Argument against exclusive Psalmody

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
First Off, I agree with Kaalvenist.. There is NOT one command to sing the Name of Jesus...

Second Off, The Psalms are ABOUT Jesus, So we ARE SINGING HIM....

But if what you say is true (and I see it no where), are you singing his REAL name... "Joshua"... I hope you are singing "Joshua Loves me this I know" because if you are not, then you are not singing in his name....


And I pray you will be convicted as to the truth of the revealed name of the Christ - our Lord Jesus - and the scriptural warrant to incorporate His glorious name in all elements of worship.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Bottom line:

EP'ers will sing of the Christ and may even do it in understanding of the revealed Christ - but will never proclaim His revealed name (Jesus) in worship through song.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Bottom line:

We are told to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, never are we told to SING in the name.....

Those are two seperate elements of worship and are not to be mixed...

Another Framean Folly....


Bottom line:

EP'ers will sing of the Christ and may even do it in understanding of the revealed Christ - but will never proclaim His revealed name (Jesus) in worship through song.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
First Off, I agree with Kaalvenist.. There is NOT one command to sing the Name of Jesus...

Second Off, The Psalms are ABOUT Jesus, So we ARE SINGING HIM....

But if what you say is true (and I see it no where), are you singing his REAL name... "Joshua"... I hope you are singing "Joshua Loves me this I know" because if you are not, then you are not singing in his name....
...and unless you sing in Greek - you never sing of christos in public worship.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Mixing Elements is dangerous........

Same goes for the whole Hand Raising Issue...

We are told for Man to Lift up their hands when praying..
Instead everyone lifts up their hands in a emotional ruckess while singing...

We are told to pray in the name of the Lord..
Instead people want to sing his name for which we have not been command...

etc..
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
I will sing with the Psalmist in Psalm 110...

Jehovah (The Father) to my LORD (The Son) had said,
"Sit thou at My right hand
Until I make Thy foes a stool
Whereon Thy feet may stand."

...

"of th'order of Melchizedek
A Priest Thou ever Art."

...and unless you sing in Greek - you never sing of christos in public worship.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Bottom line:

We are told to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, never are we told to SING in the name.....

Those are two seperate elements of worship and are not to be mixed...

Another Framean Folly....
Read your Scripture - we are told to do all things in the name of Christ. And singing is mentioned specifically in context.

Also, the element of song and prayer are correlated.

1 Corinthians 14:15
What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Those passages are so pulled out of context... I am not even going to bother....
You seem to have already made up your mind and nothing will ever change that... Of course having the job of a Worship Leader as yourself would pretty much put you out of a job. So I can see the resistants and pulling at nats....

Good Day Sir....


Read your Scripture - we are told to do all things in the name of Christ. And singing is mentioned specifically in context.

Also, the element of song and prayer are correlated.

1 Corinthians 14:15
What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Those passages are so pulled out of context... I am not even going to bother....
You seem to have already made up your mind and nothing will ever change that... Of course having the job of a Worship Leader as yourself would pretty much put you out of a job. So I can see the resistants and pulling at nats....

Good Day Sir....
I hope you understand your (not so) veiled insult is childish - I am a tentmaker. I lead worship because I am called to it - I can't NOT do it.

I certainly understand if you find it hard to defend a non-Scriptural position and give up. EP has mystified me for quite some time, too.
 

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
Oh I can defend it quite well..

But it is not worth the time or ink to waste tonight.....

Besides, With the meds I am on tonight, I just might say worst insulting words that I would regret later...... Perocets can do that to a man.....

I won't even get into the "I am called stuff", that's a whole other issue.....

Michael

I hope you understand your (not so) veiled insult is childish - I am a tentmaker. I lead worship because I am called to it - I can't NOT do it.

I certainly understand if you find it hard to defend a non-Scriptural position and give up. EP has mystified me for quite some time, too.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Again - Scripture is clear - by good and necessary consequence - the explicit name of Jesus is an essential element in our worship of God. That means incorporating it into all our elements of worship. Not in some robotic, babbling, legalistic fashion as the pagans do, with the name of their "gods", nor creating some frequency and duration rule as the Pharisees would, but with reverence, fear and love.

