EP: Can you actually prove it from SCRIPTURE???

Status
Not open for further replies.

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by puritansailorThere is no explicit command. We all know that. The argument is based on implication. Those who hold EP do so, because that is the assumed practice of the Jews before Christ, and since there was no indication of change after Christ and no explicit command to compose new hymns, then the practice continues, and Paul is simply using the common vernacular of psalms, hymns and songs as a common reference point to the people of his day in reference to the Psalms. Of course this involves a whole bunch of assumptions which have yet to be proven, along with some debatable use of those words in the Greek. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of other hymns used in worship prior to Christ, nor soon after, other than prophetic songs.

Those holding to non-EP as well, hold certain assumptions, assuming that free composition of hymns was a regular part of worship in the apostolic age (and maybe even before), and interpreting Paul to refer to those hymns, along with assuming portions of Scripture like the passage you mentioned in Phillipians are early hymns too (which I have yet to see proven, though it is clear they could be poetic).

Which is why, with Scott, I dont' try to bind anyone's conscience with EP. It is certainly safer theologically. But that is not enough to ban hymns. Many hymns are perfectly safe theologically. So, until the church comes to a better understanding, I subject my practice to the leadership of the Church in this area.
I think that's a fair reply. There is a whole lot of assumign going on! Scott's admonitions to caution are well taken. But that's a far cry from denouncing something as sinful. I will read on. :)

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by kevin.carroll]
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by joshua
Originally posted by jfschultz
Scripture does not contain words to forbid the singing of uninspired hymns, but God did provide the words for songs in the Psalms. Is this sufficient to "have gathered God's mind by consequence?"
According to the RPW, whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden.
Please understand, I am not trying to rankle, Josh, but therein is my beef with how the RPW is often applied. I, for one, believe in the RPW, but I also believe that one cannot manufacture commands out of thin air. I believe God inspired the writers of the Bible to use the imperative (vis., "Do this!" "Don't do that!") when He intended a command to be made.

So where's the command...?
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by joshua
Chris, we have clear examples of Paul preaching sermons other than verbatim scripture and Peter praying prayers other than verbatim scripture. However, we do not see people singing something other than divine words in the worship of God. There is no book of sermons commanded to be preached...no book of prayers commanded to be prayed. But there is a songbook in the middle of our Bibles commanded to be sung.
And the book, chapter, and verse on that command is...?
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
A Scriptural argument?

1. Scripture commands us to sing Psalms. (1 Chron. 16:7, 9; Ps. 81:2; 95:2; 98:5; 105:2; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 5:13)
Of the verses you quoted, only James 5:13 is an explicit command to sing praises, using a Greek word that generally applies to the Psalms. I''ll have to think about it.

I think Peter's claim that the Psalms is a hymnal is a reach. Clearly not all the Psalms were to be set to music, since others explicitly were.

2. Scripture does not command us to sing anything else.

3. Scripture declares that what is not commanded in worship is forbidden. (Lev. 10:1-3; Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Col. 3:23)

4. Ergo, we are to sing only Psalms.
The problem with your conclusion is you haven't proven it. If we only do what is commanded (a pont I agree with), then where is the command? Nadab and Abihu weren't slain over violating an implicit command. Uzzah wasn't fried for disobeying an implicit command. The former were told EXPLICITLY "approach God this way." The latter was told (well, the whole nation was) "here's how the ark should be moved and no one should touch it."

We can all agree that what is commanded is commanded and that what is not commanded is forbidden. Your OT examples don't pass the test, however, because you are comparing apples with oranges, namely the explicit (and violated) commands of the OT versus the commands you infer from the Bible.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by kevin.carroll]

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by kevin.carroll]

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by kevin.carroll]
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Augusta
Scriptural command to sing the psalter.... a specific office in the temple that has not been abrogated. We are now the royal priesthood that should continue this practice of singing the praises of God with the words of David and Asaph.
So many unproven assumptions...And beside's, didn't Moses write a Psalm? ;)
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by puritansailor
To me, (I won't bind your conscience with mine), to sing in praise in corporate worship is a clear command. The content of the song (though I hold to EP) is not clear, at least not clear enough to bind anothers conscience with. So I can sing hymns in my non-EP church in good conscience knowing that God has it all figured out, and will guide His church into greater clarity on the issue. The worship of God is bigger than my conscience, so I have no problem deferring to the elders on this issue and worshipping with my brethren, just as I would for the other issues regarding required elements of worship are carried out (i.e. what kind of bread or wine to use, preaching style, fixed or extemporaneous prayer, time and place of worship, etc.).

