Question on EP

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Why does no one want to discuss the Revelation 5 passage? It seems very pertinent to the whole issue.:scholar:
1. For my own part, I would like to know how Revelation 5 gives authority to compose and sing uninspired songs in worship. I have read various pamphlets and posts relying upon that text, but not one made a logical deduction from that text to the conclusion that non-canonical songs should be employed in praising God (since this is, by all appearances, an inspired, canonical song).

2. I do not believe that the book of Revelation provides us with either precept or example for how we are to conduct our worship on this earth, in this dispensation; and the appeal to a passage dealing, not with ecclesiology, but with eschatology, simply shows the paucity of argument being employed.

3. Is there any record that the early Christians, following the time of the writing of John's Apocalypse, actually sang this song? Or did they, with all other Christians, simply regard it as an integral part of the Revelation, and not obliging our singing thereof?

4. God has approved particular songs (the Psalms) to be sung in His regular worship. But all "extraordinary" acts of worship which involve songs outside the Psalter were approved by God for those particular occasions. They fulfill a particular purpose (usually at some turning point in redemptive history); that purpose is not the regular continual praise of the Church.

5. Let us assume, for a moment, that this song should be sung, and that exclusive psalmody is therefore false (since this song, which does not appear in the Psalter, should also be sung). We will have then actually confirmed a major point in the argument for exclusive psalmody, viz. that God appoints the particular songs that are to be used in His worship, and has not given a broad approval for us to compose and sing whatever songs we choose, as long as they are theologically accurate. This would therefore confirm our most basic position (particular songs are appointed), and overthrow your most basic position (particular songs are not appointed), even if our "larger" position of singing only the Psalms were overthrown.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Originally posted by puritansailor
Would the Apostle's Creed be considered an inspired song? If not then Calvin didn't hold to "inspired only" either. In the Genevan liturgy the Apostle's Creed was sung.
As I recall, Bushell explained that in the last chapter of his book. At that time, many still regarded the Apostles Creed as having been actually written by the Apostles (the "Twelve Articles" having been each written by the Twelve). Hence, being authored by the Apostles would give it Apostolic authority.
Calvin didn't believe this though if I remember right. That was more an earlier myth of Roman Catholicism.

Originally posted by puritansailor
It was page 14 by the way where Bushell acknowledges that "psalms" may refer to compositions outside the Book of Psalms as we have it. He then assumes in the next sentence or two that these compositions were inspired. His reasoning of course was that only inspired songs were approved for worship, the point he is suppose to be proving....

As to "sufficiency" I have no disagreement with him that the Psalms are adequate and sufficient for worship. But where is the connection to all-sufficient for worship? I think that link is lacking in the argument. He basically concludes the chapter saying, because the psalms are so great for worship, why do we need anything else? But that is not an argument. That is an assumption. Just because the psalms are adequate for worship doesn't exlude the possibility for new compositions. The Continental Reformers and several of the British Reformers, though having high views of the psalms, never made the leap to exclusivity.

And how is a theologically correct (though uninspired) song a product of human imagination?

[Edited on 5-2-2006 by puritansailor]
But the singing of Psalms has been regarded as parallel to the reading of Scripture (by the historic Reformed, anyway), since they were singing from the inspired text.
How can singing psalms be considered "reading Scripture" when they were all paraphrases back then? I would like to see some evidence regarding that "historic" position.

You may as well ask, "Where do you make the leap of 'sufficiency' of Scripture to the 'sole sufficiency' of Scripture? This doesn't exclude the possibility of new books." I'm not trying to present a straw-man, or belittle your position; but you should understand that this is how it looks from the exclusive psalmody position. If the Bible-songs are not sufficient, and may be supplemented by uninspired compositions; why should we conclude that the Bible itself is sufficient, and not to be supplemented by uninspired books?

The sufficiency of Scripture does not nullify the need for preaching and teaching the Scripture. Just because we have a finished Bible doesn't mean I understand it.

