Are the Psalms Prescriptive for Worship Praxis?

[panta dokimazete]

On another thread I stated:

If the Psalms are prescriptive for worship, prayers may be sung.

Which elements of worship, and their praxis, described in the Psalms have been abrogated by the NT?

If the praxis has not been abrogated, then one may safely continue to incorporate them in worship.

Always in an orderly fashion, of course!

Do you agree that the Psalms are prescriptive for worship?

Do they teach us how to worship and what ways are allowable?

What elements of worship are described in the Psalms?

Which ones are abrogated by the NT?

Does this align with the RPW?

Discuss!

 

[AV1611]

What are you meaning by "prescriptive"?

 

[panta dokimazete]

# order: issue commands or orders for
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# give as a direction to be followed, as in: Perhaps the doctor will prescribe a short period of rest for you.
Dictionary of Same-Sounding Words: P, Part 2

# to impose rules or advice
GradeSaver: The Cherry Orchard - Study Guide - Terms

from here



Also relevant:

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

 

[panta dokimazete]

BTW, I am laying this out as my logical framework:

p1 - the NT is superior to the OT Psalms in determining worship practice
p2 - where the NT is silent regarding worship practice the OT Psalms stand as prescriptive

c - X is allowable for worship

 

[Coram Deo]

Psalms are prescriptive for worship as long as the types and shadows of the OT temple worship are not being prescribed for NT worship... We are commanded to sing Psalms but we are not commanded to bring shadows of NT realities into worship of the New Covenant.....

If you believe that Psalms are prescriptive then I hope you have an altar at your church with weekly sacrifices of goats and bulls, candles, and incense burning with descriptive levitical priestly garb...

Every part of the sacrificial system was fulfilled in the cross; we continue only those parts specifically commanded in the new covenant.

Psalm 150 is not even about corporate worship but this scripture can only be used as a justification for new covenant worship if it is isolated from the rest of the Bible. Scripture must be used to interpret Scripture.

1. The broad context of Scripture teaches that: dancing and taboret playing were performed outdoors during festive occasions by women (Ex. 15:20; Jud. 11:34; 21:21; 1 Sam. 18:6; 221:11; 29:5; Jer. 31:4);

2. only priests were authorized to play trumpets in worship (Nu. 10:8,10; 2 Chron.5:11-14; 29:26: Ezra 3:10; and , harps, lyres and cymbals were only authorized to be played by Levites (1 Chron. 15:14-24, 23:5, 28:11-13, 19; 2 Chron. 5:11-14; 20:27-28; 29 ;25-27; Neh. 12:27, etc.).

We as the church of God completely ignores the Old Testament teaching regarding the use of instruments in worship when referring to Psalm 150 as a proof text for new covenant praise is faulty exegesis. At the very least, Psalm 150 is about praise outside of corporate worship which Psalm 150 tell us "Praise Him in His mighty firmament!"


So I voted other... Psalms are prescriptive for worship unless the part being sung about is a shadows that has been fulfilled in NC realities or if the act is talking about a national festival or celebration and not for corporate worship...

 

[panta dokimazete]

Psalms are prescriptive for worship as long as the types and shadows of the OT temple worship are not being prescribed for NT worship... We are commanded to sing Psalms but we are not commanded to bring shadows of NT realities into worship of the New Covenant.....

I am going to approach your answer stepwise to make sure we understand one another.

Based on the above - do you agree with this syllogism?

p1 - the NT is superior to the OT Psalms in determining worship practice
p2 - where the NT is silent regarding worship practice the OT Psalms stand as prescriptive

c - X is allowable for worship

if not, why?

 

[AV1611]

# order: issue commands or orders for

I know what the word means brother, my point was regarding verses such as those that command bloody sacrifices and such acts that belong to the Levitical worship and temple cultus.

 

[Coram Deo]

Point 2 is faulty and here is the reason why. I am going to quote by Pastor Schwertley......

"Although the New Testament does not authorize the use of musical instruments in public worship, it is not silent regarding the worship of God. The author of Hebrews says: “Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name” (13:15). “Animal sacrifices had been rendered forever obsolete by the sacrifice of Christ, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving might still be offered to God, and indeed should be offered to Him by all who appreciated the perfect sacrifice of Christ. No longer in association with animal sacrifices, but through Jesus. The sacrifice of praise was acceptable to God.” Since Christians praise God through Christ and His perfect sacrifice and not with ceremonial types (e.g., incense, candles, musical instruments), they are to speak “to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19). “The Greek word for ‘make music’ is psallo, which means originally ‘to pluck the strings of an instrument.’ This gives a beautiful picture of what true and acceptable praise of God really is. Since the word psallo cannot be separated from the word ‘heart,’ it literally means ‘plucking the strings of your heart to the Lord.’ When the music of the heart is expressed through lips that confess the Lord’s name, there is no need for supporting instruments.”

