Prescriptive Psalmody and Exclusive Psalmody

Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
From another thread:

Can you please explain this argument? Again, I'm not taking up the "sing a new song" cause--I just cannot figure out what how to make sense of what you're saying; but I'm sure it does, so I'd like to hear.

It is not an argument, but a criticism to an argument. The nonsense is in the original argument; the rebuttal merely seeks to show the nonsensical nature of it.

The argument has been made, (1) The psalms are prescriptive of worship; (2) the psalms prescribe new songs; ergo, we are to sing new songs, whereby it is implied that new songs means new compositions. My refutation of this argument consists in showing that prescription is not opening the door to new possibilities, but laying down a requirement which must be met. If it were true that the Psalms were prescriptive, and that new songs ipso facto entailed new compositions, then the conclusion would not be the permission to sing new compositions, but the obligation to do so.

Putting this here for interaction and to segregate it from the other thread.
 
The proposition the Matthew (armourbearer) is referring to is this:

In terms of the RPW:

P1 New covenant believers are commanded to sing and to be taught by the Psalms (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16)
P2 The Psalms teach that we should sing a new song to the Lord (verses here)

C1 New covenant believers are commanded to sing new songs and the Psalms to the Lord

Matthew is attempting to present a reductio ad absurdum rebuttal to this by proposing that a prescription to sing new songs means that every time one sings, brand new songs are required, otherwise the new song is no longer "new".

This ad absurdum is easily rebutted by pointing out that the New Testament is not now the Old Testament simply because it is not "brand new". A new song is a new song in comparison to the "old" songs of the Psalms.

In fact, we may now sing the "old" songs with new understanding - does that mean our new understanding is now "old" the moment we understand and exercise it?

It does not take a master logician to see that Matthew's proposition is the one built on nonsense.
 
In fact, we may now sing the "old" songs with new understanding - does that mean our new understanding is now "old" the moment we understand and exercise it?

As noted previously, as soon as you allow that an old song may be sung with new understanding, then you allow that the Psalms may be sung with new understanding, and thereby negate your imperative of new compositions. It is clear that you are changing sailing vessels mid-race.
 
An additional verse to consider:

Matthew 9:17
"Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."

According to Matthew's rationale, the new wine, once poured into the new wineskin would instantly become "old" wine.
 
The proposition the Matthew (armourbearer) is referring to is this:

In terms of the RPW:

P1 New covenant believers are commanded to sing and to be taught by the Psalms (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16)
P2 The Psalms teach that we should sing a new song to the Lord (verses here)

C1 New covenant believers are commanded to sing new songs and the Psalms to the Lord

Matthew is attempting to present a reductio ad absurdum rebuttal to this by proposing that a prescription to sing new songs means that every time one sings, brand new songs are required, otherwise the new song is no longer "new".

This ad absurdum is easily rebutted by pointing out that the New Testament is not now the Old Testament simply because it is not "brand new". A new song is a new song in comparison to the "old" songs of the Psalms.

In fact, we may now sing the "old" songs with new understanding - does that mean our new understanding is now "old" the moment we understand and exercise it?

It does not take a master logician to see that Matthew's proposition is the one built on nonsense.

The conclusion does not necessarily follow, from what I can tell. The "new song" in your second premise could easily refer to another Psalm that was later recorded. Or, more likely, I take it as David or another psalm writer telling the congregation, in song, to sing the new song he is leading.

I'm not an EPer, but I think the argument you set out does not sequence.
 
In fact, we may now sing the "old" songs with new understanding - does that mean our new understanding is now "old" the moment we understand and exercise it?

As noted previously, as soon as you allow that an old song may be sung with new understanding, then you allow that the Psalms may be sung with new understanding, and thereby negate your imperative of new compositions. It is clear that you are changing sailing vessels mid-race.

What is clear is that you are creating a false dilemma.
 
The conclusion does not necessarily follow, from what I can tell. The "new song" in your second premise could easily refer to another Psalm that was later recorded. Or, more likely, I take it as David or another psalm writer telling the congregation, in song, to sing the new song he is leading.

