Is the name of Jesus important in worship?

Is it important to integrate the name of Jesus into public worship?


  • Total voters
    39
Status
Not open for further replies.

Augusta

Puritan Board Doctor
I selected 'other' because corporate worship includes all the elements and we by default include the name of Jesus in when we pray in his name. The Psalms are Jesus speaking about himself, to say they are incomplete without the Anglicized version of his name is ludicrus In my humble opinion.

JD you need to have some scriptural backing for this new rule you have come up with that Christ's Anglicized name has to be in EACH element. I think we could even safely pray in "the savior's name" and we would be praying in the name of Jesus because his is in fact "Savior." We could conduct a whole service without using the Anglicized "Jesus" and use "Savior" instead and still be praising Him.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
OK... I see the distinction you're making... but I still disagree. You might very well say that the Psalms were incomplete during the Old Testament economy, because Christ had not yet been revealed. But that's a far cry from maintaining that they are now incomplete, given the fact that the light of Christ's completed work now illuminates them and shows us the fullness of the Redeemer in them. You can't look at the Psalms (or any part of the Old Testament) in abstraction from the New. The fact that we have the New Testament is precisely the reason that the Psalms are no longer "incomplete" for us.
Agree in the sense that the messianic psalms are fulfilled.

Disagree in the sense that the explicit name of Jesus is not there.

See below for my rationale.

I grant that our understanding of Christ, and thus our worship of Him, is more complete than our OT counterparts. But, again, that completeness of understanding only illuminates the Psalms in His light and allows us to sing them with far more clarity of understanding than they were able to do.

As for the statement, "we have been given the warrant to write hymns and spiritual songs so that we can more completely worship in spirit and truth in the light of the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus" I would respectfully request a scripture proof for such a warrant.
Well met - I am primarily basing the warrant utilizing these 2 Scriptures.

Ephesians 5

19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Colossians 3:15-17

15And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. 16Let 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. 17And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

And this additional rationale:

No-one disputes the command to sing the Psalms.

The Psalms prophesy Jesus.

The Psalms command us to sing new songs.

The above, plus the fact that the NT writers under the influence of the Holy Spirit took multiple opportunities to frequently and explicitly name Jesus as Christ - name and role - sometimes just by name. It is a good and necessary consequence that including his name and role are important components of worshipping God in the fullness of spirit and truth.

Thus, along with singing the Psalms, we should compose hymns and spiritual songs in the name of Jesus, utilizing the explicitly revealed name of our savior and lord, Jesus, employing our mind and spirit, just as we do when we compose new prayers.

Thanks for the brotherly exchange... and for taking it easy on the new guy ;)
Enjoying the dialog! Iron sharpens iron! :D
 
Last edited:

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
JD -

You will agree, I'm sure, that if in fact the Psalms are the commanded form (I know you reject this premise) of worship in song, then it's irrelevant that they are, to use your words, "incomplete". Hence, the lack of the name "Jesus" in the Psalms really isn't germane to the argument.

Todd
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
Well met - I am primarily basing the warrant utilising these 2 Scriptures.

Ephesians 5

19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Colossians 3:15-17

15And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. 16Let 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. 17And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
These texts certainly provide a mandate to sing the canonical Psalms, since they are the only psalms, hymns and songs that can be truly called "spiritual" (i.e., inspired) and that are rightly characterized as "the Word of Christ." But I fail to see how an exhortation to "do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus" can be construed as a mandate that the songs that are sung actually incorporate that particular Anglicized name. The hermeneutic you are applying here is the same used by the "Jesus Only" crowd. The phrase "in the name of Jesus" has a much broader meaning in Scripture, as it refers to the spirit in which the thing is done. Surely, if the Psalms are indeed "the word of Christ" then when we sing them in His praise, fully informed by the completed revelation of the New Testament, we are singing them "in the name of Jesus."


And this additional rationale:

No-one disputes the command to sing the Psalms.

The Psalms prophesy Jesus.

