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.

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
That is Dispensationalism, plain in view....

What you are saying is that Christ was not revealed through the old testament and that Salvation was received differently...

The Old Testament was complete in the knowledge of the Messiah and everything, and I MEAN EVERYTHING needed for salvation was there in the old testament...

Abraham was Saved by Faith.... Faith in WHO? The Lord Jesus Christ!!!
Salvation was the same then, now and until the end of this age....
Salvation was through FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ (without his english name) by the permenant indwelling of the Holy Spirit throughout the Old testament and in the New....

All the Old Testament Saints where saved through Faith in Christ, their knowledge was NOT imcomplete or imperfect...

All the Old Testament Saints knew the Psalms, and knew they were about the Lord Jesus Christ.. The Psalms are Perfect......

You have shown your true colors..........


But it matters little, I am beating a :deadhorse:




No one said they are imperfect, just incomplete.

Thus the source of their incompleteness.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
You have shown your true colors..........


But it matters little, I am beating a :deadhorse:
**sigh** - I hope you have enjoyed your strawman...are you having fun trying to make me something I am not? Since your assertion is so flawed, I am not going to burst your bubble with a response.

Michael, I pray you get additional restful sleep. :pray2:
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
That is Dispensationalism, plain in view....

What you are saying is that Christ was not revealed through the old testament and that Salvation was received differently...

The Old Testament was complete in the knowledge of the Messiah and everything, and I MEAN EVERYTHING needed for salvation was there in the old testament...
Agreed. The dispensationalism charge is a strawman and completely unwarranted. But while we're on the strawman topic ...

Are you saying that Jews who believe in the Old Testament have EVERYTHING they need for salvation? So we should expect that Jewish believers today are believers worshipping the same God, just as they were in the Old Testament? So they do not have to become Christians, but already are?

That sounds like Zionist dispensationalism, plain in view ...
 

etexas

Puritan Board Doctor
Leaving EP alone and JUST talking about the name of Jesus in worship...........man I love it, I love to to worship the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ .:up:
 
Last edited:

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Back. :)

I am not aware of any churches, other than Oneness Pentecostals (who have their own theological reasons for their practice), which use a different baptismal formula than (with some variation), "N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (cf. Matt. 28:19). Is this the formula pronounced in your church when this sacrament is administered? If so, the point stands. If not, this is still the formula used in virtually all Christian churches; so the point still stands with regard to virtually all Christian churches.

What of the other points which you failed to address? Are we allowed to pray the Lord's Prayer, JD? And you still have yet to address the fact that "singing the name of Jesus" is distinct from "singing IN the name of Jesus." Do you recognize these to be two distinct things? And do you likewise recognize that Paul, in those passages, exhorted us to sing IN Jesus' name, not to sing Jesus' name? If so, you have yet to demonstrate that exclusive psalmodists are violating some principle of Holy Scripture, that we are to use the explicit name "Jesus" in our songs of praise.
 

JohnOwen007

Puritan Board Sophomore
Perhaps a better way to put JD's argument is like this: the OT holds forth Christ and the gospel in types and shadows (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5). The NT presents the reality. This is the classic teaching that revelation is progressive: it reaches a climax in Christ (Col. 2:3).

It seems to me that Jesus taught something of the magnitude of the new revelation he ushered in when he said:

[1] That the least in the kingdom are greater than John the Baptist (the last of the OT prophets).

[2] That new wine can't be put in the old wine skins.

The Psalms, being OT, only make reference to Christ according to types and shadows (temple, land, animal sacrifice, national kingship, etc.), not the reality.

It would seem strange for the new covenant people of God, once the reality has come, to sing about it only in types and shadows.

ps: If the Psalter was God's perfect hymnbook, why is it then converted into metrical Psalms for us to sing? Why not leave the form as is?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
:agree::handshake:

Back. :)

I am not aware of any churches, other than Oneness Pentecostals (who have their own theological reasons for their practice), which use a different baptismal formula than (with some variation), "N., I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (cf. Matt. 28:19). Is this the formula pronounced in your church when this sacrament is administered? If so, the point stands. If not, this is still the formula used in virtually all Christian churches; so the point still stands with regard to virtually all Christian churches.