EP is incomplete worship.

EP does not acknowledge the Scriptural importance of the explicit name of Jesus as the revealed Christ.

Matthew 1:21
and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.'

Acts 8:12
And when they believed Philip, proclaiming good news, the things concerning the reign of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women;

Philippians 3:3
for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

1 Corinthians 1:2
to the assembly of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all those calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place -- both theirs and ours:

I will call upon the name of my Lord Jesus in every element of worship even as I proclaim the name of Jesus to the world!
JD,

There is nothing in Scripture to support your claim. Honestly, if you sat through a service which, in all of the prayers, in all of the addresses, in all of the non-canonical hymns, made reference to "the Son," "our Lord," "our Saviour," "Christ the King," etc. etc. -- you wouldn't notice that the word "Jesus" was not used. But you would notice if only Psalms were sung, because that would mean that "we wouldn't be singing the name of Jesus." Again, we are commanded to "sing IN the name of Jesus," as we are commanded to do all things "IN the name of Jesus," "NOT BY A BARE MENTIONING OF HIS NAME." And it is one thing to demonstrate "by good and necessary consequence" that "the explicit name of Jesus is an essential element in our worship of God" (which you still haven't demonstrated), another thing entirely to demonstrate that God's regulation of the very texts used in singing His praise is somehow relaxed because of this supposed requirement. You might as well claim that we need to insert the word "Jesus" in our Old Testament, just to make sure that, if we are reading only from the Old Testament that day, or preaching only from the Old Testament that day, we'll still get to pronounce those magic syllables.

"That means incorporating it into all our elements of worship."

No, it doesn't. Again, does that mean all hymns we sing that day have to include the word "Jesus"; or at least one of them? How exactly does that work? Does this mean that our prayers are insufficient if we don't mention the word "Jesus"? What about the Lord's Prayer? Should we administer the sacrament of baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; or should we join with the Oneness Pentecostals, and baptize people "in the name of Jesus"?

The Psalms (1) which Christ gave by His Spirit, (2) to His father and type (David), (3) which He sang with His apostles, (4) which testify constantly of Him, (5) which He continues to sing through His people, are sufficient for New Testament praise, without adding songs or hymns which use the word "Jesus."
 

CanuckPuritan24

Puritan Board Freshman
I was somewhat shocked to see how this thread had grown in such a short time. Thank you all for your insights. I appreciate the resources you recommended Sean. I'm on my way to check them out.

So much truth to learn, so much heresy/incorrect thinking to avoid.... so little time. *sigh*
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
JD,
Should we administer the sacrament of baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; or should we join with the Oneness Pentecostals, and baptize people "in the name of Jesus"?
Thank you. I was quite shocked at what I woke up to this morning and THIS is what I was thinking when I read JD's posts. The Oneness Pentacostals hold the
"NAME" above everything with the Father playing the most minor role and the "NAME" leading up to the side shows the "Holy Spirit". The Y-ists are the same way...actually worse.
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:

JD's argument should be ignored. Even his beloved hymns do not all have the specific name "Jesus" in it - "Amazing Grace" is a good example.

Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Old Testament: "Before Abraham was I am," and, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Since this is the case whenever you find "Lord" or "God" in the Psalms it refers to Jesus.

"The Lord said to my Lord," Mark 12:36 is a quotation of Psalm 110:1. It is pure ignorance to say that Jesus is not referred to in the Psalms. The kind of argumentation that JD and Elnwood are engaging in is puerile to say the least.

Blessings,

-CH
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
It's incredible to me how such intelligent people can take an argument to it's extreme just so they can entirely miss the point.

...or dogmatically cling to a rationale that is flawed.

...or how we can so casually cast aspersions or imply heresy.

I never proposed that every song had to have the literal name of Jesus in it.

My point is, for those of you that can understand nuanced debate, is that our worship is now to include the utilization of the revealed name of the Christ in it.