Regarding the psalms, I noted how Bushell even admitted that "psalms" in the OT can refer to other psalms which are not in the finished Canon. He just assumes they are inspired. It is an argument from silence. Either way, that can certainly be grounds to argue that both the inspired psalms and some other songs are "adequate" or even commanded. Hence the idea of EP even in the OT seems questionable.

But still, that doesn't answer the question of sufficiency vs. all-sufficency. Even if we are to equate sufficiency with inspiration, that still doesn't nullify the need to explain the psalms with more instructive songs (just as preaching doesn't deny the sufficency of Scripture). The Scriptures are the complete revelation of God but they still require explanation.

The psalms command us to praise God for who He is and what He has done for His people. I think we all would agree that the superior self-disclosure of God and what he has done is revealed in the NT. If we are to praise God for who he is, as the psalms command, then why can't we do that using terms of the Trinity? How about the cross? Union with Christ? The Incarnation? All these are clearer revelations that we are suppose to praise God for. So I can certainly agree that the psalms are adequate to worship God (just like reading Scripture), but I can also see that they can be built upon in order to further explain the truths they praise God for. We have only a shadow of imputation in the psalms. But why not a song explaining that psalm reference further? We have shadows of the resurrection in the psalms. Why not expand upon that with the NT light? Would this not be a possible meaning to Paul calling us to "teach and admonish" one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs? Doesn't teaching and admonishing require more than recitation?

You would not call faithful preaching a product of human imagination would you? How is singing in more detail about God's self-disclosure in the Psalms a product of human imagination? Why are psalm paraphrases not a product of human imagination?

[Edited on 5-4-2006 by puritansailor]
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by puritansailor
Calvin didn't believe this though if I remember right. That was more an earlier myth of Roman Catholicism.
Now we're both going off memory. In any case, Calvin sang predominantly Psalms, a few inspired songs, and the Apostles Creed (which we're now trying to remember if he held to its Apostolic authority or not). He did not believe in exclusive psalmody, but certainly believed that Psalms should have the primacy -- which does not occur when uninspired hymns are introduced at large in worship. Even though certain Dutch Reformed churches, following Article 69 of the Dordt Church Order, sing a few songs other than the Psalms, I definitely prefer their position over the en masse uninspired hymnody of other churches.
Originally posted by puritansailor
How can singing psalms be considered "reading Scripture" when they were all paraphrases back then? I would like to see some evidence regarding that "historic" position.
You consider them "paraphrases"; they considered them to be translations. They never, as far as I know, advocated the singing of "paraphrases," but the singing of "Psalms." From Calvin onward, they spoke of the singing of "Psalms," not "Psalm-paraphrases that aren't really Psalms." Just look at the attention that was paid to creating an accurate translation in "The Psalms of David in Metre."
Preface to "The Psalms of David in Metre," 1673 ed.
Now though spiritual songs of mere human composure may have their use, yet our devotion is best secured, where the matter and words are of immediately Divine inspiration; and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, which the Apostle useth, Ephes. 5.19, Col. 3.16. But then 'tis meet that these Divine composures should be represented to us in a fit translation, lest we want David, in David; while his holy ecstasies are delivered in a flat and bald expression. The translation which is now put into thy hands cometh nearest to the Original of any that we have seen, and runneth with such a fluent sweetness, that we thought fit to recommend it to thy Christian acceptance; Some of us having used it already, with great comfort and satisfaction.
The preface was signed by numerous Puritan luminaries, including Thomas Manton, John Owen, William Jenkyn, Thomas Watson, Thomas Lye, Matthew Poole, Matthew Meade, Thomas Dooelittle, Thomas Vincent, Edmund Calamy, William Carslake, James Janeway, and Richard Mayo. As can be seen, they considered themselves to be singing "Psalms," not "paraphrases"; they considered it to be a "translation," not a "paraphrase"; and they particularly contrasted songs where "the matter and words are of immediately Divine inspiration," with "spiritual songs of mere human composure."
Originally posted by puritansailor
The sufficiency of Scripture does not nullify the need for preaching and teaching the Scripture. Just because we have a finished Bible doesn't mean I understand it.
Understood. And this is why, historically, the Psalms would be expounded or explained before sung. Your preaching does not add books to the Bible; why should our explanation of them add Psalms to the Psalter?
Originally posted by puritansailor
Regarding the psalms, I noted how Bushell even admitted that "psalms" in the OT can refer to other psalms which are not in the finished Canon. He just assumes they are inspired. It is an argument from silence. Either way, that can certainly be grounds to argue that both the inspired psalms and some other songs are "adequate" or even commanded. Hence the idea of EP even in the OT seems questionable.
I only had time to glance at Bushell last night, but I'm not sure that you were citing him fairly, or considering the context within which he was writing. Hopefully, I'll have more time this afternoon or evening to examine it more carefully.
Originally posted by puritansailor
But still, that doesn't answer the question of sufficiency vs. all-sufficency. Even if we are to equate sufficiency with inspiration, that still doesn't nullify the need to explain the psalms with more instructive songs (just as preaching doesn't deny the sufficency of Scripture). The Scriptures are the complete revelation of God but they still require explanation.
And that means that just as Scripture can be explained, but not added to; likewise the Psalms can be explained, but not added to.
Originally posted by puritansailor
The psalms command us to praise God for who He is and what He has done for His people. I think we all would agree that the superior self-disclosure of God and what he has done is revealed in the NT. If we are to praise God for who he is, as the psalms command, then why can't we do that using terms of the Trinity? How about the cross? Union with Christ? The Incarnation? All these are clearer revelations that we are suppose to praise God for. So I can certainly agree that the psalms are adequate to worship God (just like reading Scripture), but I can also see that they can be built upon in order to further explain the truths they praise God for. We have only a shadow of imputation in the psalms. But why not a song explaining that psalm reference further? We have shadows of the resurrection in the psalms. Why not expand upon that with the NT light? Would this not be a possible meaning to Paul calling us to "teach and admonish" one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs? Doesn't teaching and admonishing require more than recitation?
1. I understand the argument from the greater revelation of the New Testament. But it is a stretch to argue from that greater revelation, that the inspired, authorized songs of the Old Testament are to be supplemented by uninspired, unauthorized songs of the New Testament. The one does not logically follow from the other.