What of the other points which you failed to address? Are we allowed to pray the Lord's Prayer, JD? And you still have yet to address the fact that "singing the name of Jesus" is distinct from "singing IN the name of Jesus." Do you recognize these to be two distinct things? And do you likewise recognize that Paul, in those passages, exhorted us to sing IN Jesus' name, not to sing Jesus' name? If so, you have yet to demonstrate that exclusive psalmodists are violating some principle of Holy Scripture, that we are to use the explicit name "Jesus" in our songs of praise.
Glad you are back - see Marty's response above - very good summary of some key points - but back to Jesus' explicit name for a moment - even though some think it is a pedantic point :)...some might even make that claim of EP...:)

Ok - for the baptismal "formula" - even though you have not heard it used, what scriptural, creedal or doctrinal principle would prohibit one from including the explicit name of Jesus?

That is - one cannot follow the logic of baptismal doctrine and by good and necessary consequence deduce:

God forbids the utterance of the explicit name of Jesus in the administration of baptism.


Same for prayer - Not sure how honing in on the Lord's prayer, except as it is used as a model is proving anything - we certainly use Christ's model as an example, but I am sure you agree that we have liberty around that model for content.

And certainly by good and necessary consequence deduce no implicit prohibition, such as:


God forbids the utterance of the explicit name of Jesus in public worship praying.


So - back to EP - note my earlier references to the WCF (even though I mis-numbered them - going back to rectify at some point...):

Chapter 1

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

and

X. 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.
and using but 1 of many, many supporting verses:

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.
Then examining the necessary consequences of the Exclusive Psalmody doctrine:

God forbids the utterance of the explicit name of Jesus in public praise worship.

One can plainly see the fundamental flaw in EP.

If that Name is the one and only name by which we are saved and the Name glorified by God - isn't that Name worthy of public praise?
 
Last edited:

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
Then examining the necessary consequences of the Exclusive Psalmody doctrine:

God forbids the utterance of the explicit name of Jesus in public praise worship.

One can plainly see the fundamental flaw in EP.

If that Name is the one and only name by which we are saved and the Name glorified by God - isn't that Name worthy of public praise?
JD -

After accusing others of setting up strawmen, you have yourself returned to one. No EPer says that one cannot give public praise to the name of Jesus, and the fact that His Greek-form name, "Jesus" is not pronounced in worship song in EP churches is UTTERLY DIFFERENT than saying that in such churches His Name is not being praised.

You have also made a logical error here - the fact that "Jesus" is not sung in EP churches is no fundamental flaw, IF their argument concerning the commands of God having to do with worship is correct. You are holding this up (the need to specifically pronounce "Jesus" in worship song) as a fundamental requirement, and judging all else by it. What makes THAT a fundamental, foundational requirement? How, Scripturally, do you come to this conclusion that it is the requirement that trumps all, including (potentially) commands by God to worship IN SONG using the Psalms only (nobody is arguing that "Jesus" cannot be said at ALL, or even in the preponderance of worship elements - Every EP worship service I have been involved in was completely characterized by praise of Jesus Christ)?

To close, to ask a question that I may have lost in the shuffle. WHAT IF God commanded the use of Psalms only for worship song? Are you not willing to accept that, in that case, Jesus' name would not be pronounced in corporate singing? Don't you think that God's specific directions about worship should be heard over and above the desire to sing the name "Jesus"? Don't you think it possible that the church in this age can give praise to Jesus using the inspired Psalms?

Todd
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
JD,

My point from those particular forms was that, in the use of those forms, keeping to how they have been delivered in Holy Scripture, we would never use the word "Jesus" in the use of those forms. Likewise in the singing of Psalms. I'm addressing the individual forms used, not the element of worship itself (which is what you seem to be trying to do). You know -- because I have said many times -- that I believe God regulates the singing of His praise in a way different than He does prayer or other elements of worship.

