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

Status
Not open for further replies.

youthevang

Puritan Board Freshman
I have one question concerning the RPW discussion. It was stated somewhere earlier in this thread that Israel followed the RPW. If that is so, how would someone explain the establishment of the "Feast of Purim?"
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
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:
Excellent reply, Jeff. I think you nailed it on where I am struggling. I think it all hinges on the question posed earlier on whether or not "hymns and spiritual songs" refers to the Psalms. If it does, then EP is correct. If it does not, then EP is wrong.
Thanks Kevin.

I approached this issue by examining the use of these terms asking myself..."What is God commanding me to sing here?"

I personally think that all of the EP arguments for interpreting "hymns and spiritual songs" to be a triadic expression for the book of Psalms far outweigh the arguments for interpreting them in the modern usage of the english words.

You might work through the arguments "against" EP listed in the thread Best "Arguments" Listed Against Exlusive Psalmody and make sure that none of them constitute a command of God to sing hymns.

If the arguments for hymnody don't constitute a clear command from God, we must cast them out of public worship out of reverence for him.

God speed in your studies.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by youthevang
I have one question concerning the RPW discussion. It was stated somewhere earlier in this thread that Israel followed the RPW. If that is so, how would someone explain the establishment of the "Feast of Purim?"
A cultural/national festival of thanksgiving, not required worship.

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by puritansailor]
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by youthevang
I have one question concerning the RPW discussion. It was stated somewhere earlier in this thread that Israel followed the RPW. If that is so, how would someone explain the establishment of the "Feast of Purim?"
They usually try to say it was a national day of celebration established by a civil magistrate and not a ceremonial or religious holy day.
 

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
For what it's worth,

For an interesting look at the Westminster Assembly's discussions about the translation, publication, and use of the Metrical Psalms check out Carruther's Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly:
http://www.heritagebooks.org/browse.asp?fname=Samuel&lname=Carruthers

They sent it to be reviewed by the best Hebraists of the day to ensure the best possible translation. I recommend it to all no matter which side of the fence you are on.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
:ditto:
The psalter was also extensively reviewed by the GA and presbyteries of the Church of Scotland over several years before the Assemblies production basically turned into the 1650 Scottish Psalter.
Originally posted by crhoades
For what it's worth,

For an interesting look at the Westminster Assembly's discussions about the translation, publication, and use of the Metrical Psalms check out Carruther's Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly:
http://www.heritagebooks.org/browse.asp?fname=Samuel&lname=Carruthers

They sent it to be reviewed by the best Hebraists of the day to ensure the best possible translation. I recommend it to all no matter which side of the fence you are on.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Saiph
Serious question: Was early synagogue worship EP ? ?
There is the other difficulty. Most EP's will say yes. But the evidence is hard to conclude. For one, there are differences between Jewish traditions (i.e. pharisaic, essene, etc.). Which ones followed the right pattern? The OT really doesn't spell out how synagogue worship was to be done. We have some descriptions from Jewish literature, but are those descriptions of divinely ordained worship or just traditions of men? Here is where alot of assumptions come into play for EP and non-EP.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Saiph
Serious question: Was early synagogue worship EP ? ?
There is the other difficulty. Most EP's will say yes. But the evidence is hard to conclude. For one, there are differences between Jewish traditions (i.e. pharisaic, essene, etc.). Which ones followed the right pattern? The OT really doesn't spell out how synagogue worship was to be done. We have some descriptions from Jewish literature, but are those descriptions of divinely ordained worship or just traditions of men? Here is where alot of assumptions come into play for EP and non-EP.
Then we would have to ask What Would Jesus Sing ? ?

Actually, He would be singing worship to Himself. Kinda wierd anyway.
 

BobVigneault

Bawberator
Then we would have to ask What Would Jesus Sing ? ?
Zephaniah 3:17
The Lord your God is in your midst,
a mighty one who will save;
he will rejoice over you with gladness;
he will quiet you by his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing.

I don't know what He would sing either but it's a wonderful thought and poor Zephaniah doesn't get quoted much. :sing:
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Sorry for coming in late, my ignorance of the subject, and if this has already been asked; but why does using the word 'psalms' necessarily mean the book of Psalms in the OT?

