OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
I feel like someone has hacked this person’s account since these comments don’t relate to the OP and they didn’t start out addressing anyone in particular. It’s very odd.
Do you prefer hymns over psalms?
- Thread starter earl40
- Start date
- Status
I feel like someone has hacked this person’s account since these comments don’t relate to the OP and they didn’t start out addressing anyone in particular. It’s very odd.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
Wondered myself. The only clues I could take when looking is seeing God's continuous insistence that they do everything according to the pattern they were shown. It gets repeated numerous times in the Pentateuch. I found it strange there is nothing of music as part of worship. However, if it's all strictly according to the pattern, as God says numerous times, I have two thoughts:
1) There was no singing, or
2) Seeing as in the temple worship the playing of instruments and composition of songs were done by prophets (even the instruments were by inspiration), then the music--if any--was done by those set apart as prophets in their day.
Don't have time to dig into references, maybe later, but I welcome better thoughts than mine.
You guys are all too sensitive. There is nothing wrong with vigorously arguing. I believe that we are commanded to sing the Psalms and the Psalms only, what’s wrong with that? Further I believe that singing other songs is in fact sinful, what is wrong with that?
Unity for the sake of unity is sin.
There can be no true unity among brothers in Christ unless it is founded upon the word of God not man made uninspired songs.
Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to take pen in hand and write songs for the church to worship God with.
Reformed people always claim that they believe in Scripture alone and yet always seem to be arguing from a position of sentimentality and emotion.
Unity for the sake of unity is sin.
There can be no true unity among brothers in Christ unless it is founded upon the word of God not man made uninspired songs.
Nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to take pen in hand and write songs for the church to worship God with.
Reformed people always claim that they believe in Scripture alone and yet always seem to be arguing from a position of sentimentality and emotion.
Of course there isn't. That, however, is not what you were doing. Libel is not vigorous argumentation; it's sin, and you should repent. It's that simple. As for me, I have not said, "You hurt my feelings." Rather, I have said, "You have broken the ninth commandment in one of your comments." So, again, I am not sure why you keep acting as if anyone here is arguing from emotion. Why are you being so flippant about this? It seems to me (as well as some others here) that your view regarding EP is of little to no consequence if you have no regard for God's Law to begin with.
Then why are you a member of this board? It seems to me your very presence here violates your own conscience. Not even the most strident and convicted of individuals arguing here in this thread have made such strong statements.
Give one single example of someone engaging in argumentum ad passiones in this thread. Otherwise, you are continuing to have a fist fight with the air.
@Taylor Sexton, Taylor, where is it that Bill violates the ninth commandment against you? I haven’t seen that in this thread.
It is not against me personally, but rather against one side of this issue, when he said this:
In the context of this thread, I perceived that comment to be implying that anyone who is not EP "hates the words of Christ." I could be wrong, and perhaps I am alone in that interpretation, but he made no attempt to clarify, even after I mentioned that comment specifically a couple times. If he would clarify what he meant by that statement, I would happily retract my accusation. Even so, I am not the only one here who has admonished against his very aggressive and unedifying rhetoric.
I think Bill’s statement is best taken as a general statement that is true- not an accusation. Feelings run high on this topic and it’s too easy to take offense whereas on other matters, blunt statements might be overlooked. Your own descriptive adjectives and nouns are pretty strong.
I would say, to everyone as a general rule, engage with the *ideas* you can and wish to engage with, and don’t with those you don’t. Be slower to make it personal.I think Bill’s statement is best taken as a general statement that is true- not an accusation. Feelings run high on this topic and it’s too easy to take offense whereas on other matters, blunt statements might be overlooked. Your own descriptive adjectives and nouns are pretty strong.
I agree, that is the best possible way to take it. Unfortunately, I don't feel I have much of a choice, since even after quoting the statement in question once, and mentioning it again closely thereafter, there was no attempt at all toward a clarification. (It's not "strong" language I am after here, by the way, but abusive language.) Furthermore, in light of his later statements that there cannot even be "true unity" among those who differ on this issue (a statement by which we should all be disturbed, frankly), I don't think my interpretation is all that far off. So, until there is clarification, I'm not sure what else to think.
Either way, I suppose I'll just leave it alone.
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Even Christ calls us to "hate" our own family in comparison to our love for him. Bill will have to clarify what he meant, though.
I think there is a place for a "hatred" of something which runs against the word of God. If Bill believes strongly that Psalms are the only thing that may be sung, and that hymns are a violation of the proper worship of God, then he, I think is right to hate hymn singing in church, although I think it is going too far to hate hymns. After all, many hymns are simply personal prayers, put to paper, and the author may not have even meant them for public worship. Surely no one would go up to a person and say "I hate the praise you have written down on paper".
Therefore, I don't think we can say we "hate hymns" without making the distinction between hymn singing in church, and hymns themselves.