2. Do we have any evidence that the early church (especially under the Apostles) sang the kind of songs you are describing? Or did they just continue singing Psalms, without composing any new songs for worship? And note, I said evidence, not conjecture about "hymn fragments," or what they might have sung.

3. All arguing for the use of uninspired hymns based upon redemptive history ignores what is required: particular appointment of the songs to be sung, as we find in the case of the Psalms. When God appointed the Psalms particularly to be sung, He showed that His regulating authority extends to the particular songs that are sung to His praise. In order to maintain your position (the only regulation concerns theological accuracy, as in all other kinds of speech), you must show that He has, for some reason, relaxed that regulation under the New Testament, which formerly existed under the Old.
Originally posted by puritansailor
You would not call faithful preaching a product of human imagination would you? How is singing in more detail about God's self-disclosure in the Psalms a product of human imagination? Why are psalm paraphrases not a product of human imagination?
Let's not get hung up on the phrase "product of human imagination." My question is, Is it inspired? Is it canonical? The best of preaching may be in error; a sermon and the inspired text are worlds apart. The Puritan position was that the Scripture read is more accurate and authoritative, but the Scripture preached is more effectual. And with the Reformers and Puritans, I sing "Psalms," not "paraphrases." I do not sing the words of Isaac Watts and Augustus Toplady set to music; I sing the Word of God set to music. As in the case of the text of a sermon and the text of Scripture, the two are worlds apart.
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
1. For my own part, I would like to know how Revelation 5 gives authority to compose and sing uninspired songs in worship. I have read various pamphlets and posts relying upon that text, but not one made a logical deduction from that text to the conclusion that non-canonical songs should be employed in praising God (since this is, by all appearances, an inspired, canonical song).
Your use of "inspired" and "canonical" troubles me. These are not synonyms. Nor does "inspired" apply to what we are singing, even if we are singing the Psalms. Inspiration applies to the autographs only. I'm sure you know that and what you mean is we ought to sing the Scriptures only.