I'm not an EPer, but I think the argument you set out does not sequence.

Only if you contend that the Psalms' prescriptions and teachings are not to also be understood and practiced in light of the new covenant.
 
The argument is not only plausible - it is sound and aligns to Scripture and to the RPW.

It is clear that the new covenant believer is commanded to sing the Psalms as well as new songs.

The burden of proof is on the the EP'er to prove otherwise.
 
Not really - it is implied when I reference "new covenant believer" - is does assume a priori knowledge of the new covenant, but also assumes a priori understanding of what the Psalms are.
 
Again - you try and create a false dilemma where none exists.

The new covenant believer must sing the Psalms and new songs. Not either/or, but both/and.
 
The new covenant believer must sing the Psalms and new songs. Not either/or, but both/and.

You are clearly not abiding by your use of the word "prescriptive." The point at which you are "permitted" to sing a new song, old songs are no longer "prescribed;" and the point at which you are "permitted" to sing old songs, new songs are not "prescribed." You have made a formal argument in which the premises are thought to lead naturally to the conclusion; but your premises do not lead naturally to the conclusion without a great deal of equivocation.
 
Not really - it is implied when I reference "new covenant believer" - is does assume a priori knowledge of the new covenant, but also assumes a priori understanding of what the Psalms are.

My point was missed. Your rejoinder was "Only if you contend that the Psalms' prescriptions and teachings are not to also be understood and practiced in light of the new covenant."

I was not objecting to prior knowledge of the new covenant, but rather, that a new premise was introduced. One that states:

"Psalm's prescriptions and teachings must follow a practice enlightened by the new covenant."

You've laid the case for 1. We are to sing (your NT cites). 2. Psalms have songs that include verses telling us to sing new songs (which could be another psalm for all I know).

But I don't see anything supporting the premise that our new covenant enlightenment commands a particular practice regarding what was sung in the OT Psalms.
 
The new covenant believer must sing the Psalms and new songs. Not either/or, but both/and.

You are clearly not abiding by your use of the word "prescriptive." The point at which you are "permitted" to sing a new song, old songs are no longer "prescribed;" and the point at which you are "permitted" to sing old songs, new songs are not "prescribed." You have made a formal argument in which the premises are thought to lead naturally to the conclusion; but your premises do not lead naturally to the conclusion without a great deal of equivocation.

Sorry - I have been clear that the new covenant believer is commanded to sing new songs as well as the Psalms. I did not use the term "permitted".
 
Sorry - I have been clear that the new covenant believer is commanded to sing new songs as well as the Psalms. I did not use the term "permitted".

The equivocation still clings to the word "command." When you sing a commanded new song, you are not singing a commanded old song, and vice versa. You cannot sing old and new at once.
 
Not really - it is implied when I reference "new covenant believer" - is does assume a priori knowledge of the new covenant, but also assumes a priori understanding of what the Psalms are.

My point was missed. Your rejoinder was "Only if you contend that the Psalms' prescriptions and teachings are not to also be understood and practiced in light of the new covenant."

I was not objecting to prior knowledge of the new covenant, but rather, that a new premise was introduced. One that states:

"Psalm's prescriptions and teachings must follow a practice enlightened by the new covenant."

You've laid the case for 1. We are to sing (your NT cites). 2. Psalms have songs that include verses telling us to sing new songs (which could be another psalm for all I know).

But I don't see anything supporting the premise that our new covenant enlightenment commands a particular practice regarding what was sung in the OT Psalms.

I did not introduce that premise.

New covenant believers are to sing and be taught by the Psalms. (Colossians 3:16)

This implies that the Psalms' prescriptions are to be understood in light of the new covenant.

For example:

Psalm 105:1
Oh give thanks to the LORD, call upon His name; Make known His deeds among the peoples.

The Psalms prescribe "call upon His name" - whose name shall the new covenant believer call upon?