The Psalms command us to sing new songs.
This gets us into an entirely new area of discussion - namely, what is meant by the command to sing "new" songs. Your assumption is that "new" refers to content. But a strong case can be made that "new" refers to the sense in which the meaning of the songs is perceived and understood. I could go into much more detail here, but I don't want to go too far afield of the original question. Suffice it to say that the command in the Psalms for God's people to sing "new songs" is not necessarily to be understood as a command to compose new songs.

The above, plus the fact that the NT writers under the influence of the Holy Spirit took multiple opportunities to frequently and explicitly name Jesus as Christ - name and role - sometimes just by name. It is a good and necessary consequence that including his name and role are important components of worshipping God in the fullness of spirit and truth.
If the above points do not stand, this point alone is pretty weak. Certainly the name and role of Jesus are important to our worship, but the apostolic use of His name and titles hardly mandates that such be included in every element of worship.

Thus, along with singing the Psalms, we should compose hymns and spiritual songs in the name of Jesus, utilizing the explicitly revealed name of our savior and lord, Jesus, employing our mind and spirit, just as we do when we compose new prayers.
Again, I don't believe you have demonstrated anything close to a biblical mandate to compose new hymns and spiritual songs in the name of Jesus.
 

dcomin

Psalm Singa
The psalms command us to sing new songs
In reference to the meaning of "new songs," here is an excerpt from my book, "Worship: From Genesis to Revelation" -

The songs of the redeemed are the old songs made new. (Revelation 14:1-5)

Many have seen in the reference to the “new song” of the redeemed not only a justification, but a virtual mandate, for the New Covenant Church to compose original songs of praise for use in the worship of God, rather than singing exclusively the Psalms of David, which was the practice of the Church in its purest days from the days of the apostles until relatively recent times. David Chilton’s comments are typical: “The New Song is… the new liturgy necessitated and brought about by the new epoch in the history of redemption. And this liturgy, the exultant response of the redeemed, belongs to the Church alone: No one could learn the Song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who have been purchased from the Land.”

One of the problems with this argument is that it fails to take into account the symbolic nature of the book of Revelation. As Michael Bushell notes, “The songs of Revelation cannot be abstracted from their apocalyptic context. They are an integral part of a very complex prophetic vision, not instances of apostolic worship practice intended to serve as a pattern for our own services of worship.”

An additional question must be asked: Does this text provide a justification for the assertion that a “new liturgy is necessitated and brought about by the new epoch in the history of redemption?” Consider the following:

1. John refers to “a new song” (singular), rather than “new songs” (plural). He is therefore not referring to the composition of a collection of songs, but to the concept of Song, as an expression of adoration before the Throne of God.

2. John uses a particle of comparison, the Greek word “hoce,” which is translated “as it were.” From this it is evident that his intention was not to identify the song that he heard as “new” in a definitive way, but rather to describe it in terms of simile, as being “like” a new song. A similar form of this particle is used in Luke 22:44 where we are told that Jesus prayed earnestly and “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” The intention was not to say that Jesus actually sweat drops of blood, but that his sweat was “like” great drops of blood. Likewise, John does not intend us to understand that he heard an actual “new song,” but that what he heard was “like” a new song.

3. John says that “no one could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.” Again, it is apparent that he is not speaking of the content of a specific song, for anyone can learn the music and lyrics of particular songs, regardless of whether or not they are redeemed. John refers instead to the meaning of the Song that he heard, which was concealed from the minds of those who did not have the understanding of faith.

With these important considerations from the text in mind, is it not possible – even probable – that John’s words here make perfect and glorious sense when seen in the light of the Church’s use of the Psalms of David in its worship assemblies? Remember that the Psalms were the exclusive praise songs of the apostolic Church. Man-written hymns were not introduced until hundreds of years after John wrote. When a Jew was converted to Christ, the Psalms of David, which he had sung from his infancy, suddenly became – in a very real sense – “new songs!” Did not Paul say, “For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14).

