Argument against exclusive Psalmody

Status
Not open for further replies.

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
I was only speaking with reference to the stated rules of the board, which specifically mention the confessions (WCF, LBCF, 3FU) as our rule here. At this point I'm just trying to understand what is required of members and would-be members. But it's probably, more than anything, yet another indicator of my low level of maturity and ability to deal tactfully with disagreement. Thanks for clearing up your standpoint. :handshake:
 

beej6

Puritan Board Sophomore
David,

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.
However, for the purposes of defining "Reformed" faith, one of its clear distinctives is its confessionalism. We can all (try to) appeal directly to Scripture. The historic confessions summarize and systematize the essentials of the Christian faith.
 
Last edited:

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
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?
One the first one: I don't believe it is mere type and shadow...however, even if one were to believe that, does that believe trump God's commands in how we are to worship. Where is the license to suddenly do as we please?

On the second: because we are not perfect and do not sing it in the original language or tune. The words and meaning are the same however.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
One the first one: I don't believe it is mere type and shadow...however, even if one were to believe that, does that believe trump God's commands in how we are to worship. Where is the license to suddenly do as we please?
This is, of course, the real issue. Marty rejects the Regulative Principle of Worship so this kind of argumentation isn't going to get anywhere.
 

JohnOwen007

Puritan Board Sophomore
Dear LadyFlynt (Lizzie),

Love the Avatar.

I don't believe it is mere type and shadow...however, even if one were to believe that, does that believe trump God's commands in how we are to worship.
Well, the Scriptures explicitly tell us that the OT speaks about Christ in types and shadows, so I'm happy to go with Scripture on that one (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1; 1 Peter 1:11-12). Indeed, Paul speaks of the NT gospel as a "mystery" which has been brought to light with the arrival of Christ (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:8-9). Hence, singing Psalms means we never sing about the disclosed mystery. Surely one's hermeneutic has problems if we aren't allowed to sing about that? Imagine only being able to sing about a shadow of something and not the thing itself?

It's not the RPW I have problems with, it's certain construals of the RPW. I believe we worship God only according to Scripture. However, Scripture reveals principles which can be applied in a number of ways.

For example, where does Scripture tell us which books are in the NT canon of Scripture? Where does Scripture say that Jude and Hebrews are in the canon?

The reason why I put Jude and Hebrews in the canon is due to certain principles that the NT reveals.

And the reason why I'm happy to sing songs other than the Psalms is because they fulfill the principle of edification that governs the Christian gathering (1 Cor. 14:26).

God bless,

Marty.
 

Augusta

Puritan Board Doctor
Well, the Scriptures explicitly tell us that the OT speaks about Christ in types and shadows, so I'm happy to go with Scripture on that one (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5; 10:1; 1 Peter 1:11-12). Indeed, Paul speaks of the NT gospel as a "mystery" which has been brought to light with the arrival of Christ (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:8-9). Hence, singing Psalms means we never sing about the disclosed mystery. Surely one's hermeneutic has problems if we aren't allowed to sing about that? Imagine only being able to sing about a shadow of something and not the thing itself?

It's not the RPW I have problems with, it's certain construals of the RPW. I believe we worship God only according to Scripture. However, Scripture reveals principles which can be applied in a number of ways.

For example, where does Scripture tell us which books are in the NT canon of Scripture? Where does Scripture say that Jude and Hebrews are in the canon?

The reason why I put Jude and Hebrews in the canon is due to certain principles that the NT reveals.

And the reason why I'm happy to sing songs other than the Psalms is because they fulfill the principle of edification that governs the Christian gathering (1 Cor. 14:26).

God bless,

Marty.
The OT was type and shadow, past tense, now it is illuminated in the bright light of the Son of God. Now it is completely clear and as Jesus himself said, now we see that they are all about him. 2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
The OT was type and shadow, past tense, now it is illuminated in the bright light of the Son of God. Now it is completely clear and as Jesus himself said, now we see that they are all about him. 2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I addressed this here
 

Augusta

Puritan Board Doctor
I addressed this here
With all due respect, no, you did not. You claim the following:

I agree that we may sing them in light of the NT revelation, but you would no more sing them exclusively than you would exclusively preach the OT or exclusively pray as the OT taught.
The Disciple did, in fact, teach and preach exclusively from the OT of Christ. That was what they had when they started their ministry. The had have their eyes "opened" about those scriptures. Now all who have the Holy Spirit have their eyes "opened" and we see Christ fully in the scriptures just as they did.

Luke 24:32
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luke 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
John 2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.


You have backed yourself into a position of having to denigrate and marginalize the OT scriptures. They are just as relevant as the new now that our eyes have been opened to see the riches they contain. The NT is a key to unlocking the old.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
With all due respect, no, you did not. You claim the following:



The Disciple did, in fact, teach and preach exclusively from the OT of Christ. That was what they had when they started their ministry. The had have their eyes "opened" about those scriptures. Now all who have the Holy Spirit have their eyes "opened" and we see Christ fully in the scriptures just as they did.

Luke 24:32
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Luke 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
John 2:22
When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.


You have backed yourself into a position of having to denigrate and marginalize the OT scriptures. They are just as relevant as the new now that our eyes have been opened to see the riches they contain. The NT is a key to unlocking the old.
I abandoned this thread so I wouldn't have to keep up with 2 areas to respond in - feel free to raise your objections in the other thread, consider my earlier post an invitation.

I am too scatterminded to flip and flop, sorry. :)

Blessings!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top