I think I see where your problem is. You are looking at the passages in the New Testament that refer to "the name of Jesus," etc., as referring to the bare sounding of the word "Jesus." But when the Bible uses such phrases as "the name of God," "the name of the LORD," "the name of Jesus," etc., it is not referring solely, or even primarily, to the bare sounding of those words. Note the Shorter Catechism's answers relative to the third commandment:

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.
Q. 55. What is forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment forbiddeth all profaning or abusing of any thing whereby God maketh himself known.

Additionally, you are attempting to take very general statements, such as "glorifying the name," "whatever you do, in word or deed," etc., and trying to apply those to inserting the word "Jesus" in our songs used in the public worship of God. As per Dr. Bacon's syllogism, you must prove that the Bible commands that the word "Jesus" be used explicitly in the texts from which we sing in public worship, for this argument to be valid. Arguments from analogy, or arguments from general declarations regarding honoring or acting in "the name of Jesus" (which more refer to honoring His Person, rather than paying some homage to those syllables; as per Acts 4:12, are people saved because of particularly pronounced syllables, or because of the Person and work of Jesus Christ?), are not valid.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
JD -

After accusing others of setting up strawmen, you have yourself returned to one. No EPer says that one cannot give public praise to the name of Jesus, and the fact that His Greek-form name, "Jesus" is not pronounced in worship song in EP churches is UTTERLY DIFFERENT than saying that in such churches His Name is not being praised.
Todd, Jesus' explicit name is not ever being praised in song at EP churches. Thus, their worship, by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture, is incomplete.

You have also made a logical error here - the fact that "Jesus" is not sung in EP churches is no fundamental flaw, IF their argument concerning the commands of God having to do with worship is correct.
IF is a big word with lots of potential for creativity (IF a frog had wings, etc...). My point is that the argument is fundamentally flawed by it's inevitable conclusion as it relates to the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus.

You are holding this up (the need to specifically pronounce "Jesus" in worship song) as a fundamental requirement, and judging all else by it. What makes THAT a fundamental, foundational requirement? How, Scripturally, do you come to this conclusion that it is the requirement that trumps all, including (potentially) commands by God to worship IN SONG using the Psalms only (nobody is arguing that "Jesus" cannot be said at ALL, or even in the preponderance of worship elements - Every EP worship service I have been involved in was completely characterized by praise of Jesus Christ)?
Again - examining the necessary consequence of the doctrine - it is not Scriptural. Just like the Oneness doctrine is not Scriptural. Notwithstanding the characterization of the worship of EP churches - many of the elect have worshiped in Christ under a flawed doctrine (and still do, I am sure you will agree). God does take our imperfect worship and make it acceptable through Jesus.

To close, to ask a question that I may have lost in the shuffle. WHAT IF God commanded the use of Psalms only for worship song? Are you not willing to accept that, in that case, Jesus' name would not be pronounced in corporate singing? Don't you think that God's specific directions about worship should be heard over and above the desire to sing the name "Jesus"? Don't you think it possible that the church in this age can give praise to Jesus using the inspired Psalms?
again, Todd - I am not interested in speculation - we can WHAT IF forever. I am interested in WHAT IS.

IS uttering the explicit name of Jesus Christ in public worship song a sin?

You do understand that is a foundational proposition of EP?

Singing anything other than the 150 Psalms in public worship IS sin.

According to the EP doctrine, composing a song that is guided by the Holy Spirit and bounded by Scriptural principles with the explicit name of Jesus in it and sung in public worship, IS sin against God?

It strains logic, emotion and spirit - the EP doctrine strains the gnat and swallows the camel.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
Todd, Jesus' explicit name is not ever being praised in song at EP churches. Thus, their worship, by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture, is incomplete.
But where do you draw that deduction from? Where is there a
command specifically to praise Jesus' name IN SONG? We all
agree that Jesus' name is to be praised - and worship song
is NOT the only way.