Also, Isn't there a lot of places in Scripture where people are singing and those songs not being Psalms from the book of Psalms in the OT?

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Romans922]
 

ChristopherPaul

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by maxdetail
Then we would have to ask What Would Jesus Sing ? ?
Zephaniah 3:17
The Lord your God is in your midst,
a mighty one who will save;
he will rejoice over you with gladness;
he will quiet you by his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing.

I don't know what He would sing either but it's a wonderful thought and poor Zephaniah doesn't get quoted much. :sing:
That is a great passage... just don't sing it in church!

;)
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
The title page of the 1673 revision to the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter (created by men such as Thomas Manton, John Owen, Matthew Poole and Thomas Watson) states:

"œThe Psalms of David In Meeter. Newly Translated and diligently compared with the Original Text, and former Translations: More plain, smooth and agreeable to the Text, than any heretofore."
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by maxdetail

Zephaniah 3:17
The Lord your God is in your midst,
a mighty one who will save;
he will rejoice over you with gladness;
he will quiet you by his love;
he will exult over you with loud singing.

I don't know what He would sing either but it's a wonderful thought and poor Zephaniah doesn't get quoted much. :sing:
Bob that truly is glorious. I want to set that to music. And, just reading it, I cannot fathom how it would be abhorrent to God if His people sing it in His presence on Sunday morning.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Saiph
Serious question: Was early synagogue worship EP ? ?
The OT really doesn't spell out how synagogue worship was to be done.
Bingo. That's one reason why I think the Puritan version of the RPW is suspect. Scripture did not command specific worship to be done in the synagogue. Thus, according to the Puritan version of the RPW, the Israelites must have just done *nothing* at all in the synagogue. If they sang anything in the synagogue, it was against the RPW, because no singing was commanded for the synagogue. The same goes for prayer, preaching, etc. Thus, you either have to say that they upheld the Puritan RPW and did *nothing* there, or you have to believe that they did actively worship God in various ways in the synagogue, and that the Puritan RPW is in error.
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Saiph
Serious question: Was early synagogue worship EP ? ?
The OT really doesn't spell out how synagogue worship was to be done.
Bingo. That's one reason why I think the Puritan version of the RPW is suspect. Scripture did not command specific worship to be done in the synagogue. Thus, according to the Puritan version of the RPW, the Israelites must have just done *nothing* at all in the synagogue. If they sang anything in the synagogue, it was against the RPW, because no singing was commanded for the synagogue. The same goes for prayer, preaching, etc. Thus, you either have to say that they upheld the Puritan RPW and did *nothing* there, or you have to believe that they did actively worship God in various ways in the synagogue, and that the Puritan RPW is in error.
Or you have to remember that Scripture has not always been God's sole means of special revelation to His people.
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Me Died BlueOr you have to remember that Scripture has not always been God's sole means of special revelation to His people.
:eek::eek::eek: Do you REALLY want to try to argue that unenscritpurated directives regarding worship were given???:eek::eek::eek:
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Me Died BlueOr you have to remember that Scripture has not always been God's sole means of special revelation to His people.
:eek::eek::eek: Do you REALLY want to try to argue that unenscritpurated directives regarding worship were given???:eek::eek::eek:
I do not want to explicitly argue that we know such - but if the Regulative Principle can be biblically derived from elsewhere in Scripture as a whole, and if we know the synagogue was for worship, I don't see many other plausible options (and the fact that there was much verbal special revelation under the Old Covenant only corroborates the plausibility of that implication).
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
From A Critique of Steve Schlissel's 'All I Need to Know About Worship, I don't Learn from the Regulative Principle.'. by G.I. Williamson:

By now you will see that "” according to Rev. Schlissel "” there were two kinds of worship in Old Testament times. (a) There was sacrificial worship, which was found only in the Tabernacle or Temple. And then (b) there was non-sacrificial worship, which was found in the Synagogue. He refers to these as "œmere" sacred assembles. "œThe Temple worship was strictly regulated" he says, "œbecause the Temple worship was the Gospel of the Messiah." But Synagogue worship, on the other hand, was not strictly regulated because it was not the gospel of the Messiah.
5. His argument is then carried one step further when he says that there is a parallel to this under the New Testament: (1) there is worship in the heavenly realm which is the continuation of Tabernacle/Temple worship. (2) The worship of the church, on the other hand, is just a continuation of Synagogue worship. And so, being "˜mere´ worship (to use his term), it is not subject to the RPW. The strict RPW that applied to the Tabernacle and Temple pertains to only one thing now, says Schlissel, and that is the gospel message. In other words, God is no more jealous today for the way in which worship is conducted in his church than he was for the way in which it was conducted in the synagogue. What he is jealous for is what most of us would call "˜purity of doctrine.´
Rev. Schlissel likens his novel theory to a famous New York bridge "” The Verrazano Bridge (which he calls "˜the most beautiful in the world´) "” which has an upper and lower level. The upper level, according to Schlissel´s novel scheme, represents the worship of the heavenly sanctuary "” or Temple "” where the Lord Jesus is. The lower level, on the other hand, represents the worship of the earthly Christian synagogue where we find ourselves. And because Synagogue worship is not Temple worship, according to Rev. Schlissel, the RPW doesn´t apply. And, again, we quote him:
The New Testament is beyond clear in teaching that the organizational model for the worshipping communities called "˜churches´ was the synagogue, not the Temple. (Pt. 1, p. 7)
And "œfor us the synagogue presents no problem at all. We find that it is sacrificial worship only, from Deuteronomy 12 on, that is absolutely restricted in regard to place, performers and particulars." "œSuch restrictions" says Rev. Schlissel, "œnever governed common sacred assemblies."

[5] And then, after giving a long list of directions as to what is, and what is not proper to be done in the church of God, he says "œIf anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the Lord´s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this," he adds, "œhe is not recognized" (1 Cor. 14:37, 38). Paul was not giving pious advice about what he thought might be good things to do in some lower level, Christian synagogue, worship. (Or, "˜mere´ worship´ as Schlissel would put it). No, he was giving God´s commandments because the worship in the authentic New Testament Church is Temple worship.
I cannot go into this at length here, but let me also add that I am not at all persuaded that the ancient synagogue worship was as loose and unregulated as Rev. Schlissel seems to think. After all, what was synagogue worship? It is my conviction that it was what I would call mental participation in Temple worship made necessary because of the distances. Josephus, the Jewish historian, says Moses ordained "œthat every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it" (Ag. Ap. 2:175). And Luke confirms this in his quotation of James, at the Jerusalem Synod. "œFor Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21). It was not possible, in Old Testament times, for all believers to always go to Jerusalem. So they gathered, locally, and they read the scriptures and expounded them. But they all knew that without the shedding of blood, in temple worship, there could be no remission. So, even then, their worship was really centered on the temple.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'm with Kevin: I would like to see some substantial arguments from Scripture concerning EP. I make the following observations to facilitate futher discussion, not to cast aspersions on EP.

It could be that we are not understanding the RPW. I note Patrick's post, which refers to the OT Jews holding to the RPW. We know that they didn't. But if our attention is only on what they sang, whether they held to the RPW, then of course we don't know. But the Sermon on the Mount, and the rest of Matthew's gospel is full of references of where the Jews liberally added to the worship of God, the leaders exonerating themselves while holding everyone else to be sinners. And today we have something similar, where ministers are adding liberally to God's Word based on their best considered opinion, but not sufficient warrant. These are the primary concerns of the RPW. And if people break it here, the rest hardly matters. A church is not a true church if the Word is not preached and discipline falls aside, even if athey sing only the Psalms. And a church can administer the sacraments according to formulary standards, but that does not mean that the administration is properly looked after. It all hinges on the recognition of the Word as the Word, and there we are lacking in many a denomination. So for all intents and purposes the RPW as it applies to singing too often comes along as nothing more than legalism, not as purity of worship.