But I will no longer side-track the thread. Kevin wanted scriptural arguments for EP.

As Peter noted, the Psalms were divinely inspired and provided for the purpose of worship. They certainly perform other roles too, but that was their cheif intent. This much we know. Of course now we have to get to the nitty gritty of congregational worship before the NT, and we have little to go on. We know there was synagogue worship. But when was that instituted by God along with it's elements? We know the psalms were sung in the temple and feasts for ceremonial worship, but that ceremonial worship has been abolished. We also know that several psalms (like the psalms of ascent) were sung, not in public worship, but enroute to worship.
So what remains for the NT? The psalms remained. The RPW remained. And we have some clear commands in the NT as to required elements of worship. What did the early church draw on? The narratives in Acts don't help much. Corinth helps some, but it only gives us a picture of a Church struggling the abuse of some elements of worship. The early church knew how to worship God in the OT. To me it seems clear that the psalms provided not only an immediate hymn book for the Jewish christians, now knowing their full Christological meaning, but also they could identify more fully with the experiences of the psalms as they wrestled through persecution, betrayal, and sanctification, and sing them from the heart. In order to understand Paul to be commanding further composition, you would first have to somehow show where Paul (or the NT) shows a defficiency or incompleteness in the psalms for worship, or to provide more specific directions about songs in corporate worship to accomadate the new covenant worship. Othewise, the practice must continue as before. But again, these are all arguments by implication. We don't know for certain that the Jews didn't use other hymns in synagogue worship (i.e. what were the hymns of Hezekiah, the song of Miriam, Deborah, etc. ?). We don't know what parts of synagogue worship are divinely ordained or culturally bound "traditions of men" which Jesus so often rebuked them for. Perhaps the Jews refered to these other hymns as well when they said "psalms" in their everyday talk. The OT has very little to go on. And the early church began diverging in their liturgical traditions rather early on as I understand it. We have references to some early church fathers using the term "psalms" but do we really know whether that term referred to just the book of Psalsm, or as a generic word for worship music? Again, it's based upon implication.....
:2cents:
Good points, Patrick, and the sort of things that I was hoping to see.

The one thing I would point out: you mentioned it would be necessary to demonstrate a deficiency in the Psalms. I understand your question and hope those who read will understand my reply:

[Disclaimer: the following is not intended to in anyway imply a low view of the inspiration of or sufficiency of the Scriptures!]

The Psalms are, in my opinion insufficent for worship in that they are not, in themselves, a complete revelation of Christ, the Holy Sprit, the New Covenant, or redemption. I cannot...no WILL NOT...accept the notion that singing a song of praise to Christ is in anyway sinful, but that is the inescapable conclusion of EP.

I think.

:bigsmile:

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by kevin.carroll]
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by KaalvenistFrom Brian Schwertley's A Brief Examination of Exclusive Psalmody:
Ah. So...let me get this straight...God inspired John...to record something that did never happen, will never happen, could never happen, because if it did, would, could, it would be sinful?

So tell me, what is a vision of sinful worship being received by the Lamb (whether or not it could, would, did happen) supposed to teach us? That God lies? That God deliberately misleads? That God puts doxologic stumblingblocks in front of His people?

Mr. Schwertley's "clear" conclusions are nothing other than those of a person who is clinging to his conclusions despite the evidence.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by kevin.carroll]
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Peter
Without getting embroiled into the debate, and w/o being disrespectful, let me say, Mark, that your view of the inspiration of the scriptures is distorted. Verbal inspiration does not mean that the symbols themselves are the Word of God but that their intention is the Word. To the extent that another letter or sound can express the same intention as an iota of scripture it too is the word of God. It is really a Mohammedan perversion of the doctrine of inspiration that God's Word is and can only be in one language and that a translation can only be " the sense of the word of God." Christ and the Apostles quoted the LXX as the Word of God and often even deviated from that slightly.
And the LXX deviates WILDLY from the Hebrew in many places...
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by joshua
Even if one argues that we should be permitted to sing other Scriptural songs besides the Psalms, this doesn't allow for uninspired hymody.
Ah. I think I could actually agree with this point. Since so little of what is written today is deeper than "have a Coke and a smile," I may not belosing much. But it is harder to give up Great is thy Faithfulness, A Might Fortress is our God, Amazing Grace, And Can it be?, etc.