Your deduction is false if there is a command to sing none other
than the inspired Psalms. One part of Scripture cannot
be interpreted so as to contradict another - this I know you know
and understand.

IF is a big word with lots of potential for creativity (IF a frog had wings, etc...). My point is that the argument is fundamentally flawed by it's inevitable conclusion as it relates to the revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus.

Again - examining the necessary consequence of the doctrine - it is not Scriptural.
It is only possible to prove it to be unscriptural by proving that we
are commanded to sing Jesus' name in public worship.

again, Todd - I am not interested in speculation - we can WHAT IF forever. I am interested in WHAT IS.

IS uttering the explicit name of Jesus Christ in public worship song a sin?

You do understand that is a foundational proposition of EP?
Yup, and it's based on the interpretation of Scripture which says that
we are commanded to sing none other than the Psalms. If that
command is correct, then singing Jesus name in public worship is
sin.

Singing anything other than the 150 Psalms in public worship IS sin.

According to the EP doctrine, composing a song that is guided by the Holy Spirit and bounded by Scriptural principles with the explicit name of Jesus in it and sung in public worship, IS sin against God?

EP strains the gnat and swallows the camel.
There is nothing, by the way, in EP doctrine that is against composition of songs that mention Jesus' name. It is ONLY (EPers, correct me if I'm wrong here) the singing of those songs in worship. The Geneva College choral groups sing uninspired hymns in concert, it should be noted. I gather that some of them probably praise our Lord's name.

I'm sure you'd also agree that IF singing other than the 150 Psalms in worship is a sin, then the choice to compose such a song specifically with public worship singing in mind CANNOT BE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
But the fundamental question is:

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.
If the Psalms are insufficient as you've stated several times now, why do you lead your curch in singing such lacking and sub-standard songs then? Why not sing just your hymns and contemporary songs that are laced with the letters J-E-S-U-S? That way you can have pure and complete (not incomplete like the Pslams) worship.

Agreed. The dispensationalism charge is a strawman and completely unwarranted. But while we're on the strawman topic ...

Are you saying that Jews who believe in the Old Testament have EVERYTHING they need for salvation? So we should expect that Jewish believers today are believers worshipping the same God, just as they were in the Old Testament? So they do not have to become Christians, but already are?

That sounds like Zionist dispensationalism, plain in view ...
This may help: how was the Jew saved in the O.T. up until the closing of the N.T. canon?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.​

What was "scripture" in the Apostle Paul's mind? - the O.T.

Leaving EP alone and JUST talking about the name of Jesus in worship...........man I love it, I love to to worship the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ .:up:
The name or the Person?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
If the Psalms are insufficient as you've stated several times now, why do you lead your curch in singing such lacking and sub-standard songs then? Why not sing just your hymns and contemporary songs that are laced with the letters J-E-S-U-S? That way you can have pure and complete (not incomplete like the Pslams) worship.
C'mon, Chris - I am not beating up the Psalms - I hold them in high esteem - particularly since they are Scripture. I am not advocating the opposite extreme, either. Without the Psalms we would have incomplete worship, too.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
But where do you draw that deduction from? Where is there a
command specifically to praise Jesus' name IN SONG? We all
agree that Jesus' name is to be praised - and worship song
is NOT the only way.
ok - to follow your thinking - where is there a specific command to use the name of Jesus in worship?

Your deduction is false if there is a command to sing none other
than the inspired Psalms. One part of Scripture cannot
be interpreted so as to contradict another - this I know you know
and understand.
Yup - and agree. My deduction is also false if the explicit name of Jesus in public worship does not fall under this:

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.

It is only possible to prove it [EP] to be unscriptural by proving that we are commanded to sing Jesus' name in public worship.
It all depends on the order of priority.

Is the explicit name of Jesus to be included in public worship?

