am not an EPer. Even though I believe EP is a misinterpretation of the Word of God, I understand why EPers believe it is a the proper interpretation. I'm asking whether we fault them anymore than we we would fault a brother who differs with us on baptism, the sabbath, ecclesiology etc.

Bill! It's good to hear from you. Hard to believe you live just 15 minutes from me...

I hear what you're saying, but these other doctrinal areas - as important as they may be - are not the problem. See, I've seen nonEP Presbyterians here write posts and threads being very pointed that anti-paedobaptism is WRONG, that congregationalism is WRONG. That not being a sabbatarian is WRONG. But when the same principle is applied to the question of EP, though we all know that the RPW is such that we can't not do that which is commanded and we can only do what is commanded, the application of the principle goes soft and the same people who will (I can go to threads to prove it) be quite adamant about, let's say, baptism, will when it comes to the question of EP, suddenly write as if it is ok. As if mutually exclusive views can both be true.

So, Bill, it was only my intent to bring up the EP issue because that is the only area in which I perceived a need.

And finally, please remember that in my posts on this thread, I'm not intending to address the EPer with my points. I'm addressing the non-EPer who is tempted to say that being EP is an acceptable option.

 

[jayce475]

Ben, I'm confused too. Baptism views, ecclesiology, church governance etc. have always seemed big enough issues for separation to be practised, but yet somehow EP is not as big an issue. I fail to see how partial obedience is somehow adequate obedience.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

And finally, please remember that in my posts on this thread, I'm not intending to address the EPer with my points. I'm addressing the non-EPer who is tempted to say that being EP is an acceptable option.

I have my reservations concerning the EP position. I have a high appreciation of the position. I also believe the Early Church sang the Psalter. I believe that is the only thing they sung in worship. I also believe that Hymns, Psalms, and Spiritual Songs are a reference to the the 150 Psalms. That is very much and most likely what St. Paul was referring to when he penned the Colossians and Ephesians epistles. So, to hold to a position that has some historical roots is not necessarily sin as you would like to name it.

I also believe that Baptism, and ecclesiastical practice are RPW issues.

 

[SolaScriptura]

And finally, please remember that in my posts on this thread, I'm not intending to address the EPer with my points. I'm addressing the non-EPer who is tempted to say that being EP is an acceptable option.

I have my reservations concerning the EP position. I have a high appreciation of the position. I also believe the Early Church sang the Psalter. I believe that is the only thing they sung in worship. I also believe that Hymns, Psalms, and Spiritual Songs are a reference to the the 150 Psalms. That is very much and most likely what St. Paul was referring to when he penned the Colossians and Ephesians epistles. So, to hold to a position that has some historical roots is not necessarily sin as you would like to name it.

I also believe that Baptism, and ecclesiastical practice are RPW issues.

Hmmm. Well, yes I've heard that the "early church only sang Psalms" from some... but on another tab I'm looking at hymns from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. So how can I put this lightly? I know... I find belief in the assertions you've given to be like the belief I was surrounded by when I was an evangelical that NASA had "discovered" the missing day, or that the Ark had been found. I understand that there was a day in which folks didn't have access to all sorts of information, but in this day and age - in which anyone can easily view songs from the early church - the notion that the Book of Psalms was the exclusive "song book" of the early church is, in my opinion, only maintained by folks who are of the same ilk as those who say we didn't land on the moon. I realize I've used strong analogies, but I must remind you - and anyone reading this - that I've drawn analogies from situations in which otherwise smart and rational folks believe things against pretty clear evidence.


In sum, I give literally no credence to the notions you propose. And I am absolutely convinced that trying to defend them is a proverbial fool's errand.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Ben,
You admit that Hymns weren't sang in the first century by your post.

but on another tab I'm looking at hymns from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries.

This is part of my problem. I tried to find Hymns of the early church and just can't find them. They don't seem to exist. There seems to be no notion of their existence. I referred you to St. Paul and what he understood in reference to when he wrote the epistles and I would stand on my assertion stronger than you want to upon your assumptions. When St. Paul referenced Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs he was not referring to anything else but the 150 that our Canon contains in the book of Psalms. I believe I have solid History on my side and you are found so lacking.

Sorry brother. Well, not really in all senses.