That doesn't mean you must use his name exclusively or frequently, just use and acknowledge his revealed name, just like the writers of Scripture did and command us to do.

When I worship, I incorporate the revealed name of the Christ - Jesus - as we worship the Triune God. His name is worthy of praise, right?

Again - we don't literally same his name over and over, but we incorporate the name of Jesus into prayer, praise, preaching and the sacraments to acknowledge Him as the revealed savior and Lord.

This is the current level of completion in worship God has given us - christos revealed!

Just as Scripture is incomplete without the NT, so are the elements of our worship without the name of Jesus.

Again - EP is incomplete worship because it never acknowledges in the element of song the explicit name of our revealed savior and Lord, Jesus.
 
Last edited:

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
It's incredible to me how such intelligent people can take an argument to it's extreme just so they can entirely miss the point.

Or cling to a principle that is flawed.

I never proposed that every song had to have the literal name of Jesus in it.

My point is, for those of you that can understand nuanced debate, is that our worship is now to include the utilization of the revealed name of the Christ in it.

That doesn't mean you must use his name exclusively or frequently, just use his revealed name, just like the writers of Scripture did and command us to do.

When I worship, I incorporate the revealed name of the Christ - Jesus - along with the other revealed names of the Triune God in every element of worship.

Again - we don't literally same his name over and over, but we incorporate the name of Jesus into prayer, praise, preaching and the sacraments to acknowledge Him as the revealed savior and Lord.

This is the level of complete worship God has given us - christos revealed!

Again - EP is incomplete worship because it disregards ever acknowledging the explicit name of our revealed savior and Lord, Jesus.
Hey JD:

You have backed yourself into a corner, and are trying to squirm out of it. If EP was the only aspect of Worship, then - maybe - you have a case. But what is wrong with singing Exclusively the Psalms especially when they refer to Jesus, and then giving a pastoral prayer where the name of Jesus is specifically mentioned? Or, if the sermon specifically mentions Jesus, or, the benediction? or the Call to Worship?

When we sing Psalm 110:1 "The Lord said to my Lord" are we referring to Jesus?

By the way, what is a "worship leader" and where is such a position in the Church found in the Scriptures?

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Hey JD:

You have backed yourself into a corner, and are trying to squirm out of it. If EP was the only aspect of Worship, then - maybe - you have a case. But what is wrong with singing Exclusively the Psalms especially when they refer to Jesus, and then giving a pastoral prayer where the name of Jesus is specifically mentioned? Or, if the sermon specifically mentions Jesus, or, the benediction? or the Call to Worship?

When we sing Psalm 110:1 "The Lord said to my Lord" are we referring to Jesus?

By the way, what is a "worship leader" and where is such a position in the Church found in the Scriptures?

Grace and Peace,

-CH
Squirm? :lol: I am not the one moving the goalposts.

I think it would be fine in every service if the name of Jesus were integrated into at least one of the elements.

My proposition is that every element of worship should be complete - that is to the degree of completion we have as the NT church.

EP implicitly proposes that we never, ever, at any time, or in any circumstance during the public worship element of praise in song, acknowledge the explicit name of the revealed savior and Lord, Jesus.

EP actually implicitly forbids the name of Jesus for this element.

I contend that this is not a scriptural principle.
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
I believe the deacon has a point - we certainly should sing the OT Psalms in the light of the Gospel, but we are also to sing, pray, confess, preach, etc... of our explicit faith in and adoration of Jesus Christ as the revealed Messiah and Lord thus, along with the Psalms we should sing and make melody in our hearts with hymns and spiritual songs to Jesus.

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Jesus Christ is not proclaimed in the Psalms.
:wow: I get what you mean, the letters J-E-S-U-S are not in the Psalms but still, :wow:

It's incredible to me how such intelligent people can take an argument to it's extreme just so they can entirely miss the point.

...or dogmatically cling to a rationale that is flawed.

...or how we can so casually cast aspersions or imply heresy.

I never proposed that every song had to have the literal name of Jesus in it.

My point is, for those of you that can understand nuanced debate, is that our worship is now to include the utilization of the revealed name of the Christ in it.