That is the first order premise.

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.

Yup, and it's based on the interpretation of Scripture which says that
we are commanded to sing none other than the Psalms. If that
command is correct, then singing Jesus name in public worship is
sin.
This is a second order premise. If Scripture interprets Scripture and it can by good and neccessary consequence be deduced that the explicit name of Jesus is to be included in the elements of public worship, the second order question that validates or invalidates EP - did the Apostle Paul mean only the 150 Psalms when he commanded psalms and hymns and spiritual songs? - can be by good and necessary deduction answered "NO" (law of non-contradiction), since the explicit and revealed name of our savior and Lord, Jesus, is nowhere mentioned.
 
Last edited:

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
If He is the object, desire, and goal of worship, His name is central.
No, he is not the [sole] goal. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the goal. The Psalms are Trinitarian while many hymns exclude the Father and the Spirit from worship -- among other things.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
No, he is not the [sole] goal. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the goal. The Psalms are Trinitarian while many hymns exclude the Father and the Spirit from worship -- among other things.
He is a goal and the question remains - how does His explicit name fit into public worship?

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
He is a goal and the question remains - how does His explicit name fit into public worship?

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.
Prayer, preaching, reading of the Word, baptism (reference to "The Son", which is perfectly good praise, by title, of Jesus Christ), the Lord's Supper, etc.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
A song commonly used in contemporary worship services:

"I love You Lord
and I lift my voice
To worship You
O my soul, rejoice!

Take joy, my King
in what you hear
May it be a sweet, sweet sound
in Your ear."

JD, is this a song that in your mind appropriately praises Jesus Christ?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
A song commonly used in contemporary worship services:

"I love You Lord
and I lift my voice
To worship You
O my soul, rejoice!

Take joy, my King
in what you hear
May it be a sweet, sweet sound
in Your ear."

JD, is this a song that in your mind appropriately praises Jesus Christ?
Actually, I like Piper's addition, which we include:

I love You, Lord, and I stand amazed;
My sins are gone! May Your name be praised!
Exult, my soul! And behold His face;
I will ever sing, O my King, of Your grace.

But you miss the point - the point is - how is worship regulated?

If this is a first order requirement:

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.

NONE of the 2nd order requirements can contradict it.

EP implicitly does.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
You know - as we have been discussing this, I did a quick read through on the CCLI top 100 - which I consider to be the "other end" from EP- virtually none have the explicit name of Jesus in them either.

Which should be convicting to Christian songwriters - myself included.
 

toddpedlar

Iron Dramatist
I wish you'd answer the question. Would that song qualify for you as a praising of Jesus Christ in worship song? Of course you get the drift... if you say it's a song that appropriately praises Jesus, then you're caught saying that a song can appropriately praise Jesus without mentioning his Greek name.

So... let me deal with one problem, then your question. I fully accept the question and answer 54 that you've quoted. It should be carefully noted, however, that the authors of that catechism question were EPers. So quoting it as support for non-EP is probably not the best logical strategy.

Seriously, though - do all the Scriptural names of God need to be sung in order for Him to receive adequate praise in the entireity of our worship? Is the Lord's Supper flawed because we don't use the name "Jehovah Jireh"?

Secondly, where does that catechism question bear on worship (in all its elements as you continue to stress)? Why is NOT naming Jesus Christ (or Jehovah Jireh, since I don't believe any Psalm actually contains that name of God) in worship song a contravention of the answer to this catechism question? I assume you are claiming that the EP position runs afoul of that answer - but youre making rather significant leaps in order to support that position. Perhaps the authors of the catechism would argue that the use of Jesus' name in public worship song, since they held to the EP position, would be an INAPPROPRIATE use of His name - and thus the NON-EP position fails in light of this catechism question.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.

NONE of the 2nd order requirements can contradict it.

EP implicitly does.
Exactly, so anything that we do while not saying "Jesus!!" is an infraction of the third commandment. :banghead:

As much as I hear you throwing around words like "premise," I really wish you'd actually study some logic.