Love ya brother. But you are historically wrong.

I have also read books that seem to indicate portions of the New Testament were sang in the early Church. But the evidence is so lacking.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Randy, you infer too much. Hymns from the time of the apostles are cited by Paul.... every good NT scholar knows this. And for the record, the 2nd century is the early church.
Indeed, ironically, I think there is much earlier and more explicit historical evidence for the singing of hymns than for... infant baptism! Yet none of the EPers here would dare suggest that infant baptism wasn't apostolic. Ah, the differing standards we employ. Fortunately I'm consistent. But I digress.

I don't want to argue.

This thread is for nonEPers to think through the implications of the RPW - for something to be in our worship it must be commanded - when applied to a position that we believe is wrong by refusing to do what we believe God has commanded. If we believe God has commanded the singing of songs outside the Book of Psalms, then for anyone to say "No! I refuse!" should be seen by us as how?

 

[gene_mingo]

It isn't just that they don't sing hymns in corporate worship. It is that they say it is verboten. It is that they label the practice as out of accord with the RPW - that means it is sin - and thereby call evil what we believe the Lord calls good.

Aren't you tired of knocking down those strawmen?
I don't see the point of any of your dialog if you won't even present the opposing position correctly. Frankly I find it a bit disturbing.

Here is the definition of hymn, since you seem a bit confused as to what the word means.

hymn |him|
noun
a religious song or poem, typically of praise to God.

I have yet to find any theological writings on the psalms that say they cannot be hymns, in fact all I can find in writing is the almost universal agreement that some of the psalms are in fact hymns.

I understand it is much easier to counter a misrepresentation of an opponents argument than to deal with what they actually believe.

I find your statement particularly disturbing in light of the position you hold as a minister of gods word. It is dishonest to misrepresent the position of the EPer for the sole purpose of trying to win an argument.

 

[Herald]

And finally, please remember that in my posts on this thread, I'm not intending to address the EPer with my points. I'm addressing the non-EPer who is tempted to say that being EP is an acceptable option.

I suppose we have to define what we mean by acceptable. Is EP within the bounds of orthodoxy? If it is we may be able to accept it in the sense that we're not accusing our EP brethren of heresy. We recognize that Christians of goodwill hold to it. That's why I brought up baptism and sabbatarianism. Ben, you're a paedo. I believe that position is wrong. However, I recognize it is within the pale of orthodoxy and not, at least according to my understanding, heretical. I accept the fact that you are paedo, but I do not endorse your being so. Does that make sense? The other type of acceptance would be to say that EP and non-EP are both approved forms of worship. They're not. One is correct and the other is not.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am a non EPer Ben. You still haven't addressed the issue of Paul's understanding of Hymn in his historical context. I sang uninspired Hymns in a Church I visited a few weeks ago. I love the Hymn Holy, holy, holy. But I don't believe that uninspired hymns is what St. Paul is thinking about when he wrote his epistles. And when you reference others who claim that hymns were sang in the early Church, I don't deny that. I deny that the likely hood of them being outside of the 150 is very questionable. The early first Century Church sang Hymns, I have looked hard into this topic having been amongst EPer's for the past 25 years. I just don't see the evidence that they were outside of the 150. I don't see the evidence of anyone composing a Hymn outside of the 150 during the first Century. The evidence this happened is only assertion and assumption. I also believe we would have evidence of written hymns during this time. After all, Polycarp's writings exist as well as other historical writings concerning worship and the canon during the first century.

BTW, you have to want to discuss this.(i.e. argue) You make so many assertions and calling others sinners that violate the RPW that you need to stand challenged on some of your assumptions. You seem to have an air of superiority in knowledge on this issue. You are also inciting those of us who say we have an appreciation for the EPer's.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Randy -

Your response is precisely why I started this thread. It is about logical consistency in how we estimate other views in the light of our own positions and the principles that inform the positions we have adopted. I will NOT romanticize a view or have a nostalgic appreciation for a view that violates principles I hold dear. I can (and do!) fellowship with people whom I believe worship incorrectly. But you don't find me speaking positively about their views when I believe they're wrong. And, as I've said above, on issues of baptism or church governance, credos have consistently communicated that paedobaptism is a BAD thing just as paedos have consistently communicated that denying baptism to infants is a BAD thing. But when it comes to the EP scenario, the nonEPer almost seems to forget that the EPer posits things that are mutually exclusive to their (the nonEP) view. You say you appreciate the EP position. Do you "appreciate" the happy clappy evangelical worship - are they not trying to be Christ honoring?