Answer:

1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours
 
Sorry - I have been clear that the new covenant believer is commanded to sing new songs as well as the Psalms. I did not use the term "permitted".

The equivocation still clings to the word "command." When you sing a commanded new song, you are not singing a commanded old song, and vice versa. You cannot sing old and new at once.

I can sing a Psalm, then I can sing a new song - where is simultaneity prescribed or implied?
 
Not really - it is implied when I reference "new covenant believer" - is does assume a priori knowledge of the new covenant, but also assumes a priori understanding of what the Psalms are.

My point was missed. Your rejoinder was "Only if you contend that the Psalms' prescriptions and teachings are not to also be understood and practiced in light of the new covenant."

I was not objecting to prior knowledge of the new covenant, but rather, that a new premise was introduced. One that states:

"Psalm's prescriptions and teachings must follow a practice enlightened by the new covenant."

You've laid the case for 1. We are to sing (your NT cites). 2. Psalms have songs that include verses telling us to sing new songs (which could be another psalm for all I know).

But I don't see anything supporting the premise that our new covenant enlightenment commands a particular practice regarding what was sung in the OT Psalms.

I did not introduce that premise.

New covenant believers are to sing and be taught by the Psalms. (Colossians 3:16)

This implies that the Psalms' prescriptions are to be understood in light of the new covenant.

For example:

Psalm 105:1
Oh give thanks to the LORD, call upon His name; Make known His deeds among the peoples.

The Psalms prescribe "call upon His name" - whose name shall the new covenant believer call upon?

Answer:

1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours

JD, I'm going to have to work on some other things, so I'll break off here.

One thing: the example you just gave is different from the first. The second example provided the missing authority for the practice. You asked whose name to be called upon, and the answer was squarely stated. I agree.

But in your first example you have the premise that our practice must be governed by the understanding that an OT "new song" is in fact a completely new composition rather than another psalm. To be consistent, you would have to find authority in NT to answer the question "what sort of new song are we commanded to sing?"
 
To be consistent, you would have to find authority in NT to answer the question "what sort of new song are we commanded to sing?"

I have - psalms, hymns and spiritual songs - all types represented by the Psalms.

Blessings!
 
I can sing a Psalm, then I can sing a new song - where is simultaneity prescribed or implied?

This is yet another element not provided for in your premise, and if provided would alter the conlusion. Again, you must understand that, in making a formal argument, the terms in the premise must be univocal with the terms as drawn in the conclusion.
 
Call it a semi-formal argument structured with formal argument elements, since it may not fall precisely in line with the formal ruleset. That doesn't invalidate the conclusion, nor imply your exception. Your are stretching in order to validate your false dilemma by introducing a red herring.
 
Call it an informal argument structured with formal argument elements, since it may not fall precisely in line with the formal ruleset.

Hence invalid according to formal rules of logic. My challenge of the argument has served its purpose.
 
P1 New covenant believers are commanded to be taught by as well as sing the Psalms to the Lord
P2 The Psalms teach new songs be sung to the Lord

C1 New covenant believers are commanded to sing new songs as well as sing the Psalms to the Lord
 
Call it an informal argument structured with formal argument elements, since it may not fall precisely in line with the formal ruleset.

Hence invalid according to formal rules of logic. My challenge of the argument has served its purpose.

With all due respect - straining gnats and swallowing camels.

That's the nature of formal logic, my friend; it helps keep us all honest.
 
P1 New covenant believers are commanded to be taught by as well as sing the Psalms to the Lord
P2 The Psalms teach new songs be sung to the Lord

C1 New covenant believers are commanded to sing new songs as well as sing the Psalms to the Lord

Sorry to do this to you, but your minor premise conflates two terms -- teach and sing -- which were used in the major premise. This leaves no way of particularising the argument.
 
Please look at your syllogism again. Whereas your original argument made an equivocation on the word "prescribe" as used in premise and conclusion, this argument nullifies the word "command" between first and second premise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top