Actually, I like Piper's addition, which we include:

I love You, Lord, and I stand amazed;
My sins are gone! May Your name be praised!
Exult, my soul! And behold His face;
I will ever sing, O my King, of Your grace.
I don't see Jesus' name here. Now I'm just confused; I thought you liked this one.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
He is a goal and the question remains - how does His explicit name fit into public worship?

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word, and works.
You seem to have seized upon this Q&A from the Catechism, ignoring the rest of it, disregarding the fact that this does not require us to use every name of God in public worship, refusing to answer my question re: Acts 4:12 -- do you really think that this Catechism demonstrates a Puritanical belief that the name "Jesus" needs to be used in our songs of public worship? You are grasping at straws, JD.

You seem to now realize that there is no requirement in Scripture that we use the word "Jesus" in our songs. You are now trying to rely upon "good and necessary consequence" -- but the consequences you are drawing are neither good nor necessary. You argue that our Saviour is more honored by singing songs that use the word "Jesus." I argue that He is honored by singing songs that He gave by inspiration, appointed to be used in public worship, and to which He adds His blessing; not by singing songs that lack His inspiration, His appointment, or His blessing, regardless of whether they employ the word "Jesus."

If God appointed the Psalms for singing in public worship, why don't the songs you sing in public worship require His appointment? They were used, not because they were inspired, not because they were infallible, not because they revealed Christ to come, not because of their doctrinal completeness, but because they were appointed. They were (and are) all of these things; but the essential thing was their appointment for use in public worship. Why don't the songs in your church's hymnbook, or on your church's overhead projector (or however you do it) require that appointment which the Psalms required? How does our being in the New Testament dispensation change that requirement for divine appointment? How does our greater filling with the Spirit, and our freedom from the ceremonies of the law, abrogate the requirement for specific, particular, defined texts to be appointed for our singing of God's praise?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
I wish you'd answer the question. Would that song qualify for you as a praising of Jesus Christ in worship song? Of course you get the drift... if you say it's a song that appropriately praises Jesus, then you're caught saying that a song can appropriately praise Jesus without mentioning his Greek name.
Todd - I have never said that a song can't praise Jesus without mentioning his explicit name. The song you quoted with the Piper addition I think is a fine spiritual song used in the proper context.

So... let me deal with one problem, then your question. I fully accept the question and answer 54 that you've quoted. It should be carefully noted, however, that the authors of that catechism question were EPers. So quoting it as support for non-EP is probably not the best logical strategy.
Why would using their logic against their conclusion be an error? - it is a common logic tool - reductio ad absurdum.

Seriously, though - do all the Scriptural names of God need to be sung in order for Him to receive adequate praise in the entireity of our worship? Is the Lord's Supper flawed because we don't use the name "Jehovah Jireh"?
Would it be a sin to ever utter Jehovah Jireh in the Lord's Supper?

Secondly, where does that catechism question bear on worship (in all its elements as you continue to stress)? Why is NOT naming Jesus Christ (or Jehovah Jireh, since I don't believe any Psalm actually contains that name of God) in worship song a contravention of the answer to this catechism question? I assume you are claiming that the EP position runs afoul of that answer - but youre making rather significant leaps in order to support that position. Perhaps the authors of the catechism would argue that the use of Jesus' name in public worship song, since they held to the EP position, would be an INAPPROPRIATE use of His name - and thus the NON-EP position fails in light of this catechism question.
You keep using the EP conclusion to deny the first order premise.

If it is a sin to use Jesus' name in song (which EP implicitly confirms) - that contradicts the 3rd commandment as it applies the element of worship song.

If the 3rd commandment is a higher priority on the content of worship - it helps resolve the foundational premise of EP - the Apostle Paul was commanding only the 150 Psalms when he commanded psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Paul would not be contradicting the commandment and it would also be consistent (if you study Scripture) with his usage of the explicit name of Jesus in his writings.