I'll have to think about it...
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
So where's the command...?
Kevin,

Even you would admit that we are commanded to sing Psalms. The question I believe that you are getting at here is "Where are we commanded to sing Psalms only?"

According to the Regulative Principle, an element needs scriptural justification to be performed in worship. We can justify Psalms (it is a clear command). What the EP argues, is the hymns cannot be justifyied (i.e. it is by no means clear, in fact the evidence seems to point the other way).

The EPer doesn't claim to have a verse that says "Thou shalt only sing Psalms." But the EPer DOES say is that

1) We have a clear command to sing Psalms
2) There is no clear command to make up our own songs
3) The arguments for the use of made-up songs are not convincing, and do not justify a "command" via the Regulative Principle

If you think that God has clearly commanded you to sing hymns, then we agree on the regulative principle, but differ on the application. The way I have explained the EP position above is because looking at it this way, was how I was convinced of the position.

We must earnestly look for scriptural warrant to include hymns, and I think all of the arguments to include them, do not constitute a "command" of God.

Just my :2cents:
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
So where's the command...?
Kevin,

Even you would admit that we are commanded to sing Psalms. The question I believe that you are getting at here is "Where are we commanded to sing Psalms only?"

According to the Regulative Principle, an element needs scriptural justification to be performed in worship. We can justify Psalms (it is a clear command). What the EP argues, is the hymns cannot be justifyied (i.e. it is by no means clear, in fact the evidence seems to point the other way).

The EPer doesn't claim to have a verse that says "Thou shalt only sing Psalms." But the EPer DOES say is that

1) We have a clear command to sing Psalms
2) There is no clear command to make up our own songs
3) The arguments for the use of made-up songs are not convincing, and do not justify a "command" via the Regulative Principle

If you think that God has clearly commanded you to sing hymns, then we agree on the regulative principle, but differ on the application. The way I have explained the EP position above is because looking at it this way, was how I was convinced of the position.

We must earnestly look for scriptural warrant to include hymns, and I think all of the arguments to include them, do not constitute a "command" of God.

Just my :2cents:
That's a pretty good reply. I would expect that from a fellow Kansan! :)
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
The EPer doesn't claim to have a verse that says "Thou shalt only sing Psalms." But the EPer DOES say is that

1) We have a clear command to sing Psalms
2) There is no clear command to make up our own songs
3) The arguments for the use of made-up songs are not convincing, and do not justify a "command" via the Regulative Principle
The non EPer would say in contrast to those:

1) The command to sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs does not exclusively refer to the headings in the LXX Psalter.
2) There is a command to make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19), and to sing and pray with our minds (I Cor. 14:15).
3) The RPW is much broader than whatever is not commanded is forbidden.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by Saiph]
 

Augusta

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Augusta
Scriptural command to sing the psalter.... a specific office in the temple that has not been abrogated. We are now the royal priesthood that should continue this practice of singing the praises of God with the words of David and Asaph.
So many unproven assumptions...And beside's, didn't Moses write a Psalm? ;)
Moses was commanded by God to write the song and teach it to the people in Deut. 31.

If God commands you or anyone else to write a song you let us know. :D
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Moses was commanded by God to write the song and teach it to the people in Deut. 31.

If God commands you or anyone else to write a song you let us know.
So we should sing the song of Moses along with the Psalms.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Saiph
Moses was commanded by God to write the song and teach it to the people in Deut. 31.

If God commands you or anyone else to write a song you let us know.
So we should sing the song of Moses along with the Psalms.
We sing Psalm 90 all the time, which Moses wrote!
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by Saiph
Moses was commanded by God to write the song and teach it to the people in Deut. 31.

If God commands you or anyone else to write a song you let us know.
So we should sing the song of Moses along with the Psalms.
We sing Psalm 90 all the time, which Moses wrote!

Then by good and necessary inference we should sing the song in Exodus 15, and I would go ahead and say the whole Pentateuch . . since Moses was the author.
 

Augusta

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Saiph
Moses was commanded by God to write the song and teach it to the people in Deut. 31.

If God commands you or anyone else to write a song you let us know.
So we should sing the song of Moses along with the Psalms.
The song was meant to remind them of their unfaithfullness down the road. I guess we can sing it to modern day Jews who are still unfaithful. I wouldn't sing it in corporate worship, no.

