Exclusive Psalmody and Biblical Inerrancy

[Davidius]

That syllogism was bad. I'm still new to syllogisms, too, which is why I don't like to use them and why I originally pointed out that your syllogisms didn't conform to proper form. Sometimes it's better to just not use them if you don't know how.

Anyway, I stand by the point. There is no command to write a new song, only to sing one. Therefore, if "new" means "brand new," then you must assume that "sing" actually means "write and sing," which puts you in the same predicament of definition for which you scold the EPer (i.e. with the word "new"). Or you could say that the song must be sung extemporaneously.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Although one thing I wanted to point out is that false premises do not require a false conclusion.

All fish are flying animals
All robins are fish
All robins are flying animals

well, I suppose, I should have said that if the premises are flawed, the conclusion is likely flawed as well. How about that?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Here is a syllogism that I would use to respond, given that "new" means "brand new."

All songs which are to be sung are songs which must be written
No new songs are commanded to be written
No new songs are to be sung

The only way you can get around this problem is by assuming that "sing" actually means "write and sing," which puts you in the same predicament of definition for which you scold the EPer (i.e. with the word "new"). Or you could say that the song must be sung extemporaneously.

ok - let me redefine your premises a bit and interact with your syllogism.

Please note that I define new in one sense as "uniquely created" which allows some new and "old" elements as opposed to exclusively brand new:

p1 All songs which are to be sung are songs which must be composed (I think this might be a bit more accurate nomenclature - unless by "written" you mean written as Scripture? if so, where is this commanded?)

p2 No new songs are commanded to be composed (which I believe the Psalms refute - where is there a command to stop composing and singing new songs?)

p3 No newly composed songs are to be sung (again refuted by the Psalms)

so - if your premises are flawed, then your conclusion is likely flawed.

 

[Davidius]

Here is a syllogism that I would use to respond, given that "new" means "brand new."

All songs which are to be sung are songs which must be written
No new songs are commanded to be written
No new songs are to be sung

The only way you can get around this problem is by assuming that "sing" actually means "write and sing," which puts you in the same predicament of definition for which you scold the EPer (i.e. with the word "new"). Or you could say that the song must be sung extemporaneously.

ok - let me redefine your premises a bit and interact with your syllogism.

Please note that I define new in one sense as "uniquely created" which allows some new and "old" elements as opposed to exclusively brand new:

p1 All songs which are to be sung are songs which must be composed (I think this might be a bit more accurate nomenclature - unless by "written" you mean written as Scripture? if so, where is this commanded?)

p2 No new songs are commanded to be composed (which I believe the Psalms refute - where is there a command to stop composing and singing new songs?)

p3 No newly composed songs are to be sung (again refuted by the Psalms)

so - if your premises are flawed, then your conclusion is likely flawed.

As you can see from the edited version of my last post, I have done away with the syllogism because it wasn't in good form.

By "written" I do mean "composed."

You said:

where is there a command to stop composing and singing new songs?

Where is there a command to begin composing new songs? That was the whole point of my previous post. There is no command to begin composing songs, only to sing "new" songs (whatever "new" means). I'm saying that the lack of a command to compose new songs favors the eschatologically metaphorical, as opposed to the painstakingly literal, translation of "new." There is no command to stop composing because there is no command to begin composing.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Anyway, I stand by the point. There is no command to write a new song, only to sing one. Therefore, if "new" means "brand new," then you must assume that "sing" actually means "write and sing," which puts you in the same predicament of definition for which you scold the EPer (i.e. with the word "new"). Or you could say that the song must be sung extemporaneously.

All I am saying is that we follow the model of the Psalms:

1 - Most songs are composed with elements that are extemporaneous. Words and melody, then codified later.

2 - "Sing to the Lord a new song" - a new song could start with a scribed element and have the melodic element added later or vice versa or it could be composed in whole, mostly memorized and handed down in the bardic tradition, to be transcribed (words and music) later, etc...

3 - the Psalms play(ed) a dual purpose - Scripture and a model for worship song - as Scripture, they contain God's direction so we can teach and admonish - they also act as a model or source of faith and practice for worship song.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Where is there a command to begin composing new songs? That was the whole point of my previous post. There is no command to begin composing songs, only to sing "new" songs (whatever "new" means). I'm saying that the lack of a command to compose new songs favors the eschatologically metaphorical, as opposed to the painstakingly literal, translation of "new." There is no command to stop composing because there is no command to begin composing.

