panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Exactly, and what better way to strive, then to obey the command to sing the PERFECT inspired psalms??
?? where is this command?
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.
Exactly, and what better way to strive, then to obey the command to sing the PERFECT inspired psalms??
and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing:[4] which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those formerways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.[6]
Originally posted by jdlongmire
Exactly, and what better way to strive, then to obey the command to sing the PERFECT inspired psalms??
?? where is this command?
Originally posted by jdlongmire
and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing:[4] which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those formerways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.[6]
This is pertaining to the canon.
Originally posted by jdlongmire
...and if not - every word of worship should be Scripture? forget the creeds?
Originally posted by jdlongmire
no prayer but the Lord's prayer?
Originally posted by jdlongmire
reductio ad absurdum?
Originally posted by jdlongmire
Psalms (old songs) vs. Hymns (old/new songs) vs. spiritual songs (new songs)
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by jdlongmire
Exactly, and what better way to strive, then to obey the command to sing the PERFECT inspired psalms??
?? where is this command?
1Ch 16:9 Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;
Talk of all His wondrous works!
Psa 95:2 Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving;
Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.
Psa 105:2 Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;
Talk of all His wondrous works!
Jam 5:13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms.
The hermenuetic key is that we can only understand how the Word applies to us, after we understand how it applied to the original hearer. The Scriptures were written to specific people at specific times. God was interacting with a particular worldview at the time he revealed himself to men. So in order to understand those verses, we have to, as best as we can, find out what the mindset of the original hearers were, and what they were suppose to learn from God's Word then, and once understanding those principles, then we build from there. Now, in some cases, this isn't difficult because many of our problems are the same as then. But in other areas, this is much more difficult. I think congregational worship is one of those problem areas. We don't have alot to go on, so we have to reconstruct the orignal conditions as best we can before we proceed to the argument of EP vs. non-EP for us today.
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by jdlongmire
Psalms (old songs) vs. Hymns (old/new songs) vs. spiritual songs (new songs)
Most of the hymns today are older than you or I. How can this be considered "new"?
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
No disrespect intended, Jeff, but now when I hear this from the EP side, I just ask, "Well, you tell me, what sort of thing would constitute evidence to you?"
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Typical answer? "That's not my job to tell you, you produce something new. Oh, and by the way, I'll shoot that down too with my magic bullets--see above."
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
ANd not surprisingly, so far, nothing cuts the mustard--no matter how much exegetical or hermeneutical work goes into it. So it really isn't a fair question from the EP side. Why? Because nothing in that vein is capable of moving the EPer from his position anyway. So a convinced EPer should stop asking for it.
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
To show the illegitmacy of this form, let's choose an example that hardly anyone will agree with:
Here's a person who is a convinced "Exclusive Biblical-prayer"--who believes that all the prayers we need are found inscripturated in the Bible, because though the circumstances change, all the prayers of the Bible are adaptable to every human condition; thus to pray something that we don't find already inspired is to question the sufficiency of Scripture. Are there any better prayers to pray than the inspired ones?
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Now it doesn't matter what arguments you bring up to challenge him on this. As soon as you plead "circumstances change" he can bring the exact form of argument used for Exclusive Psalmody to defend his constraints on prayer.
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
And counter's 1) or 2) from above will be the standard response to any evidence you can produce hoping to undermine him. So what if this view is held by only a few, or hardly anyone? That is no more the issue than that EP is a minority position. Look around at the church-at-large. The RPW is minority today--that fact doesn't invalidate it.
Originally posted by jdlongmire
You realize you are being deliberately exclusionary - the whole council of God includes psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...and new song.
Sorry - you are perpetuating a non-Biblical false dichotomy.
-JD
5. "˜That there is, in the New Testament, authority for singing songs composed by men.´ First: we are referred to the fact that Christ and his disciples sung a hymn, Matt. 26:50.