That doesn't mean you must use his name exclusively or frequently, just use and acknowledge his revealed name, just like the writers of Scripture did and command us to do.

When I worship, I incorporate the revealed name of the Christ - Jesus - as we worship the Triune God. His name is worthy of praise, right?

Again - we don't literally same his name over and over, but we incorporate the name of Jesus into prayer, praise, preaching and the sacraments to acknowledge Him as the revealed savior and Lord.

This is the current level of completion in worship God has given us - christos revealed!

Just as Scripture is incomplete without the NT, so are the elements of our worship without the name of Jesus.

Again - EP is incomplete worship because it never acknowledges in the element of song the explicit name of our revealed savior and Lord, Jesus.
Were the saints in the church in the OT incomplete in their worship? We're they less spiritual than us? Are you a dispensationalist? Do you understand the Apostles, disciples, and Christ's Bible was the OT scriptures?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
:wow: I get what you mean, the letters J-E-S-U-S are not in the Psalms but still, :wow:
Were the saints in the church in the OT incomplete in their worship?
yes - in terms of not knowing who the revealed messiah was - they were worshipping in hope of a savior - we worship with that hope fulfilled.

We're they less spiritual than us?
Not sure what you mean here.

Are you a dispensationalist?
Nope.

Do you understand the Apostles, disciples, and Christ's Bible was the OT scriptures?
And your point being?

Luke 4:21

And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

We can now worship in spirit and truth fulfilled.
 

Ravens

Puritan Board Sophomore
Kaalvenist summed up a few of my thoughts in post # 73; has anyone responded to that yet?

JD:

This thread seems to be getting a little chippy (don't they always...) so I'll try to avoid that. So, respectfully, I find one strand of argument you are using to be particularly ineffective, namely, the "whatsoever ye do, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (or however the exact phrasing goes). Even if that is repeated specifically in the context of song, the Reformed (as well as the historic Christian church), to my knowledge, have never taken that to mean that the actual "name" of Jesus had to be spoken and or written in everything we do. If you press this point in a consistent fashion, and there's no way around this, you have to advocate baptism "in the name of Jesus", a la Oneness Pentecostals.

Secondly, if "the name" is so important, why do you use an Anglicized version of it? I understand you think that is a pedantic point; however, most of us on the other side would find your particular usage of "name" to be rather pedantic. So, assuming we were to grant your particular understanding of "name", why would you address the fully revealed Christ in a way that He never heard in his life. Do you address him as Y'shua? Or at least the canonical "Iesus"? If not, why not? A hyper-literal understanding of that verse would seem to require it.

When you begin or finish each meal, do you think Jesus? That's possible. Not God the Father, mind you, or God the Son, but Jesus? When you get a cup of coffee, write a post, read a book, do you do it in the name of the Lord Jesus, i.e., pronouncing Jesus' name over it?

The only thing in this thread that is worth discussing, it seems, is your contention that the Psalter doesn't fully reveal Christ, and is therefore incomplete worship.

The Psalter provides us with an heir to David's throne who is going to be betrayed by a friend, crucified, have his garments gambled for, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven, give gifts to men, and take His seat at the right hand of God, where He will rule the nations.

Christ is amply set forth in the Psalter.

As others said, the name "Jesus" would still be present in the prayers, the benediction, the sermon, the Lord's Supper, etc.

Regardless, the issue is, what has God commanded us to sing? If you're interpretation of "in the name of Jesus" is fallacious (which it is, with all due respect), then we're back to square one: How the RPW applies to the element of singing. Therein lies the issue.

BTW:

I know you're very fond of using the song in Revelation to argue against EP. In the inspired, apocalyptic example of song that we have recorded for us in Revelation 4:8-14, the name "Jesus" isn't mentioned. Rather, He is just addressed as the Lamb.

Is that "incomplete"?
 

JohnOwen007

Puritan Board Sophomore
Perhaps a better way to put JD's argument is like this: the OT holds forth Christ and the gospel in types and shadows (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5). The NT presents the reality. This is the classic teaching that revelation is progressive: it reaches a climax in Christ (Col. 2:3).