"All the types of the temple (the continual burning of incense, the sacrificing of animals, the playing of musical instruments during the sacrifice, etc.) have been put away by Christ—the reality. Therefore, Christians pray and praise without the incense and musical instruments but with the lips alone."

Jesus Christ rendered the whole ceremonial Levitical system obsolete with the perfect sacrifice of Himself on the cross (cf. Heb. 7:27, 9:28). The inferior (Heb. 9:11-15), the shadow (Heb. 10:1; 8:4-5), the obsolete (Heb. 8:13), the symbolic (Heb. 9:9), and the ineffectual (Heb. 10:4) have been replaced by Jesus Christ and His work.

In addition the suppose it worship practice can only stand if it was ever done in the Old Covenant worship in the first place and was not a shadow of New Covenant realities.....

p1. Dance in OC was a Festive practice
p2. Dance in OC was never done in Corporate worship

c. Dance can not be turned into NC worship unless NC mandates it.

p1. Musical instruments were part and wharf of temple worship.
p2. Musical instruments were only done by Priest and levites.
p3. Musical instruments were a shadows of NC realities.

c. Musical instruments have been fulfilled and abrogated for NC worship and not binding for believers...

Conclusions - Musical instruments were a shadow of spiritual graces. They were meant to stoke the emotions of our heart for shadow sacrifices that was just animals being shed... In the New Covenant our emotions are stoke by the strings of our hearts now that we have the final and complete sacrifice in Christ. We no longer need that emotional high to feel the animal sacrifices... Christ is our perfect sacrifice and as true believers have have the full reality and our emotions are stoke internally...

Psalms are prescriptive for worship as long as the types and shadows of the OT temple worship are not being prescribed for NT worship... We are commanded to sing Psalms but we are not commanded to bring shadows of NT realities into worship of the New Covenant.....

I am going to approach your answer stepwise to make sure we understand one another.

Based on the above - do you agree with this syllogism?

p1 - the NT is superior to the OT Psalms in determining worship practice
p2 - where the NT is silent regarding worship practice the OT Psalms stand as prescriptive

c - X is allowable for worship

if not, why?

 

[panta dokimazete]

You say that Premise 2 is faulty, then you go on to support the Premise 2 rationale - admittedly to support your own presuppositions - so I am confused.

Can you give a clearer syllogism? or refine the one I proposed?

 

[panta dokimazete]

# order: issue commands or orders for

I know what the word means brother, my point was regarding verses such as those that command bloody sacrifices and such acts that belong to the Levitical worship and temple cultus.

I am sorry - not meaning to seem patronizing.

Christ did not come to abolish the sum total of worship praxis of the OT did he? He did abrogate the sacrificial system praxis, yes, but when and where did he abrogate the other forms of worship described in the Psalms?

 

[AV1611]

I am sorry - not meaning to seem patronizing.

The only thing damaged was my pride which was a good thing to damage!

Christ did not come to abolish the worship praxis of the OT did he? He did abrogate the sacrificial system praxis, yes, but when and where did he abrogate the other forms of worship described in the Psalms?

What are you refering to specifically by "forms of worship described in the Psalms"? Would I be correct in assuming you are refering to:

1. Dance
2. Instruments

Anything I missed?

 

[panta dokimazete]

3. New song

4. Accompanied song

5. others that I missed

 

[AV1611]

3. New song

4. Accompanied song

5. others that I missed

Preliminary; what you you understand "new song" to mean contextually? What do you understand an "accompanied song" to mean contextually? What instruments contextually? What does dance refer to contextually?

 

[panta dokimazete]

New as in 100% new or new elements with established elements (text, rhythm, melody, accompaniment) - what else does new mean?

Accompanied as in song accompanied by an instrument of some sort - stringed/percussion/wind instruments - what else does accompanied mean?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Food for thought:

The Psalm text survived to teach us a model of new song content and context.

The other song elements did not, thus giving us liberty in the composition/combination of those elements.

 

[AV1611]

New as in 100% new or new elements with established elements (text, rhythm, melody, accompaniment) - what else does new mean?

1stly, Scripture is clear that only inspired songs were used in public worship.