[Edited on 1-4-2006 by Augusta]
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Saiph
The EPer doesn't claim to have a verse that says "Thou shalt only sing Psalms." But the EPer DOES say is that

1) We have a clear command to sing Psalms
2) There is no clear command to make up our own songs
3) The arguments for the use of made-up songs are not convincing, and do not justify a "command" via the Regulative Principle
The non EPer would say in contrast to those:

1) The command to sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs does not exclusively refer to the headings in the LXX Psalter.
Prove it. ;)

Originally posted by Saiph
2) There is a command to make melody in our hearts (Eph. 5:19), and to sing and pray with our minds (I Cor. 14:15).
How does this militate against EP?

Originally posted by Saiph
3) The RPW is much broader than whatever is not commanded is forbidden.
This is simply not true. The RPW is DEFINED as "whatever is not commanded is forbidden." If one believes something else, that is fine, but do not call it the regulative principle, it's definition is already taken.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Augusta
The song was meant for to remind them of their unfaithfullness down the road. I guess we can sing it to modern day Jews who are still unfaithful. I wouldn't sing it in corporate worship, no.
Are you a dispensationalist ? ?

We are Israel, and we are still unfaithful.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Jeff,

Does the WCF use the phrase "whatever is not commanded is forbidden." ?

"But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in Holy Scripture."

I have shown that by inference, that doctrinally sound hymns and songs may be sung.

One cannot prove either way that the headings in the LXX are what Paul was referring to. Let your conscience be your guide brother. Just do not condemn me for singing Isaac Watts.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
I think that some people on this thread need to start a different one, to deal with the regulative principle of worship.

Most of those debating this point (with the notable exception of Mark) agree that the RPW is true, as defined in WCF 1.6, 21.1, etc. The only real question for most of us is how that applies to the question of song in worship.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
I think that some people on this thread need to start a different one, to deal with the regulative principle of worship.

Most of those debating this point (with the notable exception of Mark) agree that the RPW is true, as defined in WCF 1.6, 21.1, etc. The only real question for most of us is how that applies to the question of song in worship.
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (m) Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (n) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (o)


(m) II Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; Gal. 1:8, 9; II Thess. 2:2.
(n) John 6:45, I Cor. 2:9 to 12.
(o) I Cor. 11:13, 14; I Cor. 14:26, 40.
I think most non EPers would agree that the singing of non-inspired hymns is well within the bounds of the WCF on that point, whether or not they follow the RPW.

I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. (a) But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. (b)

(a) Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:24; Ps. 119:68;
Jer. 10:7; Ps. 31:23; Ps. 18:3; Rom. 10:12;
Ps. 62:8; Josh. 24:14; Mark 12:33.
(b) Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Acts 17:25;
Matt. 4:9, 10; Deut. 4:15 to 20; Exod. 20:4,
5, 6; Col. 2:23.
I fail to see how singing the entirety of Scripture, or "non-inspired" songs that echo the great doctrines of scripture and attributes of God could be the suggestion of Satan.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
1. If you protest against the "rhymed paraphrases of Psalms," write better metrical translations than we already have.

Wrong. I protest to the inconsistency of the EP psalm singer. A paraphrase of ANY psalm is NOT in ANY way the inspired, infallible, and inerrant word of God.
I protest that metrical translations are proper translations of the Word of God, and are therefore "the inspired, infallible, and inerrant word of God."

2. If you protest against our not singing in Hebrew with enough violence to capitalize letters and everything, stop using English translations of the Bible. Use only the Hebrew and the Greek.

I would If I followed the RPW and EP. Which I do not.
But you follow Sola Scriptura, don't you? The RPW is nothing other than Sola Scriptura applied to worship. If you follow Sola Scriptura (i.e. if you are a Protestant), the conclusion stands.

And again, if you protest against the RPW, start a new thread on that subject.

3. Psalm 46 (A, B, and C) in my church's Psalter is much closer to Psalm 46 as it appears in your Bible than is "A Mighty Fortress." We sing Psalm 46; singers of "A Mighty Fortress" do not.

Post it then. I will gladly show you where the paraphrase departs from accurate hebrew translation, and probably misses the ideas of hebrew poetry, ie. alliteration, parrallelism, chiasms, etc . . .
Show me a standard English translation where you don't miss the ideas of Hebrew poetry, i.e. alliteration, parallelism, chiasms, etc. And while I try to stick to the closest translation of the Bible possible, it is interesting to note that Christ Himself and His apostles all used the Septuagint, which is known to have been "off" in a number of places. Will your strictures against exclusive psalmodists be imposed with equal rigor against our Lord?

4. Your arguments would tend to argue against the very practice of singing Psalms. May I ask you, Mark, how we are to obey the command of Scripture that we sing Psalms, if we can't sing in our language, can't sing metrical versions, etc. etc. etc.; or, if we do, we are not actually singing Psalms?