(1.) Let it be proved that the hymn sung by our Savior and the disciples was not one or more of the Psalms of David. It is supposed by the best commentators to have been the great hallel, consisting of the Psalms from the 113th to the 118th inclusive. (2.) Our Savior was better qualified, and had a better right to compose hymns than Dr. Watts, John Wesley, Philip Doddridge, etc. Second: It is argued that Paul enjoins the use of uninspired psalmody when he says, Col. 3:16, `Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs; singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.´ Some argue from the first clause of the verse, `Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom;´ explaining the phrase, `the word of Christ,´ to mean either the whole Bible, or the New Testament; and alleging that the apostle enjoins the use of songs drawn from the whole word of God, or from the New Testament in particular. Answer. "“ (1.) Let it be proved that this expression means either the whole Bible, or the New Testament, and not simply, the principle of the gospel. (2.) Let it be proved that the Apostle enjoins upon the Church to compose songs, drawing the matter of them from what he denominates `the word of Christ.´
Others reason from the use of the three terms, `psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs´ in the latter clause of the verse. Answer. "“ (1.) No good reason can be assigned, why any one of the psalms of inspiration might not, in reference to different aspects under which it may be viewed, be denominated a `psalm, hymn, and spiritual song.´ Such a use of language is not uncommon. God says, Ex. 34:7, `forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin.´ (2.) If these three terms designate three distinct kinds of devotional poetry, let it be proved that the Book of Psalms does not comprise songs of these three different kinds. (3.) The Jews applied the terms psalms, hymns, and songs, indiscriminately to the Book of Psalms. "“ See Josephus, Philo, etc.; and the same may have been done by Paul and the primitive Christians. (4.) In the Septuagint, which was the translation of the Old Testament in use in the days of Paul, some of the psalms are, in their titles, designated psalmos "“ a psalm; others, ode "“ a song; and others, alleluia; which last is a word borrowed from the Hebrew, and when used as a noun in the Greek language, is equivalent to hymnos "“ a hymn. Why may we not suppose the Apostle has allusion, in this verse, to these three terms used in the Septuagint version, as titles of different psalms?
Third: it is inferred from 1 Cor. 14:26 that the Corinthians brought to their assemblies psalms composed by themselves, under a supernatural impulse of the Spirit, and of course not contained in the book of Psalms. Answer. "“ Let it be proved that the Psalms, by the unseasonable utterance of which they disturbed their assemblies, were composed by themselves under an impulse of the Spirit, and not selected from the Book of Psalms.
Originally posted by JohnV
JD:
More specifically, then, do you believe that this hermeneutic approach, posted by Patrick, namely,
The hermenuetic key is that we can only understand how the Word applies to us, after we understand how it applied to the original hearer. The Scriptures were written to specific people at specific times. God was interacting with a particular worldview at the time he revealed himself to men. So in order to understand those verses, we have to, as best as we can, find out what the mindset of the original hearers were, and what they were suppose to learn from God's Word then, and once understanding those principles, then we build from there. Now, in some cases, this isn't difficult because many of our problems are the same as then. But in other areas, this is much more difficult. I think congregational worship is one of those problem areas. We don't have alot to go on, so we have to reconstruct the orignal conditions as best we can before we proceed to the argument of EP vs. non-EP for us today.
is capable of yielding the desired end of either establishing or disestablishing EP?
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by jdlongmire
Psalms (old songs) vs. Hymns (old/new songs) vs. spiritual songs (new songs)
Most of the hymns today are older than you or I. How can this be considered "new"?
*Bump*
Can you answer this question?
Should we be making up new songs every Lord's day?
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by jdlongmire
You realize you are being deliberately exclusionary - the whole council of God includes psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...and new song.
Sorry - you are perpetuating a non-Biblical false dichotomy.
-JD
5. "˜That there is, in the New Testament, authority for singing songs composed by men.´ First: we are referred to the fact that Christ and his disciples sung a hymn, Matt. 26:50.
(1.) Let it be proved ....
How should we reply to such comments as these? First, it should be stated that even if the majority of the Westminster Assembly were exclusive Psalmodists, it does not follow that one is non-confessional if he is not an exclusive Psalmodist. Chapter XXI of the Confession does not denounce the use of inspired or uninspired hymns and songs; it merely refers to the "singing of psalms."
Gordon Clark points out that the word "psalm" originally referred to a tune played on a harp. Thus, when the word is used, it need not be considered as only referring to the inspired Psalms of Scripture. Stephen Pribble agrees. In his A Defense of Hymn-Singing in Worship, he says that Westminster claims that religious worship should include the "singing of psalms," not "the Psalms." Westminster here uses the term "psalms" in the general sense of the word, which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means "any sacred song...sung in religious worship." Perhaps this is why A. A. Hodge, in commenting on this section of the Confession, suggests that we can summarize the statement "singing of psalms," with the phrase "singing of praise."