Now, (and this gets to what Bill was asking about "is it orthodox"), I use the term "orthodox" very sparingly. Much more sparingly than some. I use the term to denote being in the Christian faith. Lutherans are orthodox in that sense. But you won't find me speaking appreciatively of the Lutheran normative principle any more than you'll find me expressing approval for a view that excludes the sign of the covenant from people I believe are commanded to receive it.

Again it needs to be asked and addressed by you and others: IF the RPW requires that we do something, then what do we do with a view that forbids the thing commanded? And if you question whether the thing is really commanded in the first place, then upon what authority is it lawfully being done in worship at all?

See, from my vantage point, I see that the logic is crystal clear and as I see it, it looks to me like it is emotional sentimentality that keeps folks from going where the logic clearly goes. However, I must reassert - I don't know everything. If there is some larger principle of why this isn't such a significant RPW issue as (say) images of Christ or dancing or something else, then please instruct me. But I must warn you - going on about the supposed merits of the EP position establishes nothing since by virtue of my own nonEP position I find the EP position lacking and arguments why, for tradition sake or some other reason, why I should have appreciation for the view don't have any effect on the principles at stake.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Randy -
...
Again it needs to be asked and addressed by you and others: IF the RPW requires that we do something, then what do we do with a view that forbids the thing commanded? And if you question whether the thing is really commanded in the first place, then upon what authority is it lawfully being done in worship at all?
...

You are negating Ben without addressing my points. When you claim the Ephesians passage along with the Colossians passage is commanding you to sing uninspired hymns, are you absolutely positive of the understanding Paul was giving when he addressed Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. Was he in fact thinking of uninspired hymns? Or was he thinking of the hymns composed by God himself contained in the 150 songs. Historically your understanding is out of kilter in my estimation. And you haven't even addressed my questions. Just my humble opinion.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So along those lines, NO, a psalm does NOT meet the requirement of hymn, nor does a hymn meet the requirement of psalm.

Just for clarification Ben, this is where we are having a problem.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Randy, you know very well that you're trying to play coy semantic games. In the vernacular - as it pertains to the argument of this thread - a "psalm" is from the book of psalms, whereas a "hymn" refers to something else. The reason the label is Exclusive Psalmody is because of the vernacular - they mean they exclusively sing from the book of psalms. The question I'm asking is not a side step. It is the question I've been asking since the start. How about answering it? The question has been there for days before you decided to involve yourself in the discussion, waiting for an answer from folks with perspectives such as yours. Answer it as a principle, and then maybe perhaps address it to the EP issue. Ooh... I see, I made a tactical error. I should have just asked about the principle and then when everyone agreed I should have then applied it to the issue. But alas, I prematurely played my hand.

Guys. I totally get the whole concept of not being able to intellectually grasp why something is wrong yet having my gut still say it is. Perhaps the whole "the logical conclusion of adhering to the RPW and believing that it requires being nonEP is that the EP position is errant" thing is butting up against the gut intuition that it seems ridiculous to call it errant. Just like as (perhaps some of you can remember) years ago there was this big blow up here in which some folks came pretty close to saying that Baptists were heretics and their churches and ordinations were invalid... remember that? But despite the "logic" of the position, it just seems ridiculous to me to make such an assertion. So I get it. I get why the reaction seems to me to be gut level. And it isn't necessarily wrong to be influenced by our intuitive sense. (Especially when our gut is calling us to be charitable with our fellow Christian.)

I'm not trying to negate that. I'm simply trying to see if we can do better. If you are an adherent to the RPW, and you believe the Bible commands the singing of songs from outside the book of Psalms, then where - as a matter of principle - do we come off endorsing or approving of a pattern of worship that is contrary to that?

 

[seajayrice]

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

 

[SolaScriptura]

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Would you kindly elaborate?

 

[Herald]

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Are you suggesting that we should bend on this issue in order not to offend a brother?

Sent using my most excellent Android device.