Your comment goes back to my point that EP'ers treat singing as an element in a way that is totally different than the other elements.

2. I do not believe that the book of Revelation provides us with either precept or example for how we are to conduct our worship on this earth, in this dispensation; and the appeal to a passage dealing, not with ecclesiology, but with eschatology, simply shows the paucity of argument being employed.
If it seems a poor arguement, it is because you haven't thought about the implications enough. The song the saints sing in Rev. 5 is called a hode, translated "hymn" in Eph. and Col., prooftexts that EP'ers use to find their "command" to sing Psalms exclusively. If the Rev. 5 song is not a Psalm (and it isn't) then the passage becomes highly relevant to the discussion. Being dismissive won't make it go away.

3. Is there any record that the early Christians, following the time of the writing of John's Apocalypse, actually sang this song? Or did they, with all other Christians, simply regard it as an integral part of the Revelation, and not obliging our singing thereof?
We don't know for sure what was sung, but we do know that hymnody was a very EARLY development in the church, as attested by Pliny...and just as cavalierly dismissed by EP'ers.

5. Let us assume, for a moment, that this song should be sung, and that exclusive psalmody is therefore false (since this song, which does not appear in the Psalter, should also be sung). We will have then actually confirmed a major point in the argument for exclusive psalmody, viz. that God appoints the particular songs that are to be used in His worship, and has not given a broad approval for us to compose and sing whatever songs we choose, as long as they are theologically accurate. This would therefore confirm our most basic position (particular songs are appointed), and overthrow your most basic position (particular songs are not appointed), even if our "larger" position of singing only the Psalms were overthrown.
That's your response: "I'm right...and even if I'm wrong, I'm right???"

Another challenge that EP'ers don't own up to is this: while they correctly hold that the words translated "psalms, hymns, and spirttual songs" appear in the headings of many of the Psalms, they ignore the fact that many of those headings instruct the Psalm to be sung to a particular tune. Those tunes are lost. So here is the conundrum: If the headings are part of the original, then the tunes are inspired and must, according to the RPW, be sung. We don't have them, so we can't. If the headings are NOT inspired, then you cannot appeal to them as a proof for EP when comparing them to Paul's commands, unless you want to argue purely on the basis of tradition. If that is so, we might as well all just be Roman Catholics.

[Edited on 5-4-2006 by kevin.carroll]
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Just out of curiosity, Do any other defenders of exclusive psalmody feel like entering the fray? I feel kind of alone out here...
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
It\'s as simple as this;

If one wishes to use Rev. 5 to support UH, then they should have no problem with the person who appeals to Revelation to support inscense in worship, slain lambs and all the rest.

I for one and unwilling to accept this.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
1. For my own part, I would like to know how Revelation 5 gives authority to compose and sing uninspired songs in worship. I have read various pamphlets and posts relying upon that text, but not one made a logical deduction from that text to the conclusion that non-canonical songs should be employed in praising God (since this is, by all appearances, an inspired, canonical song).
Your use of "inspired" and "canonical" troubles me. These are not synonyms. Nor does "inspired" apply to what we are singing, even if we are singing the Psalms. Inspiration applies to the autographs only. I'm sure you know that and what you mean is we ought to sing the Scriptures only.

Your comment goes back to my point that EP'ers treat singing as an element in a way that is totally different than the other elements.
1. Actually, as I have said repeatedly on this thread, we treat the content of song in worship in a way remarkably similar to the element of reading of Scripture. Prayer, preaching, singing, and reading are all distinct elements, with their own distinct requirements. But it seems that, when considering this subject, hymn-singers forget that reading of Scripture is also a distinct element of worship (prayer and preaching are the only others that get mentioned).

2. Your comment fails to deal with my objection in any substantial way. It amounts to, "See! We have a canonical song outside the Psalter! Ergo, we should sing non-canonical songs!" If you cannot draw any premise from this text other than the idea that we should sing songs other than the Psalms, you still have a long ways to go.