I think there is a place for a "hatred" of something which runs against the word of God. If Bill believes strongly that Psalms are the only thing that may be sung, and that hymns are a violation of the proper worship of God, then he, I think is right to hate hymn singing in church, although I think it is going too far to hate hymns. After all, many hymns are simply personal prayers, put to paper, and the author may not have even meant them for public worship. Surely no one would go up to a person and say "I hate the praise you have written down on paper".
Therefore, I don't think we can say we "hate hymns" without making the distinction between hymn singing in church, and hymns themselves.
The real issue is hath God said? Where in scripture does God command men to take pen in hand and write songs and then command the people to sing them to God and worship? When the elders of the church command the people to stand and sing something that is uninspired they put the member in a precarious position, do I disobey my elders (and God) by not singing or do I disobey God by singing .
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
I would say in plenty of places, brother. There are many commands to sing a "new song." All the way from the Psalms and we see new songs sung even at the end in Revelation. Then Paul in two places tells us to sing hymns and spiritual songs, in addition to Psalms. To me this is clear. You just interpret it differently.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
For starters do I have to judge if the words are biblically faithful? Lets face the facts we all do this when we sing hymns. Personally I grew tired of such and understand a implicit faith in men (or Pastors) is what I ran away from when I was a RC.
Last edited:
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Scott,
I appreciate and respect you. Short answer, then I think it best for me to give it a rest. We have so much more in common than differences.
I treat song the same way I treat prayer and preaching in this way: they all should be weighed according to scripture. Are lines crossed at times in prayer and preaching? Of course! This doesn't mean they should cease, only that we need to constantly be going back to sola scriptural, brother!
Blessings,
Tim
As an Elder you may discuss and correct a sermon a pastor gives or a prayer for that matter. Not so for a Psalm, and to allow a hymn that may be theologically off puts heresy into the people mouth's. Not to say you would do such on purpose but the fact remains I am sure it happens all the time.
Last edited:
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Well as a member of the congregation you'd have to judge right? If this is biblically faithful, I may sing it. If it isn't, then you can't. Wouldn't that be correct? So, I'm asking for each I named, would you sing them if they were being sung in your congregation's worship?
If you were a Pastor (so the pastors in this thread), would you choose, in each of the one's named, whether to have the congregation sing these hymns?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
The church has always had psalms to sing in worship.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Earl,
What are your thoughts on my post #89 in this thread? I think it's germane to the OP.
Thanks!
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I call this judging on the fly.
With the psalms one may contemplate the meaning without worrying the words are good or not.When you say it is clear are you using a reformed hermeneutic to come to that conclusion? If so please provide the new songs you speak of that were written between the writing of the Psalms and the New Testament .
Allowing scripture to interpret scripture please define what the Bible means by new song and please define what the Bible means by hymn, did anyone during the time of David or Paul come to the conclusion that you have come to? If you answer yes please produce these songs
I apologize if it sounds as if I am being crass or argumentative on this issue, I know we have been down this path before but I believe that it is time that we begin to hold each other accountable in maintaining a reformed hermeneutic, which is by the way what we confess.
If I am wrong I want to see it in scripture so I can immediately repent
If I am wrong I want to see it in scripture so I can immediately repent
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Again, Bill I hope we can clarify something.
Let's make a distinction between writing a hymn, and then installing that hymn as something for singing in the congregation.
Was it sin for Fanny Crosby to write "Blessed assurance, Jesus is mine" (even though I don't like that song)? I don't think it is, but correct me if I am wrong. I think she and anyone else has the freedom to do that.
Is it sin for someone to take that composition and then impose it on a congregation for singing? I lean towards "yes", because I think we should sing the Psalms. I am still working through this issue myself but am strongly leaning towards EP.
Can I sing a hymn outside of the church? Does the RPW extend to me in my car on the way to work? Can I listen to a song by the Gettys? Can I sing along? I would have a hard time believing "no".
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
I call this judging on the fly.
So then you acknowledge you do this? This was my experience as well. After becoming a little more theologically aware, I'd often scan through a hymn to see if I was able to sing it or not.
Then as a Pastor, I had to choose the hymns we sing. And while the PCA (Red Trinity) and the OPC (old Blue Trinity) had their hymnals that we used, I still had to be cautious. Which made me confused all the more, my church (PCA with good friend the OPC) didn't have hymnals that were great. If they were great I could choose any hymn in them and not have to worry about binding the conscience of the congregation with false words, or false doctrines therein. But with them I could not do that. Even the new Psalter/Hymnal is like this because frankly it contains man-made hymns (e.g. Chrissmass hymns).
As a Pastor and before that as a lay member, it always greatly concerned me that it laid on my shoulders to discern. Why wasn't this the Church's duty? And if that had already been decided, why did they do such a poor job and allow these false teaching hymns in? It is this that I'd ask you all to consider, by what authority do you get to decide what words you sing in God's Worship? Why is that to be laid on your shoulders? Is that right?