And what do we find in the case of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus? “Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in … the Psalms concerning Me. And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45). How must the words of Psalm 2, or 22, or 45, or 110, or 118 have sounded like new songs to those who had been accustomed to singing them in the shadows of unrevealed realities!

The effect of the light of the Gospel upon the remnant of Israel redeemed by His grace was to cause them to sing “as it were, a New Song” unto the Lord – not “new” in substance or content, but “new” in richness of meaning and fullness of glory to the God and Savior of men! Seen in this light, the song of the redeemed, which was “as it were, a new song,” and which could only be learned by them, shows us the wonderful way in which the Psalms come alive with meaning in the full light of Christ’s redemption to those whose eyes are opened to see their testimony concerning Jesus.
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
This is tangential, but related ... in this post-resurrection period, can one truly be said to have shared the gospel if they do not mention the name Jesus? Can be one be saved if they do not confess the name Jesus?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
JD -

You will agree, I'm sure, that if in fact the Psalms are the commanded form (I know you reject this premise) of worship in song, then it's irrelevant that they are, to use your words, "incomplete". Hence, the lack of the name "Jesus" in the Psalms really isn't germane to the argument.

Todd
hmmm - it depends on what you consider the premise. If the RPW is the starting point then does the explicit name of Jesus (originatives or derivatives) have any relevance in worship?

If it does, then the relevance to EP follows.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
dcomin said:
This gets us into an entirely new area of discussion - namely, what is meant by the command to sing "new" songs. Your assumption is that "new" refers to content. But a strong case can be made that "new" refers to the sense in which the meaning of the songs is perceived and understood. I could go into much more detail here, but I don't want to go too far afield of the original question. Suffice it to say that the command in the Psalms for God's people to sing "new songs" is not necessarily to be understood as a command to compose new songs.
hm - I have always found this to be the opposite - "new song" should be considered in the sense it was originally contextualized - it is weaker to propose that "new song" does not actually mean compose and sing new songs. You don't have to qualify it for one. "New song" betrays the EP presupposition.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
hmmm - it depends on what you consider the premise. If the RPW is the starting point then does the explicit name of Jesus (originatives or derivatives) have any relevance in worship?

If it does, then the relevance to EP follows.
No, the only thing that has relevance if the RPW is the starting point is what God has authorized. So he was right; this point is absolutely irrelevant (to one who understands the RPW, at least). If God were to tell us to dance around and cluck like chickens it doesn't matter what we think about it or that we would be clucking instead of saying Jesus' name.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
hmmm - it depends on what you consider the premise. If the RPW is the starting point then does the explicit name of Jesus (originatives or derivatives) have any relevance in worship?

If it does, then the relevance to EP follows.
You seem to be resting your claim on the fact that under EP, one cannot sing the specific Greek version of our Lord's name in worship song. My point is that such an argument doesn't address whether EP is correct or not. EP has to be argued for (or against) based on Scripture - and nowhere that i know of is there a Scriptural command to pronounce the name "Jesus" while singing in worship.

Since there is no such command, I don't believe it's proper to try to construct an argument based on the (what I see as purely) sentimental argument that we ought to sing Jesus' name.

Todd
 

Ravens

Puritan Board Sophomore
There are red herrings on both sides. The "Jesus name" issue is a red herring on the non-EP side. in my opinion, even the "inspired is better" is a bit of a red herring on the EP side.

The fundamental issue for anyone who agrees on the RPW is:

What has God authorized, what has He commanded us to sing?

Period. If one doesn't see that, one doesn't understand the RPW.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
You seem to be resting your claim on the fact that under EP, one cannot sing the specific Greek version of our Lord's name in worship song.
My point is that such an argument doesn't address whether EP is correct or not. EP has to be argued for (or against) based on Scripture - and nowhere that i know of is there a Scriptural command to pronounce the name "Jesus" while singing in worship. Since there is no such command, I don't believe it's proper to try to construct an argument based on the (what I see as purely) sentimental argument that we ought to sing Jesus' name.
Todd - this is not an appeal to emotion, although the debate can certainly drive strong feelings.