3. Your comments on "inspiration" vs. "canonicity" ignore what I have already posted on this thread on that subject, specifically in response to your assertions. If the Apostle could say "the Holy Ghost said," and then quote a translation, how is that significantly different from referring to an accurate translation of the Scriptures as "inspired"?

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
2. I do not believe that the book of Revelation provides us with either precept or example for how we are to conduct our worship on this earth, in this dispensation; and the appeal to a passage dealing, not with ecclesiology, but with eschatology, simply shows the paucity of argument being employed.
If it seems a poor arguement, it is because you haven't thought about the implications enough. The song the saints sing in Rev. 5 is called a hode, translated "hymn" in Eph. and Col., prooftexts that EP'ers use to find their "command" to sing Psalms exclusively. If the Rev. 5 song is not a Psalm (and it isn't) then the passage becomes highly relevant to the discussion. Being dismissive won't make it go away.
1. The word is not hode: in Rev. 5:9 it is oden, in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 it is odais; and it translates as "songs" in the Eph./Col. passages, not "hymn."

2. Explain the relevancy; don't simply assert that it is relevant.

3. As I said before, exclusive psalmody does not rest on identifying those terms, wherever they are found in Greek, as referring to the Psalter. Hence, you are doing battle with a straw-man.

4. You fail to actually deal with my point, viz. the poorness of an argument that must assume Rev. 5 is presenting us with what should be done in a worship service.

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
3. Is there any record that the early Christians, following the time of the writing of John's Apocalypse, actually sang this song? Or did they, with all other Christians, simply regard it as an integral part of the Revelation, and not obliging our singing thereof?
We don't know for sure what was sung, but we do know that hymnody was a very EARLY development in the church, as attested by Pliny...and just as cavalierly dismissed by EP'ers.
1. We know that the Psalms were sung. That is rather clear from the history of that period. Why don't we have any hymns surviving from that period? Why don't we have any record of anyone ever singing this as a song, until the post-Reformation period of hymnody?

2. So you're going to rely upon the testimony of a pagan relying upon the hearsay of apostates (and that not even a clear testimony), forcing you to the assumption that the Psalms are not sung in honor of Christ as God, in order to assert something you can't actually argue from the text of Scripture?

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
5. Let us assume, for a moment, that this song should be sung, and that exclusive psalmody is therefore false (since this song, which does not appear in the Psalter, should also be sung). We will have then actually confirmed a major point in the argument for exclusive psalmody, viz. that God appoints the particular songs that are to be used in His worship, and has not given a broad approval for us to compose and sing whatever songs we choose, as long as they are theologically accurate. This would therefore confirm our most basic position (particular songs are appointed), and overthrow your most basic position (particular songs are not appointed), even if our "larger" position of singing only the Psalms were overthrown.
That's your response: "I'm right...and even if I'm wrong, I'm right???"
Et tu? That's your response? I've been asserting for a while now that the most basic difference between Psalm-singers and hymn-singers is that hymn-singers believe God's regulation of song in worship only applies to the theological content, whereas we believe that it applies to which particular songs are sung. I would point to the particular appointment of the Psalms to be sung (in the OT, so ignore the Eph. and Col. passages for a second) as confirmation of this. If another song is particularly appointed in the NT to be sung, this shows that particular songs must still be appointed.

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Another challenge that EP'ers don't own up to is this: while they correctly hold that the words translated "psalms, hymns, and spirttual songs" appear in the headings of many of the Psalms, they ignore the fact that many of those headings instruct the Psalm to be sung to a particular tune. Those tunes are lost. So here is the conundrum: If the headings are part of the original, then the tunes are inspired and must, according to the RPW, be sung. We don't have them, so we can't. If the headings are NOT inspired, then you cannot appeal to them as a proof for EP when comparing them to Paul's commands, unless you want to argue purely on the basis of tradition. If that is so, we might as well all just be Roman Catholics.

[Edited on 5-4-2006 by kevin.carroll]
"If the headings are part of the original, then the tunes are inspired..." doesn't follow. I assert that tunes are not inspired.

1. Words are inspired, not tunes.

2. Books can get mentioned or even quoted in Scripture without them being inspired. See especially the OT histories and the book of Jude.