.....
Jonathan Edwards is an example of an eighteenth century Puritan who, although he roundly endorsed the use of the Psalter, did not restrict himself to it in public worship. In Some 7houghts Concerning the Present Review of Religion in New England, he wrote:
"I am far from thinking that the book of Psalms should be thrown by in our public worship, but that it should always be used in the Christian church until the end of the world: but I know of no obligation we are under to confine ourselves to it. I can find no command or rule of God´s Word, that does any more confine us to the words of Scripture in our singing, than it does in our praying; we speak to God in both.
......
Second, in the Philippians 2:6-11 hymn, the first century church has properly taken the most sacred name of Jesus and incorporated it into a "spiritual song" (verses 9-11). It is a hymn of praise to the Lord Jesus, who, as the divine Kyrios, is the fulfillment of the Yahweh enthronement Psalms (93, 97, 99). The church gladly confesses in song that "Jesus Christ is Lord (Kyrios)." As Jonathan Edwards pointed out, an exclusive Psalmodist can never take the Savior´s name upon his lips in public singing, for the name "Jesus" is not found in the Psalter.
If one follows this theory of the exclusive Psalmodists, the syntax of the verse would require the Psalms and hymns to be specific kinds of "spiritual odes." This is highly unlikely. New Testament scholars such as Hendriksen, Bruce, Calvin, and Lenski maintain (with the translators of the KJV, NKJV, NASV, NIV, and RSV) that the most natural reading of the verse is that "spiritual" modifies only the noun songs (odais). The burden of proof here is on those adopting exclusive Psalmody; they must conclusively show that in Paul´s use of these three terms he limits the church to the use of the Psalter in formal worship. If this cannot be accomplished, then Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 stand as refutations of exclusive Psalmody. I suggest that their exegetical burden is too great to bear. The evidence, at best, is "flimsy."
The present writer is very much in favor of the singing of the metrical psalms, in public (as well as private) worship. The church needs to return to this practice, as a part of the regulative principle. It is a rich privilege, yielding spiritual blessings, to be able to sing the inspired songs of Zion as found in the Psalter. If we wish to learn how to sing "“ and how to pray "“ well, we need to study the Psalms. Gordon Clark is correct when he says that "a hymn book without a good proportion of Psalms is not fit for a church service." Yet, there seems to be no Biblical warrant for us to eliminate altogether the use of other hymns and songs, as long as they are theologically sound. Neither is it non-confessional to do so. The witness of church history is far from convincing us of exclusive Psalmody, and the Biblical evidence overwhelming supports the use of "hymns and spiritual songs," both inspired and otherwise, along with the singing of Psalms.
Originally posted by jdlongmire
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by jdlongmire
Psalms (old songs) vs. Hymns (old/new songs) vs. spiritual songs (new songs)
Most of the hymns today are older than you or I. How can this be considered "new"?
*Bump*
Can you answer this question?
Should we be making up new songs every Lord's day?
Again you create a false dichotomy - it's not yes or no.
Is there Scriptural support for new songs? Yes.
1. I think that in the absence of this verse: "Go ahead and sing songs in public worship that you compose out of biblical materials from anywhere in Holy Writ," this is not a meaningful request. Appeals to Eph 5 or Col 3 are pre-excluded from being "clear" (by EP, but not by non-EP).Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
1. A clear command from scripture.Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
"Well, you tell me, what sort of thing would constitute evidence to you?"
2. Apostolic example.
3. Deductive argument from scripture (emphasis on deductive)
A couple years ago at a GPTS conference, Brian Schwertley debated Ben Shaw on EP. It wasn't a fireworks show by any means, but the issue was aired. EP proponents there lapped up Schwertley, the other side liked Shaw. No one's mind was changed. But anything new Schwertley hadn't heard before, he just ducked Shaw the whole time. "Your appeal is in the Bible, and therefore it's Scriptural, and therefore it really just helps my position since my position is more Scriptural than yours." What a waste of time. So no, I'm not impressed with this line of apologetic.Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Maybe I'm wrong Bruce, but isn't this simply apologetics? I guess I'm not seeing the invalidity of the method of argumentation.Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Typical answer? "That's not my job to tell you, you produce something new. Oh, and by the way, I'll shoot that down too with my magic bullets--see above."