I am baffled that there must be an explicit command to sing the name of our savior in public worship. Even though it is by that name we are saved. Are we not commanded to confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord? What do people sing with? Why would we exclude singing from the act of confessing to the world that Jesus is Lord?

The EP'er must concur with this statement:

God forbids the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.

and in the same manner:

It is sin for the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.
 
Last edited:

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
Todd - this is not an appeal to emotion, although the debate can certainly drive strong feelings.

I am baffled that there must be an explicit command to sing the name of our savior in public worship.
It all hinges on what you believe the proper mode of worship to be. We might think it's right to sing Christ's name during worship - but if it is true that only the Psalms are commanded to be sung, then what we think about the rightness of signing Christ's name is irrelevant.

Even though it is by that name we are saved. Are we not commanded to confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord? What do people sing with? Why would we exclude singing from the act of confessing to the world that Jesus is Lord?

The EP'er must concur with this statement:

God forbids the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.

and in the same manner:

It is sin for the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.

Would it have been a sin for a priest of Israel, to consult with a
chemist and get some really nice, new and sweet smelling incense to burn
in the temple during his temple service? He'd be following the command
to make a sweet aroma to his Lord, after all.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Todd - do you agree that these statements are good and necessary consequences derived from Scripture?

God forbids the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.

It is sin for the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.


Does any EP'er?
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
Todd - do you agree that these statements are good and necessary consequences derived from Scripture?

God forbids the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.

It is sin for the explicit name of Jesus to be sung in public worship.


Does any EP'er?
I'm not sold on EP, but I am trying to appreciate the arguments made - and
they seem to me to be quite sound. I will answer you that if indeed
the Psalms are the only lawful songs to be sung in worship, then singing
the name of Jesus in corporate worship is a sin, as ridiculous as that sounds
to you. However ridiculous sounding that sentence might be to some,
if God has dictated a particular pattern of worship for believers, then
to do contrary things is sin. The case is quite simple from that perspective.

Now what is needful is the case to be made that in fact God does
prescribe the Psalms as our only worship song (and that is a case that
has been argued ad infinitum in other places)

I'm a bit concerned that it seems that all you're trying to do is make a
ridiculous-sounding sentence come out of the lips of an EP'er, in order to
make their case look bad, and yours, good. That's not particularly sound
argumentation, nor is it particularly cordial (admittedly, you might not be
attempting to do what I said you seem to be doing - but it has all the marks
of it).

However, you didn't answer my question about the incense - and it's
relevant - quite clearly so.

Would a priest, offering up an offering of incense in the temple, using
an incense of his own composition (super-duper sweet, let's say),
be guilty of sin? He understands that God approves of a sweet-smelling
aroma, so he decided, as part of his priestly duties, to do this good
thing.

Would he be guilty of sin? Yes. Why? The answer is the same
(again, assuming EP) as the answer I gave above - because it is
contrary to God's prescribed pattern of worship.
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
This is tangential, but related ... in this post-resurrection period, can one truly be said to have shared the gospel if they do not mention the name Jesus? Can be one be saved if they do not confess the name Jesus?
To continue my thought, is the gospel still fully present in this era without the name of Jesus? Can people still be saved through the promise through types and shadows of the Old Testament?

If proclaiming the name of Jesus is a necessary part of the gospel in the New Testament period (and I believe it is), why is the name of Jesus forbidden to be sung in the church? Are we saying that we should sing songs that do not contain the full gospel message?
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
To continue my thought, is the gospel still fully present in this era without the name of Jesus? Can people still be saved through the promise through types and shadows of the Old Testament?
Absolutely not.

If proclaiming the name of Jesus is a necessary part of the gospel in the New Testament period (and I believe it is), why is the name of Jesus forbidden to be sung in the church? Are we saying that we should sing songs that do not contain the full gospel message?
The question of forbidding singing His name in worship can only be resolved by looking at what God requires in worship. If God requires the Psalms only, then Jesus' name is forbidden to be sung in the church.