3. "Those tunes are lost." If the tunes are that essential to the singing of those Psalms, God would not have allowed them to be lost by His providence.

4. Your argument would lead, not to arguing against exclusive psalmody, but against psalmody. Unless you're saying that the titles are not part of the original (but then, I don't know that we have any texts without those titles).

5. As I said before, I know that the AV does not make mention of tunes in the Psalm titles; and John Brown of Haddington (poss. other commentators?) regarded them as referring to the content of the Psalms. Everyone seems to be regarding it as an assumed fact that the Psalms are mentioning tunes in the titles. I would like some proof of that.

Tell you what, Kevin... That's a lot of different items to cover. How about you pick one particular objection to exclusive psalmody, instead of your original four point argument that I replied to with ten points, and then you ask about Rev. 5, and I answer, and you respond bringing up a whole bunch of extraneous stuff, etc. etc. Let's look at one particular text, or one particular argument, or something, and we can beat that one to death.
:deadhorse::banana::banana::deadhorse::banana::banana::deadhorse:

[Edited on 5-4-2006 by Kaalvenist]
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Just out of curiosity, Do any other defenders of exclusive psalmody feel like entering the fray? I feel kind of alone out here...
:lol: Probably not. We've been through this numerous times on the PB.

BTW, I notice you are in Ft. Carson. I lived in CS many years, and just out of the for too.

Where do you worship?
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Just out of curiosity, Do any other defenders of exclusive psalmody feel like entering the fray? I feel kind of alone out here...
:lol: Probably not. We've been through this numerous times on the PB.

BTW, I notice you are in Ft. Carson. I lived in CS many years, and just out of the for too.

Where do you worship?
I am a communicant member of Springs Reformed Church, part of the Midwest Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (Psalms Only, baby!). We meet at 229 S. Weber. (If you don't remember where Weber is, if you're going north on Nevada from the 140 exit off I-25, Tejon runs parallel on your left; and Weber runs parallel on your right. The building is on the corner of Weber and Vermijo; Vermijo is the street with all the government buildings downtown, like the DMV, etc.)
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Tell you what, Kevin... That's a lot of different items to cover. How about you pick one particular objection to exclusive psalmody, instead of your original four point argument that I replied to with ten points, and then you ask about Rev. 5, and I answer, and you respond bringing up a whole bunch of extraneous stuff, etc. etc. Let's look at one particular text, or one particular argument, or something, and we can beat that one to death.
:deadhorse::banana::banana::deadhorse::banana::banana::deadhorse:

[Edited on 5-4-2006 by Kaalvenist]
Well I had written a point by point rebuttal and my pc died. I don't have the strength to do it again. So, let's take your suggestion.

Here is the question.

Show me the verse that says sing the Psalms only.

Cause you can't. You have to import things into the text to do so. And therein is the heart of the diasgreement. Although, ironically, I agree that the Psalms should be sung!
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
On second thought I would like to circle back on one point:

2. So you're going to rely upon the testimony of a pagan relying upon the hearsay of apostates (and that not even a clear testimony), forcing you to the assumption that the Psalms are not sung in honor of Christ as God, in order to assert something you can't actually argue from the text of Scripture?
Ad hominem. You don't really think that only Christian's tell the truth do you?

As a personal aside, I see you live in Ft. Carson. I did much of my growing up in Cs and most recently lived outside of the Fort.
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
I am a communicant member of Springs Reformed Church, part of the Midwest Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (Psalms Only, baby!). We meet at 229 S. Weber. (If you don't remember where Weber is, if you're going north on Nevada from the 140 exit off I-25, Tejon runs parallel on your left; and Weber runs parallel on your right. The building is on the corner of Weber and Vermijo; Vermijo is the street with all the government buildings downtown, like the DMV, etc.) [/quote]

Yeah, I know it well. Is it hard to get a suit on over all that body armor you have to wear over there? ;)
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
On second thought I would like to circle back on one point:

2. So you're going to rely upon the testimony of a pagan relying upon the hearsay of apostates (and that not even a clear testimony), forcing you to the assumption that the Psalms are not sung in honor of Christ as God, in order to assert something you can't actually argue from the text of Scripture?
Ad hominem. You don't really think that only Christian's tell the truth do you?
I know, I know. I couldn't resist. (Actually I could have, but I didn't want to.)

