Hymn Singing sin?

[blhowes]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Jesus is just one of His many names. He is also called Lord, LORD, God, Redeemer, Holy One, Glorious One, Anointed One (from which we derive the name of Christ), Son, etc.
We are called to praise the Person of Christ, which his names represent. The Psalms praise that person. Just because they use His other names in no way diminishes those praises, especially when many of these names are used in reference to Christ in the NT.

This is a challenging thread to find the right words to say. You may have to read between the lines a little.

Like you said, Psalms praise the person of Christ, and nothing can take away from their value. They're scripture, so nothing negative can be said about their use in worship. They're value isn't diminished because the name 'Jesus" isn't used in the Psalter.

At the same time, I don't want to take away from the value of hymns that use and exalt the name of Jesus. Or hymns that speak of events in Jesus' life that (to my knowledge) aren't mentioned in Psalms. One that comes to mind is a hymn called "Master, the tempest is raging", which offers praise to Jesus for when he was asleep in the boat and then calmed the sea when he said, "Peace, be still". I'm sure there are others.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Bob, read Psalms 22 and 40

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Bob, read Psalms 22 and 40

I've never sung these Psalms during a worship service, but it'd be a blessing. Not only can we rejoice, worship, and praise God for the truths about Jesus that they tell, but we can add to that praise to God for the details that He gives "before-the-fact".

 

[LawrenceU]

Andrew,
I have a couple of questions. For the record, I'm fairly settled regarding RP. You stated,

I chaffed at giving up (for public worship) Keith Green songs, "A Mighty Fortress is our God," and Christmas carols among certain of my favorites. I chaffed at giving up (for public worship) musicial instruments (separate but related issue).

Is it possible to divide public and private worship? I do not see that distinction. Worship is an interwoven instrinisic part of the life of the elect. I Cor. 10:31. If it is improper and/or sinful to use anyother form of singing than exclusive psalmody in publie worship it would be the same in private worship. Singing praise to God's name is the same regardless of where it takes place. The same would apply to instrumental music. I was raised in an acapella setting. The duplicity of the position is sad. There is in it an erection of an artificial boundry between the sacred and secular. All we do is to the glory of God and should be done in a manner approved of and pleasing to him. The say that only acapella music brings him glory on the gathered Lord's day and then suddenly it is okay for one to bring out the guitar on Monday is inconsistent. Acapella RPW, when consistent, would rule out any used of instrumental music in the life of the Chrisitian. After all, is not the song written and sung on Monday done corum Deo?

jAnd, a hearty AMEN!! to the following:

God graciously revealed me to though that worship is not about what I can "get" out of one hour every Sunday morning but rather what I can offer to God in praise and adoration by faith in the manner which He has prescribed.

Would that more would yield to the truth that our corporate worship is to be God focussed. The rub is what has he prescribed and what has he proscribed.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Lawrence,

I think it is proper to make a distinction between public and private worship; however, I apply the RPW to both. For instance, in our family, we do not sing hymns in family or private worship. We sing the psalms only accapella in public, family and private worship. But on another point (which would require a separate thread to address), we believe that head coverings are required in public worship -- but not for family or private worship. So, there is a difference between public and other occasions for worship, but I do believe the RPW applies to all.

Does this mean I can't sing hymns on other occasions? On the contrary, I too feel that the dividing line between sacred and secular in life and art is a false dichotomy. I believe very much in music appreciation. In the proper context, with discernment, I can sing or listen to the words of Martin Luther or John Denver all to the glory of God. I believe there is a place for hymns or other wonderful but non-inspired songs - just not in the public, family or private worship of God. But all that we do in life and art should be done to God's glory.

P.S. I noticed your Confederate heritage -- cool! One of my ancestors was Matthew Fontaine Maury, who served as Commander of the Confederate Navy, among other notable positions in his life.

 

[blhowes]

Andrew,
I'm following most of what you say and I can appreciate your consistency. I was wondering, though, if you could just clarify this statement for me:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
In the proper context, with discernment, I can sing or listen to the words of Martin Luther or John Denver all to the glory of God. I believe there is a place for hymns or other wonderful but non-inspired songs - just not in the public, family or private worship of God. But all that we do in life and art should be done to God's glory.