Obviously I disagree with you, starting at the beginning with the "clear command." I think Eph 5 and Col 3 are abundantly clear. But the point of my post isn't even to argue for the non-EP side. My point is that as soon as someone attempts to cite Scripture to provide that "Scriptural command or example," the response I've heard is, "Ah, but you're taking that from the Bible, which is a reliance on the RPW, which just reinforces my position, because EP is the MOST RPW! Ha ha! You lose!"Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
So is this admitting that there is no clear command/example/logical argument that can uphold UH? I don't think that this is what you are saying...can you clarify?Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
ANd not surprisingly, so far, nothing cuts the mustard--no matter how much exegetical or hermeneutical work goes into it. So it really isn't a fair question from the EP side. Why? Because nothing in that vein is capable of moving the EPer from his position anyway. So a convinced EPer should stop asking for it.
I'm not using the "prayer" argument (or the "preaching"argument) to argue against EP. I'm not even arguing against EP at all right now, even though I don't agree with it! I am objecting to a line of argumentation that EPers would object to, and rightfully so, if it were used against them. And if you find it objectionable, then you ought to carefully frame your own arguments so that your manner of argument is not itself subject to this criticism.Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
The uninspired prayer objection and the uninspired preaching arguments are guaranteed to be brought up in this debate, but I don't think that these arguments hold any weight and have been satisfactorily explained by the proponents of EP.Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
To show the illegitmacy of this form, let's choose an example that hardly anyone will agree with:
Here's a person who is a convinced "Exclusive Biblical-prayer"--who believes that all the prayers we need are found inscripturated in the Bible, because though the circumstances change, all the prayers of the Bible are adaptable to every human condition; thus to pray something that we don't find already inspired is to question the sufficiency of Scripture. Are there any better prayers to pray than the inspired ones?I don't believe that this is true at all!Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Now it doesn't matter what arguments you bring up to challenge him on this. As soon as you plead "circumstances change" he can bring the exact form of argument used for Exclusive Psalmody to defend his constraints on prayer.
We have been given a spirit of prayer, an ordained office to preach..but where is our God given help in song?
We have nothing in scripture that says God will bless man in his composition of uninspired hymns in worship.
Isn't this what the RPW is all about? What worship will God bless? Will he bless the "sacrament" of pizza and pepsi? How far can we use our imagination and expect God's blessing on our worship?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If this style of argumentation is patently offensive (and I sure think it is) on account of its attributing a false ignorance of a key point of doctrine to one's erstwhile allies, then it ought not be used.from the "fake advocate of EB-p"
Where in Scripture are we taught that we can simply rattle off something uninspired in prayer? GIVE ME A CLEAR SCRIPTURE COMMAND! We have short prayers, long prayers, joyful prayers, penitential prayers, doctrinal prayers, doxological prayers, a Model Prayer, etc. The Bible is full of prayers, and every one of them is inspired. Jesus' words in the most literal sense mean that we should not just pray "like" he told us, but exactly what he told us.
And of course, since he inspired all of Scripture, that may be expandable to include all the rest of the Prayers of Scripture. Why isn't there a "book of prayers" that we must be restricted to, if this is what is meant? Well, since there isn't one, the most obvious reason is that we were meant to use the whole Bible as prayer-book, and not simply one prayer ONLY, like the Lord's Prayer. Do you really think that God didn't give you the words he most wanted you to use to pray to him? We have nothing in Scripture that says God will bless man in his composition of uninspired PRAYERS in worship.
And as soon as you bring up any instance of biblical example of "uninspired prayer", I'll just use the "Brian Schwertley" move and point out that HA HA! your example is inspired prayer! Its IN the Bible!
If you don't agree with me, then you aren't really committed to the RPW! Do you even know what it says? "How far can we use our imagination and expect God's blessing on our worship?"
My question was...how can you consider a hymn which is older than you or I to be "new?"
Do you not have an answer, or are you arbitrarily defining "new"?
It seems that if you want to use the command to sing "new" songs to refer to the hymns of our fathers, you have to concede at least partially to MY definition of "new."
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
And we've got to have honesty in how we offer categories for "falsification" of our respective positions. If we are immovable, let's not pretend that our "mind's are open."
So the challenge is still before you, if you are willing to examine yourselves and grow with your brethren.