I agree that the singing of songs, which ones to sing, is a matter of acceptable worship in God's eyes. He does not quench a smouldering flame, not break a bruised reed. He does not turn away the plea of those who call upon His name, in supplication and in Spirit and in truth. No other strings attached. What we're talking about is the form that formal worship takes, which takes on something different once a Christian becomes mature; namely a refining of worship according to God's revealed will. We have to determine this carefully, not smothering the worship of those new to the faith, and worshipping God on matters they do not yet understand and for which many churches give no guidance.

I believe it is a mistake to argue that the problem in today's contemporary Christian music is merely ( and I say "merely" because I believe it to be a bigger issue than that ) a matter of the RPW. There is so much more wrong with it than that. A lot of it has been unmusical, unlyrical, and even anti-musical and anti-lylrical, following the patterns of the age. But that seems to be somewhat past us now, as some really good music is reappearing. In some ways Christian music has started to "come into its own", as the saying goes. I don't impress easily, but some stuff has indeed impressed me ( not that whether I am impressed or not is any kind of litmus test. )

As Christians we can't just leave music in the hands of those who destroy it, and undermine the very reason for music as well. This has to be ruled, and ruled properly. Music is and always has been a vital element to worship. This is the real problem with the songs in contemporary worship. Too many liberties are taken with it, far too many, because of a dearth in rules. Where doubt is cast on Scripture to introduce man's theories on par with Scripture itself, and sometimes normative to Scripture, this is taken much further with music as there are no long-standing and comprehensive rules for music, not even in Scripture. So here I support the EP-ers, for we see the same problem here. EP is the fall-back position when in doubt. And we are presently in doubt, not just about some passages on origins or millenniums, but on what to sing in worship.

For me, if we don't reform the pulpit, then reforming song is of little consequence. But more importantly, it betrays a lack of understanding of the RPW. In my former church, the same ones who talked of EP as in accord with the RPW were also pounding tenets of Reconstructionism from the pulpit as normative to understanding the whole of the Bible; a very revealing contradiction. These people obviously did not know the RPW like they claimed, and had no right to selectively and arbitrarily cite it to me while they flagrantly cast it aside for to place their isms side by side, and even overtop of, the Scriptures, and overtop of the doctrines the churches collectively recognize. So what I need to see is a real concern for the RPW before it is cited selectively in relation to singing in worship.

And that would open the door to some of the issues that I have with EP as it is defined in our day. I'm not that sure yet that the way that modern EP understands things is what the WA had in mind, nor that Calvin or the Puritans meant the same thing as EP-ers do today. There is much to discuss beforehand, and we kind of skip that too often. Using the term "uninspired hymns" usually has the effect of mullifying any substantial argument that it is attached to; it is too much a pejorative term. We need to address the pros and cons of hymns before we apply the RPW, otherwise we are simply throwing things out based on arbitrary definitions.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I do not want to explicitly argue that we know such - but if the Regulative Principle can be biblically derived from elsewhere in Scripture as a whole, and if we know the synagogue was for worship, I don't see many other plausible options (and the fact that there was much verbal special revelation under the Old Covenant only corroborates the plausibility of that implication).
Chris,

The synagogue pattern could only add weight to the EP argument, not prove it. Since there seems to be no regulation explicitly given by God for worship in it.

Your "oral tradition" argument is wickedly spurious. You are stacking the deck in favor of the RPW so that it cannot be argued against from Scripture unless an explicit statement from God can be offered. So your universal reply to all polemics would be:

"well, there must have been an extra-biblical command for that".

What a vicious begging of the question.

Also here are a few more things to consider in the debate:

1. Why do we never see any warning in the epistles or beginning of the apocalypse (letters to 7 churches) regarding Exclusive Psalm singing ? ?

2. If it was so important, and it was practiced in the synagogue, why is it not affirmed by the apostles throughout the book of acts ?

3. Most importantly, if Paul commands us to sing with the spirit and the mind what are the implicatons of that ?

1Co 14:12 So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.
1Co 14:13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
1Co 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.
1Co 14:16 Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?
1Co 14:17 For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.
Public giving of thanks is commended, and singing praise in the same passage. Now does that word praise mean a Psalm ? ? If not, it implies that other biblical and I would go so far as to say non-inspirational songs, may be sung if they are intelligable, and useful for edification of the body.