Where does the use of hymns fit in if you don't use them during public, family, or private worship, which seems to cover all the bases? I would assume that if you listened to one of the "great hymns of the faith" that speaks of God's grandeur or of the works of Christ, that you would offer up praise to God for who He is or what He's done. How is this worship different from what you'd do in private, family, or public worship?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Bob,

I am to glorify God in all that I do, whether reading a book by the Puritans or the newspaper, whether singing a psalm in public worship or singing along with the radio when a John Denver tune comes on. The RPW limits how we may worship God but it does not apply outside of formal worship. The RPW does not require that I only sing psalms in all places and in all times. It relates to a specific type of occasion. By way of analogy, many things that are lawful for me to do six days of the week are not lawful on the Lord's Day. Likewise, it is lawful to sing a hymn, but not in the RPW context. A hymn is merely a poem set to music. I can read poems, I can sing hymns -- all to God's glory. I can also sing psalms outside of formal worship to God's glory. But when God prescribes a certain way of worshipping Him then I must approach Him with a psalm of praise as He has commanded and not in any other way. The false sacred/secular dichotomy of which I spoke earlier has reference to all of life in that one can serve God in one's work for example as well as in the church, but it does not mean that there are no distinctions between set times of worship and the general duty to glorify God in all that we do. Does that clarify?

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Does that clarify?

Yes, thanks.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by LawrenceUIs it possible to divide public and private worship? I do not see that distinction.

I do not see how we can possibly not divide the two. If I'm misunderstanding the distinction you're trying to make, please say so, but at the moment I must say I was shocked by it. We are commanded to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), and thus all we do should be worship in a sense. However, under the RPW, we are forbidden from using anything in public worship that is not expressly laid out in Scripture for such use. Were we to interpret the RPW as equally applying to all private worship, the Christian would have to view all drama as an evil, which of course would include movies. Furthermore, other than the Lord's Supper, the RPW does not allow us to feast or have meals in the worship service. Examples such as that should make obvious the necessary biblical distinction between public and private worship - otherwise we would have to limit all the activities of our life to what is basically set forth in WCF.21.

 

[LawrenceU]

Chris,
You may have misunderstood my point, but you argument seemingly is based upon the WCF, not Scripture.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by LawrenceU
Chris,
You may have misunderstood my point, but you argument seemingly is based upon the WCF, not Scripture.

You said earlier:

Originally posted by LawrenceU
For the record, I'm fairly settled regarding RP.

I guess I took that to mean that you basically accepted it - is that what you meant? If not, I think one of the most basic examples of the RPW being illustrated in Scripture is Cain's offering. It was an offering to the LORD, which Cain intended to be pleasing to God. However, God rejected it even though Cain had a good intent. He was trying to be creative and innovative by offering what he thought would be admirable and pleasing to God, when God had simply commanded something else already. And because Cain went beyond God's specific instructions on how to worship, and added his own element in attempt to please God, God rebuked and rejected his attempted worship.

This principle is paralleled numerous times throughout the Bible, clearly showing that God considers it sinful for us to "worship" Him in any way not expressly commanded by Him. However, we cannot take that "worship" to mean all of the God-glorifying events included in every minute of our lives, for that would unbiblically reduce our lives to only that which God has specifically commanded in Scripture to be used for worshipping Him, and would exclude eating, drama and the like. That is how we know that there is a special sense of "worship" to which examples such as Cain's point, and a look at those examples will easily show that it is the public worship of God where the Word and sacraments are present, rather than the minute-to-minute worship of Him that should be constantly present in our daily lives.

 

[Authorised]

Exclusive Psalmody:Calvinists::KJV-only:Fundamentalists

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Authorised
Exclusive Psalmody:Calvinists::KJV-only:Fundamentalists

Except for this one little minor difference: When the Psalter is put next to hymns, the former is divinely inspired, whereas the latter is not. The KJV, on the other hand, when put next to other translations, is no more divinely inspired than any of them.

 

[Authorised]

Looks like I just provoked the most self-contradicting argument ever.


The translations are not inspired, except when we set them to metre and music and call it a Psalter? Come on, do people really believe this because they think it's right, or is it because we wish to imitate in every way Puritans who were overreacting to abuses by the RCC.

 

[JohnV]

Take it easy, Aaron. There are quite a number of ways to say things. This discussion was conducted in seemly manner.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Authorised
Looks like I just provoked the most self-contradicting argument ever.


The translations are not inspired, except when we set them to metre and music and call it a Psalter? Come on, do people really believe this because they think it's right, or is it because we wish to imitate in every way Puritans who were overreacting to abuses by the RCC.

It's not that the translations of the Psalms are themselves inspired. It's an issue of what we're comparing. In the EP debate, in the comparison of Psalms to hymns, what's being compared is the content of what is being said by each song, and the recognition that the content of the Psalms is inspired, while that of the hymns is not, even if it may be doctrinally accurate. In the KJV debate, on the other hand, in the comparison of translations, what's being compared is the very words chosen to translate each Hebrew and Greek word, and so neither version has divine inspiration in that sense.

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

What about worshipping God in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
What about worshipping God in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?

The debate starts again! That was actually discussed at enormous length and depth in this thread.