It seems to me that Jesus taught something of the magnitude of the new revelation he ushered in when he said:

[1] That the least in the kingdom are greater than John the Baptist (the last of the OT prophets).

[2] That new wine can't be put in the old wine skins.

The Psalms, being OT, only make reference to Christ according to types and shadows (temple, land, animal sacrifice, national kingship, etc.), not the reality.

It would seem strange for the new covenant people of God, once the reality has come, to sing about it only in types and shadows.

ps: If the Psalter was God's perfect hymnbook, why is it then converted into metrical Psalms for us to sing? Why not leave the form as is?
 
Last edited:

Ravens

Puritan Board Sophomore
Perhaps a better way to put JD's argument is this: the OT holds forth Christ and the gospel as types and shadows (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5). The NT presents the reality.
Right. Like I said, that's the only thing in this thread that at least merits discussion, even though I don't think its a valid argument against E.P. But the bulk of this thread has been about the "name of Jesus" argument, which is a bit odd.

You've hinted around for a good three weeks or so now that "the gathering" isn't worship. Instead of being Socrates, why don't you start a thread wherein you set forth your understanding of how "the gathering" relates to "worship", instead of just questioning people all the time in other threads?

:)
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Perhaps a better way to put JD's argument is like this: the OT holds forth Christ and the gospel in types and shadows (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5). The NT presents the reality. This is the classic teaching that revelation is progressive: it reaches a climax in Christ (Col. 2:3).

It seems to me that Jesus taught something of the magnitude of the new revelation he ushered in when he said:

[1] That the least in the kingdom are greater than John the Baptist (the last of the OT prophets).

[2] That new wine can't be put in the old wine skins.

The Psalms, being OT, only make reference to Christ according to types and shadows (temple, land, animal sacrifice, national kingship, etc.), not the reality.

It would seem strange for the new covenant people of God, once the reality has come, to sing about it only in types and shadows.

ps: If the Psalter was God's perfect hymnbook, why is it then converted into metrical Psalms for us to sing? Why not leave the form as is?
yup - :up:

BTW: I am abandoning this thread for this one...
 
Last edited:

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
Concerning who belongs here and who doesn't, could you, as a mod, just tell me if my understanding is incorrect? If this isn't a place for the Reforming to learn but is a venue for those who reject Reformed distinctives to argue and refuse to allow their understanding to develop, then just tell me and I'll change my expectations.
My other complaint was concerning Don's continued argumentation on this board against the RPW. That post was the one which caused me to bring up the question about board membership, not anything you said. I'm just trying to get straight in my mind what is acceptable on the board.
David,

Obviously we disagree about a good many things. Defining what a "Reformed distinctive" is is difficult. Many would say paedobaptism is a Reformed distinctive, and yet denying that doesn't exclude one from being on PB. There are many distinctives of Reformed theology I disagree with, and I've been open about them in my postings and my profile to the moderators, and they haven't been an issue.

I do not think I belong in the group of "refusing to allow understanding to develop." I have read entire books on both baptism and the regulative principle of worship. I've read all the Confessions as well. I have studied it and I disagree.

My view is the same view that John Frame holds. (The difference being that Frame still says he holds RPW by redefining it, and I simply admit that what I hold to is no longer the historic RPW, but more of a Regulative Principle of life.) One may vehemently disagree with Frame, but I dare say we ought not exclude him from PB or consider him not to be Reformed.

I am distressed that you have defined the term "Reforming" as only Reforming towards the confessions -- that Reformation is only acceptable if it is towards the Reformed creeds. I believe for one to be truly Reformed, they need to reform toward what they believe Scripture teaches regardless of what a particular confession teaches. Why not reform towards Calvin's view of the Sabbath? Or reform towards Spurgeon's view of Baptism? Or John Owen's view of church government? We should be continually refining our views of theology based on what Scripture teaches us.

I hope that we all can continually reform in our understanding of God's word and God's will, whether it be towards the Confessions or otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top