As for the "full gospel message", one shouldn't look to one or another element of worship and expect to get the "full gospel message" each and every time that element is participated in. A reading from many sections of the OT (and the NT, for that matter!) often won't contain the "full gospel message". Your potential test, then, isn't particularly stringent.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
I'm not sold on EP, but I am trying to appreciate the arguments made - and
they seem to me to be quite sound. I will answer you that if indeed
the Psalms are the only lawful songs to be sung in worship, then singing
the name of Jesus in corporate worship is a sin, as ridiculous as that sounds
to you. However ridiculous sounding that sentence might be to some,
if God has dictated a particular pattern of worship for believers, then
to do contrary things is sin. The case is quite simple from that perspective.
But the fundamental question is:

Who (not how) has God commanded us to worship?

If we are not commanded to worship and include the explicit name of Jesus, we are sinning if we do.

If we are commanded to use the name of Jesus in worship, that drives every other conclusion.

How is a product of this fundamental question.

I'm a bit concerned that it seems that all you're trying to do is make a
ridiculous-sounding sentence come out of the lips of an EP'er, in order to
make their case look bad, and yours, good. That's not particularly sound
argumentation, nor is it particularly cordial (admittedly, you might not be
attempting to do what I said you seem to be doing - but it has all the marks
of it).
I appreciate your concern - it is mostly reductio ad absurdum, though.

The conclusion to the premise is untenable or undesirable.

If it is non sequitur - I am willing to learn...:)

However, you didn't answer my question about the incense - and it's
relevant - quite clearly so.

Would a priest, offering up an offering of incense in the temple, using
an incense of his own composition (super-duper sweet, let's say),
be guilty of sin? He understands that God approves of a sweet-smelling
aroma, so he decided, as part of his priestly duties, to do this good
thing.

Would he be guilty of sin? Yes. Why? The answer is the same
(again, assuming EP) as the answer I gave above - because it is
contrary to God's prescribed pattern of worship.
The answer on the incense - absolutely agree and not relevant to my point.

My point is a fundamental question - does God desire the explicit name of Jesus to be integrated into our worship?

Based on the good and necessary consequences of Scripture and the Holy Spirit (WCF 2:6) - the answer should be plainly - "Yes!"

That answer then invalidates the fundamental premise of EP - that the Psalms are the sufficient and complete songbook for the NT church, since they do not contain the explicit name of Jesus, anglicized or in other forms.

They certainly contain christos - no argument - but if there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12) - what is that name?

Hebrews 13:15
Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
The question of forbidding singing His name in worship can only be resolved by looking at what God requires in worship. If God requires the Psalms only, then Jesus' name is forbidden to be sung in the church.
the apostle Paul said:
2 Thessalonians 1:12