I think you are creating complexity to shore up your presupposition.

The Psalms (as well as Isaiah and Revelation) command new songs.

You are asking me to reject any and all commonality of reference to the history and development of "new song".

If I say to you - "CC, sing to me new songs".

Knowing our socio-cultural-historical commonalities - Would you ascertain that I wanted you to sing for me the text and melody to the top 25 Christian Contemporary songs of 1990?

It may seem new if you simply change the melody, but from the standpoint of song (meaning words with melody), these are old words with a new melody - and that may be ok, in some contexts, but not every one.

 

[Davidius]

Where is there a command to begin composing new songs? That was the whole point of my previous post. There is no command to begin composing songs, only to sing "new" songs (whatever "new" means). I'm saying that the lack of a command to compose new songs favors the eschatologically metaphorical, as opposed to the painstakingly literal, translation of "new." There is no command to stop composing because there is no command to begin composing.

I think you are creating complexity to shore up your presupposition.

The Psalms (as well as Isaiah and Revelation) command new songs.

You are asking me to reject any and all commonality of reference to the history and development of "new song".

If I say to you - "CC, sing to me new songs".

Knowing our socio-cultural-historical commonalities - Would you ascertain that I wanted you to sing for me the text and melody to the top 25 Christian Contemporary songs of 1990?

It may seem new if you simply change the melody, but from the standpoint of song (meaning words with melody), these are old words with a new melody - and that may be ok, in some contexts, but not every one.

You can just call me David.

So what evidence do we have that this is how the Israelites understood that passage? None. And the fact that the only place in the NT in which the phrase appears is Revelation strengthens the case that the meaning is more eschatologically metaphorical than literal.

And you asked how I would respond if you said "Sing a new song." Well, if you said it while also saying "Let the desserts and the coastlands sing" (Is 42) I would think that there is a lot of metaphor being used.

And in our culture we do use the word "new" in metaphorical ways. For instance: I get a haircut and a shave and feel like a "new man." Am I really a new man? No. And "new" is also used in this metaphorical way (in an eschatological context) in the bible, as others have already demonstrated.

 

[SRoper]

1. The requirement to write songs seems to be a good and necessary consequence of singing a new song. Since we are having fun with syllogisms...

Scripture commands singing new songs.
If a new songs is to be sung, then it is required to be written.
Scripture requires new songs to be written.

Are we ever commanded to bake bread or make wine for the Lord's Supper? Does this mean that we can't celebrate the Lord's Supper?

2. No one is suggesting that new songs be written as an act of worship or during the worship service. The actual composition of songs does not fall under the RPW.

 

[Davidius]

1. The requirement to write songs seems to be a good and necessary consequence of singing a new song. Since we are having fun with syllogisms...

Scripture commands singing new songs.
If a new songs is to be sung, then it is required to be written.
Scripture requires new songs to be written.

Are we ever commanded to bake bread or make wine for the Lord's Supper? Does this mean that we can't celebrate the Lord's Supper?

2. No one is suggesting that new songs be written as an act of worship or during the worship service. The actual composition of songs does not fall under the RPW.

Hi Scott,

That's not a syllogism.

I granted the inference of writing new songs. How does it not follow then that new songs must be sung every Lord's Day?

And why didn't any other Israelites besides the inspired Prophets write songs if they were supposed to? Why have the Psalms been the source of praise in the synagogue for millenia?

 

[panta dokimazete]

You can just call me David.

Thanks, David (how apropos! )

So what evidence do we have that this is how the Israelites understood that passage? None. And the fact that the only place in the NT in which the phrase appears is Revelation strengthens the case that the meaning is more eschatologically metaphorical than literal.

I would ask you what evidence you have that, based on the usage, it is different in every instance from the common human historical, cultural and societal understanding? None.

The Revelation passage does not proceed the the Psalms, nor does it eliminate the a priori command. In fact the eschatological significance is that new song will continue to be practiced even in the Kingdom come.

And you asked how I would respond if you said "Sing a new song." Well, if you said it while also saying "Let the desserts and the coastlands sing" (Is 42) I would think that there is a lot of metaphor being used.

But does the metaphor extend to the usage of "new song"? What is your evidence?