But if you would like to focus upon the pertinent section of Pliny's letter to Trajan, I have no problem with that. We can both present our arguments based upon the text, and then examine each other's arguments. Focusing our attention on one particular of the issue could definitely be an improvement over our heretofore pursued "scattergun" method.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Here is the question.

Show me the verse that says sing the Psalms only.

Cause you can't. You have to import things into the text to do so. And therein is the heart of the diasgreement. Although, ironically, I agree that the Psalms should be sung!
:ditto:

This is the crux of the argument. In order for EP to be an element of worship it must be explicit.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
:down: Doesn't need to. Fundamental misunderstanding of the regulative principle. EP is not an element of worship, it is a negative statement about what singing is not. All EP is saying is that we dont sing uninspired hymns.

Where's the verse that says only to have preaching from the pulpit to the exclusion of 'drama teaching'? In order for Exclusive Preaching to be an element do you need an "explicit command"?
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Here is the question.

Show me the verse that says sing the Psalms only.

Cause you can't. You have to import things into the text to do so. And therein is the heart of the diasgreement. Although, ironically, I agree that the Psalms should be sung!
:ditto:

This is the crux of the argument. In order for EP to be an element of worship it must be explicit.
Nope. I am simply saying, with the Westminster Confession of Faith (21.5), that "singing of psalms with grace in the heart" is an element of worship. I simply reject the view that the singing of uninspired hymns is an element of worship.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Peter
:down: Doesn't need to. Fundamental misunderstanding of the regulative principle. EP is not an element of worship, it is a negative statement about what singing is not. All EP is saying is that we dont sing uninspired hymns.

Where's the verse that says only to have preaching from the pulpit to the exclusion of 'drama teaching'? In order for Exclusive Preaching to be an element do you need an "explicit command"?
Actually yes, you do need an explicit command for exclusive preaching and we have plenty. Plus, preaching is a well defined term with clear exegetical meanings and contexts. The same with prayer. But none clarifying the content of song. Psalms, hymns and songs, in both Greek and Hebrew, have broader usage than just the book of Psalms.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Here is the question.

Show me the verse that says sing the Psalms only.

Cause you can't. You have to import things into the text to do so. And therein is the heart of the diasgreement. Although, ironically, I agree that the Psalms should be sung!
:ditto:


This is the crux of the argument. In order for EP to be an element of worship it must be explicit.
Nope. I am simply saying, with the Westminster Confession of Faith (21.5), that "singing of psalms with grace in the heart" is an element of worship. I simply reject the view that the singing of uninspired hymns is an element of worship.
Where does the Scriptures say that though? You are assuming (with the WCF) that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" only refer to the book of Psalms. Where does the Bible ever say that?

[Edited on 5-5-2006 by puritansailor]
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
If one wishes to use Rev. 5 to support UH, then they should have no problem with the person who appeals to Revelation to support inscense in worship, slain lambs and all the rest.

I for one and unwilling to accept this.
While that is a false analogy (and we both know it!), one could argue quite convincingly, that the singining of Psalms was tied to OT ceremonial worship...
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
On second thought I would like to circle back on one point:

2. So you're going to rely upon the testimony of a pagan relying upon the hearsay of apostates (and that not even a clear testimony), forcing you to the assumption that the Psalms are not sung in honor of Christ as God, in order to assert something you can't actually argue from the text of Scripture?
Ad hominem. You don't really think that only Christian's tell the truth do you?
But if you would like to focus upon the pertinent section of Pliny's letter to Trajan, I have no problem with that. We can both present our arguments based upon the text, and then examine each other's arguments. Focusing our attention on one particular of the issue could definitely be an improvement over our heretofore pursued "scattergun" method.
Agreed. :handshake:

Hey do you have a ruling elder named Pete...big, bearded guy?
I know, I know. I couldn't resist. (Actually I could have, but I didn't want to.)

