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