And in our culture we do use the word "new" in metaphorical ways. For instance: I get a haircut and a shave and feel like a "new man." Am I really a new man? No. And "new" is also used in this metaphorical way (in an eschatological context) in the bible, as others have already demonstrated.

Again - can you conclusively prove that every instance of this usage is non-normative as it relates to new song? If not, EP is broken.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I'd like a shot at this

I granted the inference of writing new songs. How does it not follow then that new songs must be sung every Lord's Day?

Use Scripture as model - in Revelation they sing old and new songs:

Revelation 15:3
And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, "Great and amazing are your deeds,O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways,O King of the nations!

And why didn't any other Israelites besides the inspired Prophets write songs if they were supposed to? Why have the Psalms been the source of praise in the synagogue for millenia?

Again, how do you know conclusively they did not?

Is the synagogue the model of worship? I'd say not:

John 4: 21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."

 

[Davidius]

...and I'm spent. Really, I can't do it anymore. At least we're getting more charitable each time.

 

[panta dokimazete]

- and I think that may good enough

 

[Augusta]

Since thread has started, just a fair warning, that since the EP debate will begin in the next week or two or so, DV, pursuant to how the debate rules are set, this thread or any others will get closed for the duration of the formal debate and there will be a moratorium on all things EP as far as new threads as well.

 

[SRoper]

1. The requirement to write songs seems to be a good and necessary consequence of singing a new song. Since we are having fun with syllogisms...

Scripture commands singing new songs.
If a new songs is to be sung, then it is required to be written.
Scripture requires new songs to be written.

Are we ever commanded to bake bread or make wine for the Lord's Supper? Does this mean that we can't celebrate the Lord's Supper?

2. No one is suggesting that new songs be written as an act of worship or during the worship service. The actual composition of songs does not fall under the RPW.

Hi Scott,

That's not a syllogism.

I granted the inference of writing new songs. How does it not follow then that new songs must be sung every Lord's Day?

And why didn't any other Israelites besides the inspired Prophets write songs if they were supposed to? Why have the Psalms been the source of praise in the synagogue for millenia?

Oops, you're right! It is, however, modus ponens, a valid form of logical deduction. I have to admit that although I studied logic in both mathematics and philosophy courses I was never taught the syllogism. While I understand the historical appeal, the syllogism seems rather limited in what it can do.

I'll follow your lead and we'll wait to see how the debate turns out!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

No. It means the 150 Psalms. See the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, which is titled Singing of Psalms, [not of the Psalms], where it clearly means the 150 Psalms of David. The "article" argument is a non starter when one is familiar with the work and productions of the Westminster Assembly. It is about as persuasive as arguing over whether the "P" in psalms is capitalized. See http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/big-p-little-p-wcf-21-5-a-20263/ (with apologies to Daniel, but you weren't a PB buddy back then ).

Yes, i see what you mean.
I will have to think on this a little further.

O.K., i agree that the Westminster Standards do teach Exclusive Psalmody.
I was not slow to speak and quick to listen...instead i drew from the hip, without considering the historical context of the text. I am sorry that i did not follow the biblical principle of James 1:19.

Further, since I have more respect for the knowledge and insight of the Westminster Divines than my own, I must now consider the whole issue with greater circumspect.

Once again Larry has given us all a great example of Christian humility to follow. May the name of the Lord be praised.

 

[Davidius]

1. The requirement to write songs seems to be a good and necessary consequence of singing a new song. Since we are having fun with syllogisms...

Scripture commands singing new songs.
If a new songs is to be sung, then it is required to be written.
Scripture requires new songs to be written.

Are we ever commanded to bake bread or make wine for the Lord's Supper? Does this mean that we can't celebrate the Lord's Supper?

2. No one is suggesting that new songs be written as an act of worship or during the worship service. The actual composition of songs does not fall under the RPW.

Hi Scott,

That's not a syllogism.

I granted the inference of writing new songs. How does it not follow then that new songs must be sung every Lord's Day?

And why didn't any other Israelites besides the inspired Prophets write songs if they were supposed to? Why have the Psalms been the source of praise in the synagogue for millenia?

Oops, you're right! It is, however, modus ponens, a valid form of logical deduction. I have to admit that although I studied logic in both mathematics and philosophy courses I was never taught the syllogism. While I understand the historical appeal, the syllogism seems rather limited in what it can do.

I'll follow your lead and we'll wait to see how the debate turns out!

Good plan of action. I feel much better already.