crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Worthwhile book to pick up:
The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Paperback)
The Messiah and the Psalms: Preaching Christ from All the Psalms (Paperback)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
Thanks for the brotherly exchange... and for taking it easy on the new guy
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.
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.
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" -
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 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.
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.
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 - 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Examining the fruit of the EP doctrine through the lens of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture clearly resolves this issue. For me, anyway.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.
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.
I feel like I'm ... but....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.
....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.
I feel like I'm ... but....
1. The explicit name of Jesus is prohibited by the form given to us in the administration of baptism.