We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
WCF 2:10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Examining the fruit of the EP doctrine through the lens of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture clearly resolves this issue. For me, anyway.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
All of our worship is to be offered in the name of Jesus Christ, by the name of Jesus Christ, for the name of Jesus Christ. ALL OF IT. Whether or not the name "Jesus" is particularly mentioned. And you believe this too. If you sing Psalms in worship, JD, you should be singing them in the name, by the name, for the name. If baptism is administered in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned in the formula for baptism. If the Lord's Prayer is prayed in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned. If the Old Testament is read (or probably preached from) in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned. But the name of Jesus is still being honored. Your argument rests upon some supposed explicit command that we sing the name of Jesus -- not the actual command, that we do all things, including sing, IN the name of Jesus. I really doubt that you would have ever come to such a conclusion, except in your polemics against exclusive psalmody -- mostly because it is impossible for you to be consistent. You don't use the explicit name "Jesus" in every element of worship (as in the aforementioned examples). You have no problem singing songs that do not include His name (Psalms, Amazing Grace, Doxology -- any other examples?), or observing sacraments that do not include His name (baptism), or praying prayers that do not include His name (the Lord's Prayer), or reading Scriptures that do not include His name (the entire Old Testament). The explicit name "Jesus" is not the important thing. The Person of Christ Jesus our Lord, revealed throughout the Scriptures, praised throughout all the Scriptures (especially the Psalms), in all of our elements of worship, is the important thing.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
All of our worship is to be offered in the name of Jesus Christ, by the name of Jesus Christ, for the name of Jesus Christ. ALL OF IT. Whether or not the name "Jesus" is particularly mentioned. And you believe this too. If you sing Psalms in worship, JD, you should be singing them in the name, by the name, for the name. If baptism is administered in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned in the formula for baptism. If the Lord's Prayer is prayed in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned. If the Old Testament is read (or probably preached from) in your church, the name "Jesus" is not mentioned. But the name of Jesus is still being honored. Your argument rests upon some supposed explicit command that we sing the name of Jesus -- not the actual command, that we do all things, including sing, IN the name of Jesus. I really doubt that you would have ever come to such a conclusion, except in your polemics against exclusive psalmody -- mostly because it is impossible for you to be consistent. You don't use the explicit name "Jesus" in every element of worship (as in the aforementioned examples). You have no problem singing songs that do not include His name (Psalms, Amazing Grace, Doxology -- any other examples?), or observing sacraments that do not include His name (baptism), or praying prayers that do not include His name (the Lord's Prayer), or reading Scriptures that do not include His name (the entire Old Testament). The explicit name "Jesus" is not the important thing. The Person of Christ Jesus our Lord, revealed throughout the Scriptures, praised throughout all the Scriptures (especially the Psalms), in all of our elements of worship, is the important thing.
Sean - I certainly agree that all of worship should be done in and through the name of Jesus.

And I certainly have no issue singing songs or administration of the elements where his explicit name is not mentioned occasionaly.

As far as consistency is concerned though - you would think it odd if the explicit name of Jesus were never mentioned - and in fact prohibited by form of the element - in the administration/practice of prayer, preaching and the sacraments in public worship. It just does not compute that the form of praise should be such that the explicit name of Jesus would by the element's very premise prohibit the very name by which we are saved.

That is inconsistent.
 
Last edited:

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
....And I answered "no," because your real question is not, "Is the name of Jesus important in worship?" Your real question is, "Is it essential, in the new covenant era, to incorporate the explicit name 'Jesus' in every element of worship?" With that, I disagree. And to confuse those two seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Sean - I certainly agree that all of worship should be done in and through the name of Jesus.

And I certainly have no issue singing songs or administration of the elements where his explicit name is not mentioned occasionaly.

As far as consistency is concerned though - you would think it odd if the explicit name of Jesus were never mentioned - and in fact prohibited by form of the element from the administration/practice of prayer, preaching and the sacraments in public worship. It just does not compute that the form of praise should be such that the explicit name of Jesus would by the element's very premise prohibit the very name by which we are saved. That is inconsistent.
I feel like I'm :deadhorse: ... but....

1. The explicit name of Jesus is prohibited by the form given to us in the administration of baptism.

2. The explicit name of Jesus is prohibited by the form given to us in the Lord's Prayer.

3. The explicit name of Jesus is prohibited in our singing of Psalms (with which you agree).

4. Etc., etc., etc.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
....And I answered "no," because your real question is not, "Is the name of Jesus important in worship?" Your real question is, "Is it essential, in the new covenant era, to incorporate the explicit name 'Jesus' in every element of worship?" With that, I disagree. And to confuse those two seems to me to be somewhat disingenuous.
Sorry if you think I am being disingenuous - I know how important the doctrine of EP is to you, but I wanted to create a platform of discussion from which to land on my ultimate point.

I think that folks reading the thread get the intent. We have smart people - and any ulterior motive was revealed early on. :)

Besides - this is really about the only area I have any substantial disagreement with "hyper-orthodox" ;) Reformed doctrine.
 
Last edited:

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
I feel like I'm :deadhorse: ... but....

1. The explicit name of Jesus is prohibited by the form given to us in the administration of baptism.
uhhh....huh?

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

wait - you may be making a point I am not following - I'll stop here until you come back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top