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Andrew,
Thanks for this post. I currently attend a church which sing both Psalms and Hymns. I can sympathize with your previous situation. I often find myself singing a hymn and all the while analyzing each phrase to see if it is biblically accurate. I of course sometimes find errors, and this is a bit tiring. It is such a great ease on my mind when I can sing a Psalm (supposing the translation is good, and that's another topic), because I can simply sing it and know that what I am singing is faithful to scripture because it is scripture. It frees up my heart and mind to simply sing. Is the singing of praise really meant to be an exercise in discernment?
And this is where I suppose the non-EPers bring up the sermon and say how the sermon contains man's words and how we must also sift through the chaff in a sermon to grab ahold of the wheat, so why can't we do that when we sing? I think singing a song is different than hearing a sermon though?
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Scott,
I don't think you quite mean that, otherwise you have to place the starting of the church considerably later than most Reformed people do. It's certainly not the conventional EP view.
The psalms (as such) begin with the time of David in preparation for the temple, even though an earlier song by Moses (Psalm 90) was incorporated into the psalter. By the way, the psalter as a collection is clearly post-exilic, since it includes psalms that make reference to the exile in Babylon (e.g. Ps 137). There were earlier collections of psalms, it appears (see the end of psalm 72), but it's not clear at what point we can speak of a "psalter" as the hymnbook of the temple in the sense in which EP often does. Certainly, with respect to the first temple, it was not our present psalter. (There are also additional psalms floating around in the Septuagint and at Qumran which some clearly regarded as canonical, which complicates the issue further).
There was no singing in the tabernacle liturgy, as far as we can tell, though there were worship songs beign sung informally in a number of contexts (exod 15; Judges 5 etc). Most modern scholarship also argues that there was no singing in the synagogue either, prior to 70AD, when a number of temple features carried over into the synagogue. My own view is that singing in the early church was an innovation, reflecting the church as new temple, which may subsequently have influenced the synagogues. We just don't have the data to be sure, however.
All this to say that the question of what the church sang and when (and where and why) is a lot more complex than most people (on both sides of the question) realize. I deal with it in a chapter of my Biblical Theology of worship, which unfortunately is still a long way from publication (since it requires me to research an enormously wide field of study).
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Brother, a quick search shows the prophets like Jeremiah, Isaiah, habakkuk, etc., composing songs and dirges. Even the "Song" of Solomon. Mary had a nice song and the ESV titles it as "Mary's Song of Praise." Jesus sung a hymn we see, in acts we see the singing of hymns. Then in Revelation we have new songs. To me it's clear, but I understand you have your own views of the matter. I just wouldn't be so critical towards those who oppose you over this, because the other side has clear and good support in my opinion. Blessings!
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
First, the prophets are prophets - they have songs, and if they made them they are from God. That's different than man-made hymns. So you can't really use that argument.
Second, for 'Mary's song of praise' where is this described in Scripture as a song? I believe the Greek will not substantiate your claim on that. Nor can it be proven that anywhere in the passage it says that someone or people 'sang'.
Third, Jesus did sing a hymn. Was that a man-made hymn? Most commentators/scholars believe He sang psalms (as we've discussed hymnos previously) and that He sang Psalms 113-118.
Finally, Revelation and 'new songs'. Everything in Revelation has a context in the OT. What did 'new songs' mean in the OT?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Iain,
Thanks for your explanation; my thinking is speculative at best on the subject; I am not a biblical historian; what I go on solely, is the idea that the Lord commanded worship and He preserves the church and all its command essentials to the matter. In the same way, I am sure that if anything was sung, whatever time-frame, it was based on His prescription. I am one that hold to the idea that this idea dates back to Moses. I could be wrong, however.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
As I mentioned to Tim earlier, do we have to, by default, every time the word 'song' is used in scripture to denote actual singing is intended? Do u actually believe the 'Song of Solomon' is a songbook?
Consider that the same word is used in the Psalter.....
New, in that we will be singing them as a glorified congregation. Not *new words...
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
Wow, so I concluded right concerning the Tabernacle liturgy. I found it so strange that the Pentateuch gives no directions at all concerning worship singing. No one is appointed, no one crafts instruments, only a few songs develop that are not connected with public worship.
I didn't know the synagogues never incorporated singing, but then it makes sense that they wouldn't--those who performed temple liturgy did it by divine appointment, in the sphere of temple worship, and there was no command to do it anywhere else. Makes me think of Jeroboam... he attempted to establish the same worship in an unauthorized place and incurred God's anger.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Maybe someone can explain Solomon and his writing of songs, including the one in the Bible.
Solomon wrote Song of Solomon, according to the first verse. This song is one of 1,005 that Solomon wrote (1 Kings 4:32). The title “Song of Songs” is a superlative, meaning this is the best one.
Solomon wrote Song of Solomon, according to the first verse. This song is one of 1,005 that Solomon wrote (1 Kings 4:32). The title “Song of Songs” is a superlative, meaning this is the best one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