After all, cannot giving thanks be done in musical form ? Thanking God for blessing America and the acts He has performed throughout history is hard to do specifically when we stick to EP. (I grant that it would be generic)

Again Paul:

1Co 14:26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
Can any of those things he mentions be done in the form of song ? Is not music a circumstance ?
This brings up interesting points to the next part of the passage as well.

1Co 14:27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.
1Co 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
1Co 14:30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.
1Co 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged,
1Co 14:32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.
1Co 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
1Co 14:34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.
1Co 14:35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1Co 14:36 Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached?
1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
1Co 14:38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
1Co 14:39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.
1Co 14:40 But all things should be done decently and in order.
I wonder if he left singing praise and hymns out of that section because a) women are permitted to sing praise and should, and b) it is the one aspect that the whole congregation can participate in together.

The problem was the disorderly way the Corinthians were worshipping. It seems like the men might have been arguing about which hymn to sing next in the previous section.

If extemporaneous prayers may be offered in church, can they be chanted or set to music ? ?

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by Saiph]
 

ChristopherPaul

Puritan Board Senior
Interesting post Mark, you give me a lot to consider.

What do you say is the difference between a spiritual song and a hymn?
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Another thing I've been wondering about: how do EP'ers account for the fact that the vast majority of Presbyterians who hold to RPW are not EP? I suppose the answer is the aren't really holding to the RPW...or, at the worst, they are gross idolaters...
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Another thing I've been wondering about: how do EP'ers account for the fact that the vast majority of Presbyterians who hold to RPW are not EP? I suppose the answer is the aren't really holding to the RPW...or, at the worst, they are gross idolaters...
Even Westminster was not unanimous on the issue. The Scots and the new England Puritans were the only ones to actually practice it. But even there, there were voices of dissent, but they submitted for the sake of unity. Read Needham's article in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century. He lists some Divines and even some later Scottish theologians who did not hold EP while the Church did. The New England Puritans didn't hold on to it that long either as soon as Watts came on the scene. But Psalmody took a strong hold for a long time even though it was not exclusive. Even as late as 1912, The Psalter was published for worship in the northern Presbyterian church, and it was predominantly psalm paraphrases, a few NT songs, and no contemporary hymns.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Another thing I've been wondering about: how do EP'ers account for the fact that the vast majority of Presbyterians who hold to RPW are not EP? I suppose the answer is the aren't really holding to the RPW...or, at the worst, they are gross idolaters...
Kevin, In the 16th and 17th centuries, the vast majority of all those holding to the RPW were EP. :sing:
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Another thing I've been wondering about: how do EP'ers account for the fact that the vast majority of Presbyterians who hold to RPW are not EP? I suppose the answer is the aren't really holding to the RPW...or, at the worst, they are gross idolaters...
Kevin, In the 16th and 17th centuries, the vast majority of all those holding to the RPW were EP. :sing:
Which leaves one of two possibilities...they were wrong...or non-EP'ers today are...
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Another thing I've been wondering about: how do EP'ers account for the fact that the vast majority of Presbyterians who hold to RPW are not EP? I suppose the answer is the aren't really holding to the RPW...or, at the worst, they are gross idolaters...
Kevin, In the 16th and 17th centuries, the vast majority of all those holding to the RPW were EP. :sing:
That is not correct. None of the continental reformed churches were EP, not even Calvin. The only Churches to officially endorse the practice was the Church of Scotland and the New England Puritans (who didn't hold out that long). Everyone else allowed NT songs, the 10 commandments, and the Apostle's Creed to be sung, therefore not EP.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by ChristopherPaul
Interesting post Mark, you give me a lot to consider.

What do you say is the difference between a spiritual song and a hymn?
It is my understanding of the verse that Paul is including all types of musical compositions. Psalms set to music, acapella, maskils, imprecatory etc . . Hymns, praise songs, plainsong. I think he was trying to be generic in the use of the three words not specific (LXX).

Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
The phrase "word of Christ" is used only here in the N.T. Are we to assume then that the Psalms are the word of Christ Paul is referring to ? Is not part of the teaching and admonishing also singing doctrine ?

I take the verse as a whole, not three seperate ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top