"Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs"-- Greeks only

Not open for further replies.

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
"When Little Gregory was reading through the Psalter, and he came to the last one, and he ran to Mommy and said, "I know about David and Goliath! Can we sing this one now? Teach me it!" is that when Mommy, a little embarrased turned to him and said, "Oh son, that one isn't in the Hebrew Psalter! We don't sing it. Just ignore it." ?!?"

No, she would instruct her son responsibly that such a song could be sung at home, but has no place in the Hebrew Canon for the inspired hymnal of the church.

Wouldn't that be the responsible thing for someone to do?

I think 1) you have to determine whether it was in the the Hebrew Psalter, and 2) whether the Jews would have accepted it in the psalter. After that, you can make a solid conclusion as to whether the Jews would have used it in worship, and i think its very obvious. That does not under estimate, though, the value of your question.

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Are there any examples of "all three terms being used together" other than in Eph. and Col.?


Remember also exegetically I just want to remind you that the Colossian 3:16 passage and the Ephesians 5:19 passage was not an order of New Testament Worship. It was an admonition to walk in the spirit. I see these passages referred to as an order of worship set up by Paul according to the EP guys in connection with the LXX. And I don't believe that is the case.

If EP is looking to these passages, the outcome should be that EP should be a continual command and nothing else could ever be sang by Christians. This would be a hard grilled cheese sandwich to swaller. I couldn't sing love songs to a woman then. No good christian could either. The women would have Pauls head.:lol:

I also wanted you to add that one to your list of arguments. Sorry I didn't mention that to you earlier when we discussed this.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by puritancovenanter]

For sake of argument, the non-EP stance owuld lose either way.

If you argue for it as Calvin did to have nothing to do with EP or worship, then you have just taken out your primary text of defense for UH. then you have to deal with the overwhlming attestation of both the entire Reformed and Puritan Heritage for EP as they exegeted the Bible (and remember they kept those verses in there).

If you leave it in, and are not "sure" about its actual meaning (concrete, solid, no guessing, exegetical work that is conclusive about the meaning of the verses) then that also makes you unwise to lean on the side of loseness instead of the analogy of faith, which, without those verses, would lead the church hands down to EP based on James, Matthew, Luke, Romans and Acts alone.

Either way, you decide.


Puritan Board Freshman

Cannot see Gabe in any of this :) Duh!

In a layman's terms what is the crucial point here. Are you not chasing tails? I think the Lord prefers spontentniaty, do you not love it when your wife or child does something that proves their love rather than a set pattern.

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Just a question for those who know greek related to this issue.

How is the dative pneumatikias being used in Eph. 5:19 ( I guess in Col. 3:16 too)? Just trying to figure out the greek grammar a little better.
Not open for further replies.