Now you are seeing it. If we can make a paraphrase and/or a translation. (which is an arbitrary liberty to the EP advocate) then we can sing any song that echoes scriptural doctrines and themes and sing that as well. We can even sing the decalogue.
Now you're missing my entire point. The Bible commands us to sing Psalms. According to you, that is impossible. You are charging God in His Word with issuing a foolish command, which we cannot hope to keep.

Scott's idea was to stay safe. So how safe ? ? If Psalms only, then why not be extra safe and sing hebrew ? And if we sing hebrew how safe should we be ? ? Should we be carefull not to sing the ineffable name YHWH, since no one knows absolutely how to pronounce it anyway, and sing Adonai instead ? ? Does that change of scripture fit the RPW ? ?
I never used that argument. You'll have to take that up with Scott. But I will note that we do not "play it safe" by reading or singing things which we don't understand (1 Cor. 14:15). Your constant refrain of "To be consistent, you have to sing in Hebrew," has been shown time and again to be without basis. Let's try it like this:

"To be a truly consistent Protestant, believing in Sola Scriptura, you can only read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek."

"To be a truly consistent Calvinist, you can only read Calvin's Institutes in French or Latin."

"To be a truly consistent Anglican, you can only read the Thirty-Nine Articles in Latin."

The rationale for each of these could be that there are subtle nuances in each of the languages which simply do not carry over to translations, so that if you read a translation of the Bible, you are not actually reading the Bible; if you read a translation of Calvin's Institutes (whether Beveridge or Battles), you are not actually reading Calvin's Institutes; if you read a translation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, you are not actually reading the Thirty-Nine Articles. But nobody says this concerning these works. Why do you say this concerning, not even any actual metrical translation of the Psalms, but merely the idea of singing Psalms in an English translation, whether prose or metrical?
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Saiph
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (m) Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (n) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (o)


(m) II Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; Gal. 1:8, 9; II Thess. 2:2.
(n) John 6:45, I Cor. 2:9 to 12.
(o) I Cor. 11:13, 14; I Cor. 14:26, 40.
I think most non EPers would agree that the singing of non-inspired hymns is well within the bounds of the WCF on that point, whether or not they follow the RPW.
But to be "well within the bounds of the WCF" would also require it to be within the bounds of the RPW (which is manifestly part and parcel with the WCF).

If you'd like, I believe I can demonstrate that the WCF maintains EP. It would, however, require a recognition of the RPW, as maintained in the WCF.

I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. (a) But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. (b)

(a) Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:24; Ps. 119:68;
Jer. 10:7; Ps. 31:23; Ps. 18:3; Rom. 10:12;
Ps. 62:8; Josh. 24:14; Mark 12:33.
(b) Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Acts 17:25;
Matt. 4:9, 10; Deut. 4:15 to 20; Exod. 20:4,
5, 6; Col. 2:23.
I fail to see how singing the entirety of Scripture, or "non-inspired" songs that echo the great doctrines of scripture and attributes of God could be the suggestion of Satan.
It might not be. It might instead be "according to the imaginations and devices of men." If you'll notice, WCF 21.1 teaches that, without the RPW, the only two sources from which to derive our worship practices are (1) "the imaginations and devices of men, or" (2) "the suggestions of Satan." It could be the former without being the latter.

But I also don't see how you can equate "singing the entirety of Scripture" with singing "'non-inspired' songs that echo the great doctrines of scripture." When we speak of singing Psalms (heck, when the Bible speaks of singing Psalms), we speak of singing an actual portion of that Scripture. If you protest that we should sing "the entirety of Scripture," I would expect to see arguments for singing Genesis through Revelation -- actual portions of Scripture, set to music (and probably metred and rhymed, as well). What you instead are arguing for is the singing of songs that set forth Scriptural doctrines, without actually being Scripture set to music.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
The assertion that the Book of Psalms is a hymnal is not at all a "reach", infact even to suggests that it was not I consider to be a tremendous reach and, respectfully, I think a sign of desparation on the part of some UH advocates. Many of the Psalms are entitled songs or some other musical term and have musical instructions, there are hundreds of musical allusions in the Psalms themselves, and they are all collected into a single book which is called "The Psalms" a name Christ himself used.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
I protest that metrical translations are proper translations of the Word of God, and are therefore "the inspired, infallible, and inerrant word of God."