2ndly,

"Some writers appeal to the new song mentioned in Revelation 14:3 as scriptural authorization for the composing of new songs today. A study of this phrase in Scripture, however, will prove that the biblical phrase new song has nothing to do with composing new uninspired songs after the close of the canon. The phrase new song in the Old Testament can refer to a song which has as its theme new mercies or new marvels of God’s power (e.g., Psalm 40:3; 98:1). But keep in mind that this phrase is only used to describe songs written under divine inspiration. This fact limits new songs to the inspired songs of the Bible. Since the phrase new song is only used to describe songs written by people who had the prophetic gift, and did not apply to just any Israelite, it therefore certainly does not apply to Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, or any other uninspired hymn writer.

Another meaning of new song refers not to a song describing new mercies, but rather to singing a song anew; that is, with a thankful, rejoicing heart; with a new impulse of gratitude. The song may in fact be very old, but as we apply the inspired song experimentally to our own situation, we sing it anew. This is probably the meaning of sing a new song in the Psalms, which use the phrase, yet do not discuss new mercies. For example, Psalm 33 uses the phrase sing a new song, and then discusses general well-known doctrines: creation, providence, and hope and trust in God. Also, there is a sense in which all the Old Testament songs are new songs for the new covenant Christian, in that we sing the Psalms with an understanding and perspective unknown to Old Testament believers. Because of God’s expression of love in and by Christ, Jesus and the Apostle John can even refer to a well-known Old Testament commandment (Leviticus 19:18) as a “new commandment” (John 13:34; 1 John 2:7; 2 John 5)."​

Also

"Some think that new in new song merely means that the psalmist is asking God’s people to sing an inspired song with which they are not yet familiar. Others think that the phrase sing a new song is a liturgical phrase equivalent to “give it all you’ve got.” “Calvin regards new as equivalent to rare and choice” (W. S. Plumer, Psalms [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, [1867] 1975], p. 408). Speaking of the phrase new song in Revelation, Bushell writes: “The concept of ‘newness’ in the Book of Revelation is thus used as a poetic device to express in a heightened sense the fullness and scope of the eschatological redemption of all things. The ‘new song,’ the ‘new name,’ the ‘new heavens,’ the ‘new earth,’ and the ‘new Jerusalem’ are all yet future. The fact that we have in these visions a present anticipation of this newness, provides no more warrant for the production of ‘new’ worship song than it does for the building of a ‘new Jerusalem.’ Quite the contrary is the case. It is very significant, in fact, that worship song is placed in the category of the ‘new’ things of John’s vision. The distinguishing character of the ‘newness’ attributed to these objects is its divine origin” (The Songs of Zion, p. 96)." (See here)​

Accompanied as in song accompanied by an instrument of some sort - stringed/percussion/wind instruments - what else does accompanied mean?

What instruments precisely and how are you going to decide which are allowable? Since God restricted those instruments that were allowed to be used in his worship to psaltries, harps, cymbals and trumpets all of which were to be played by levites or sons of Aaron.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Sorry, but the "new song actually means sing the same old song with a new spirit" argument is not convincing to me, since we are a royal priesthood we are allowed to practice the crafting of new songs using the Psalms as content and guide with the additional benefit of actually singing songs to the revealed name of the Savior/Messiah, just as we craft new sermons and new prayers using Scripture as guide.

You have not established how Christ came to completely abolish the worship praxis in the OT Psalms - you are simply using EP arguments to uphold EP.

Since God restricted those instruments that were allowed to be used in his worship to psaltries, harps, cymbals and trumpets all of which were to be played by levites or sons of Aaron.

see reply above - the particular instrument is a circumstance.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Also - it would be beneficial to not debate via cut-n-paste. Use Scripture and link to your references, but make your argument, please.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Also - it would be beneficial to not debate via cut-n-paste. Use Scripture and link to your references, but make your argument, please.

This Schwertly guy is starting to irritate me.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Yeah - I have read his polemic several times - I don't think his premises hold up when you break down his presuppositions.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I would still like someone to answer if Christ came to completely abolish the practices of worship outlined in the Psalms. If so, where and why do we still sing the Psalms if they point us to unacceptable praxis? I understand the sacrificial system part, since Christ came as the perfect sacrifice - but what about the other portions of worship?

Are we not to be taught and admonished by the Psalms?

 

[AV1611]

Sorry, but the "new song actually means sing the same old song with a new spirit" argument is not convincing to me, since we are a royal priesthood we are allowed to practice the crafting of new songs

1. I am yet to see you prove that.
2. Your argument is circular. You do not think that "new song" refers to singing a psalm because you believe we have been given the authority to create "new songs". My head is dizzy!