 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Dave - are you just trying to be inflammatory? Are you purposefully working to rile me up?

premise - a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'd have a little bit more to work with if you would stay with the same argument for more than a few posts. I'm having trouble figuring out just what exactly you're arguing for.

Are the Psalms deficient because they don't have the Greek word "Jesus" in them?

Is the RPW deficient because it pits the 2nd commandment against the third?

Can songs not have the Greek word "Jesus" in them and still be acceptable? If the answer to this question is "yes," then I don't even see what the point of this thread is. You said you liked Piper's ditty so what's your problem with the 2nd commandment's divine authorization of only the Psalms?

I really do appreciate that you've moved on, at least for a moment, from the "sing a new song" mantra and become a little more creative but keeping up with just what it is you're trying to get across throughout this thread has been difficult.

Dave - are you just trying to be inflammatory? Are you purposefully working to rile me up?

premise - a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn
I'm just taking note of the fact that you have been trying to place everyone else's arguments under meticulous logical scrutiny, continuously pointing out "this false premise" or "that false premise" or that "wrong conclusion" or that reductio ad absurdum while at the same time putting forth arguments characterized by reductio ad absurdum of the highest absurdity.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
jdlongmire said:
If the 3rd commandment is a higher priority on the content of worship - it helps resolve the foundational premise of EP - the Apostle Paul was commanding only the 150 Psalms when he commanded psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Paul would not be contradicting the commandment and it would also be consistent (if you study Scripture) with his usage of the explicit name of Jesus in his writings.

Actually, since exclusive psalmody rests upon the second commandment; and since the second commandment comes before the third commandment; we could argue that exclusive psalmody "is a higher priority on the content of worship (song)." I believe that the order of the issuing of the ten commandments shows us God's priority in the commandments. For example: It is a worse sin to deny there to be a God, than to not worship Him in an acceptable manner. It is worse to murder than to commit adultery, and worse to commit adultery than to steal, etc. So I would argue that God is, only after the acknowledging of Him to be the only true God, and our God, etc., concerned with the purity of His worship, and that we worship Him only in His appointed way.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
You seem to have seized upon this Q&A from the Catechism, ignoring the rest of it, disregarding the fact that this does not require us to use every name of God in public worship, refusing to answer my question re: Acts 4:12 -- do you really think that this Catechism demonstrates a Puritanical belief that the name "Jesus" needs to be used in our songs of public worship? You are grasping at straws, JD.
No - I am just using your references to make my argument. I believe that EP proponents have made a fundamental flaw in their reasoning.

You seem to now realize that there is no requirement in Scripture that we use the word "Jesus" in our songs. You are now trying to rely upon "good and necessary consequence" -- but the consequences you are drawing are neither good nor necessary. You argue that our Saviour is more honored by singing songs that use the word "Jesus." I argue that He is honored by singing songs that He gave by inspiration, appointed to be used in public worship, and to which He adds His blessing; not by singing songs that lack His inspiration, His appointment, or His blessing, regardless of whether they employ the word "Jesus."
And I believe you are wrong.

If God appointed the Psalms for singing in public worship, why don't the songs you sing in public worship require His appointment? They were used, not because they were inspired, not because they were infallible, not because they revealed Christ to come, not because of their doctrinal completeness, but because they were appointed. They were (and are) all of these things; but the essential thing was their appointment for use in public worship. Why don't the songs in your church's hymnbook, or on your church's overhead projector (or however you do it) require that appointment which the Psalms required? How does our being in the New Testament dispensation change that requirement for divine appointment? How does our greater filling with the Spirit, and our freedom from the ceremonies of the law, abrogate the requirement for specific, particular, defined texts to be appointed for our singing of God's praise?
Because Jesus, though the Apostle Paul, gave the NT church that liberty.

Ephesians 5:19
speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord,

Colossians 3:16
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing each other, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, in grace singing in your hearts to the Lord;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top