Show me one book on biblical interpretation that states a paraphrase is infallible and inerrant. The metrical translations, which I own several versions of, are weak translations at best. Why not sing the NKJV or NASB ?


But you follow Sola Scriptura, don't you? The RPW is nothing other than Sola Scriptura applied to worship. If you follow Sola Scriptura (i.e. if you are a Protestant), the conclusion stands.

I follow sola scriptura so much that I think ALL of scripture is to be sung as acceptable worship. And so are songs that echo the doctrines of scripture. The ones that are not doctrinally correct should by no means be sung in corporate worship.


And again, if you protest against the RPW, start a new thread on that subject.

See Jeff's new thread.


Show me a standard English translation where you don't miss the ideas of Hebrew poetry, i.e. alliteration, parallelism, chiasms, etc. And while I try to stick to the closest translation of the Bible possible, it is interesting to note that Christ Himself and His apostles all used the Septuagint, which is known to have been "off" in a number of places. Will your strictures against exclusive psalmodists be imposed with equal rigor against our Lord?

I am of the opinion that the LXX is quite possibly better than the Masoretic. 250 B.C. vs. 1000 A.D. I agree that we should stick to the oldest and most accurate manuscripts.


Now you're missing my entire point. The Bible commands us to sing Psalms. According to you, that is impossible. You are charging God in His Word with issuing a foolish command, which we cannot hope to keep.

It is not impossible. I never said that. I said paraphrases are not any different than non-inspired hymns.


I never used that argument. You'll have to take that up with Scott. But I will note that we do not "play it safe" by reading or singing things which we don't understand (1 Cor. 14:15). Your constant refrain of "To be consistent, you have to sing in Hebrew," has been shown time and again to be without basis. Let's try it like this:

"To be a truly consistent Protestant, believing in Sola Scriptura, you can only read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek."

"To be a truly consistent Calvinist, you can only read Calvin's Institutes in French or Latin."

"To be a truly consistent Anglican, you can only read the Thirty-Nine Articles in Latin."

The rationale for each of these could be that there are subtle nuances in each of the languages which simply do not carry over to translations, so that if you read a translation of the Bible, you are not actually reading the Bible; if you read a translation of Calvin's Institutes (whether Beveridge or Battles), you are not actually reading Calvin's Institutes; if you read a translation of the Thirty-Nine Articles, you are not actually reading the Thirty-Nine Articles. But nobody says this concerning these works. Why do you say this concerning, not even any actual metrical translation of the Psalms, but merely the idea of singing Psalms in an English translation, whether prose or metrical?

You keep insisting that I am arguing against translations. I am arguing against paraphrases. There are no metrical Psalters to my knowledge that are translations.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
It might not be. It might instead be "according to the imaginations and devices of men." If you'll notice, WCF 21.1 teaches that, without the RPW, the only two sources from which to derive our worship practices are (1) "the imaginations and devices of men, or" (2) "the suggestions of Satan." It could be the former without being the latter.

But I also don't see how you can equate "singing the entirety of Scripture" with singing "'non-inspired' songs that echo the great doctrines of scripture." When we speak of singing Psalms (heck, when the Bible speaks of singing Psalms), we speak of singing an actual portion of that Scripture. If you protest that we should sing "the entirety of Scripture," I would expect to see arguments for singing Genesis through Revelation -- actual portions of Scripture, set to music (and probably metred and rhymed, as well). What you instead are arguing for is the singing of songs that set forth Scriptural doctrines, without actually being Scripture set to music.

Where is the command to set the Psalms to metre ?

Circumstance vs. Element remember.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Saiph
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
It might not be. It might instead be "according to the imaginations and devices of men." If you'll notice, WCF 21.1 teaches that, without the RPW, the only two sources from which to derive our worship practices are (1) "the imaginations and devices of men, or" (2) "the suggestions of Satan." It could be the former without being the latter.

But I also don't see how you can equate "singing the entirety of Scripture" with singing "'non-inspired' songs that echo the great doctrines of scripture." When we speak of singing Psalms (heck, when the Bible speaks of singing Psalms), we speak of singing an actual portion of that Scripture. If you protest that we should sing "the entirety of Scripture," I would expect to see arguments for singing Genesis through Revelation -- actual portions of Scripture, set to music (and probably metred and rhymed, as well). What you instead are arguing for is the singing of songs that set forth Scriptural doctrines, without actually being Scripture set to music.

Where is the command to set the Psalms to metre ?

Circumstance vs. Element remember.
Actually, the metre would be a rubric. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top