Yes we are a "royal priesthood" but it does not follow that we are allowed to create new songs when (a) new songs refers to psalms and (b) all songs must be inspired.

the particular instrument is a circumstance.

Instruments in the OT were intimately connected with the typological worship.

 

[AV1611]

I would still like someone to answer if Christ came to completely abolish the practices of worship outlined in the Psalms. If so, where and why do we still sing the Psalms if they point us to unacceptable praxis? I understand the sacrificial system part, since Christ came as the perfect sacrifice - but what about the other portions of worship?

Christ did not abolish but fulfil. We sing with understanding knowing what they mean, to whom they point. Spend some time with this.

On Psalm 1: "While I sing these important lines, let my soul lift up her eyes to that great pattern of perfection, Jesus, the man of God's right hand, who was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners; and who fulfilled all righteousness, magnified the law, and made it honourable for men * for me. United to his person, clothed with his righteousness, and all inflamed and animated with his redeeming love shed abroad in my heart, let me examine myself as in his sight; let me walk in him as my way, and follow him as my pattern and guide: Let me with solemn awe look to, and prepare for his last, his eternal judgment!"

Oh and we are told to sing Psalms by God and Christ also sang them!

Also: An Essay on Psalmody

 

[AV1611]

Also - it would be beneficial to not debate via cut-n-paste. Use Scripture and link to your references, but make your argument, please.

If others have already refuted your argument then why need I reinvent the wheel?

 

[Davidius]

No. Hills, shores, and mountains are not really supposed to sing.

I agree, as I know you've come to expect, with the other people who disagree with you, JD. Just out of curiosity, though, if the Psalms are prescriptive in the literal sense that you want to apply so vigorously, have you stopped playing that guitar of yours and begun to shop around for a 10-stringed lyre, "pipes," and a good set of stand-alone cymbals? There are certainly no guitars, violins, or drumsets mentioned in the Psalms.

And don't forget to get those inanimate objects singing along while you belt out your "new song."

And your syllogism isn't a syllogism. We've gone over this already, man.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

see reply above - the particular instrument is a circumstance.

If that was the case, then they would have been allowed to invent whatever instruments they wanted to use in the OT, however, they were not but only used the instruments which God commanded them.

 

[panta dokimazete]

And your syllogism isn't a syllogism. We've gone over this already, man.

Dude, prove it.

In other words, you were wrong the first time you suggested it. you are still wrong.

 

[JBaldwin]

Sorry, but the "new song actually means sing the same old song with a new spirit" argument is not convincing to me, since we are a royal priesthood we are allowed to practice the crafting of new songs

1. I am yet to see you prove that.
2. Your argument is circular. You do not think that "new song" refers to singing a psalm because you believe we have been given the authority to create "new songs". My head is dizzy!

Yes we are a "royal priesthood" but it does not follow that we are allowed to create new songs when (a) new songs refers to psalms and (b) all songs must be inspired.

the particular instrument is a circumstance.

Instruments in the OT were intimately connected with the typological worship.

Could someone please explain to me how "new songs" could refer to the Psalms? I just looked up the word "new" in the verses mentioned and it means NEW, as in something that was never done before

 

[panta dokimazete]

Sorry, but the "new song actually means sing the same old song with a new spirit" argument is not convincing to me, since we are a royal priesthood we are allowed to practice the crafting of new songs

1. I am yet to see you prove that.
2. Your argument is circular. You do not think that "new song" refers to singing a psalm because you believe we have been given the authority to create "new songs". My head is dizzy!

I think that we sing the Psalms and new songs (psalms, hymns and spiritual songs) just as the Scripture clearly instructs.

Yes we are a "royal priesthood" but it does not follow that we are allowed to create new songs when (a) new songs refers to psalms and (b) all songs must be inspired.

Your logic does not follow - where does it clearly teach all new songs must be inspired? The Psalms teach us that they need not be! Just as sermons and prayers need not be inspired - they are the example - they needed no clarification!

the particular instrument is a circumstance.

Instruments in the OT were intimately connected with the typological worship.

They are a circumstance - show me the detailed plans to build a 10 stringed lyre - it is a type of instrument -a circumstance.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Also - it would be beneficial to not debate via cut-n-paste. Use Scripture and link to your references, but make your argument, please.

If others have already refuted your argument then why need I reinvent the wheel?

Now you would not want me to go cut-n-pasting all the folks that have refuted EP, would you?