[Edited on 5-5-2006 by kevin.carroll]
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Peter
:down: Doesn't need to. Fundamental misunderstanding of the regulative principle. EP is not an element of worship, it is a negative statement about what singing is not. All EP is saying is that we dont sing uninspired hymns.

Where's the verse that says only to have preaching from the pulpit to the exclusion of 'drama teaching'? In order for Exclusive Preaching to be an element do you need an "explicit command"?
Actually yes, you do need an explicit command for exclusive preaching and we have plenty. Plus, preaching is a well defined term with clear exegetical meanings and contexts. The same with prayer. But none clarifying the content of song. Psalms, hymns and songs, in both Greek and Hebrew, have broader usage than just the book of Psalms.
This type of argumentation reminds me of the Catholic objections to Sola Fide and sola scriptura.

"There is no explicit command to use scripture alone..."

"There is no explicit scripture that says salvation is by fath alone..."

Just an observation...nothing more.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
If one wishes to use Rev. 5 to support UH, then they should have no problem with the person who appeals to Revelation to support inscense in worship, slain lambs and all the rest.

I for one and unwilling to accept this.
While that is a false analogy (and we both know it!), one could argue quite convincingly, that the singining of Psalms was tied to OT ceremonial worship...
Convincingly?
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Actually yes, you do need an explicit command for exclusive preaching and we have plenty. Plus, preaching is a well defined term with clear exegetical meanings and contexts. The same with prayer. But none clarifying the content of song. Psalms, hymns and songs, in both Greek and Hebrew, have broader usage than just the book of Psalms.
I would like to see a verse in the bible that explicitly states that the Preaching of the word (expounding, reasoning, applying) is the means of teaching to the exclusion of drama and all other such practices. I dont think there is any and I dont think we need any. We don't need an explicit command for Exclusive Preaching because it is not the positive institution of a new ordinance in worship, it is merely a statement of what is not in worship. Exclusive Preaching is true b.c. there is no command for drama or any other innovations. The same holds true for Exclusive Psalmody. EP is not an ordinance we are proposing to add to worship, it is the proposition that we exclude certain elements from worship. EP is true b/c there is no command for uninspired hymns.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
To require an explicit "sola" for every element of worhip is nothing more than the NPW. If there was a "sola" for every element, there would be no division between NPW and RPW, for they would be the same.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Exactly, but the Normative Principle is being advanced behind the language of the RPW. They say it like this, "The RPW requires a command, there is no command for non-X, therefore non-X is false and X is true" this is the reverse of the RPW and it makes the RPW the NPW.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
To require an explicit "sola" for every element of worhip is nothing more than the NPW. If there was a "sola" for every element, there would be no division between NPW and RPW, for they would be the same.
I'm not looking necessarily for a "sola" or "monos". Preaching is clearly defined in the NT both by the greek words used to describe it, and by the examples we have of it. There is no room in the historical usage for "drama." The same with prayer. The element is clearly defined by historical usage and illustrations in context.

But we have no such clarification of the NT using the "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" as a reference to only the psalms. Even the OT usage didn't always limit the terms to the book of Psalms. If it was such an important element of worship, then it would have to be clarified beyond just singing edifying types of songs in general (i.e. the normal Greek usage of the words). The word usage is broader than the book of Psalms and even Paul knew that. Where does the NT (or OT) teach that psalms, hymns, and songs refers only to the book of Psalms?

I'm not using the NPW. That is a strawman. I'm not trying to slip in something not forbidden. I'm asking something fairly simple. In order to make it an element, it must be a clear command. Where is that command? EP makes the assertion that only the Psalms are commanded for singing as an element of worship. Now prove it. Show me the command.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by puritansailor
I'm not using the NPW. That is a strawman. I'm not trying to slip in something not forbidden. I'm asking something fairly simple. In order to make it an element, it must be a clear command. Where is that command? EP makes the assertion that only the Psalms are commanded for singing as an element of worship. Now prove it. Show me the command.
You are asking us to demonstrate from the Scriptures (in one particular text, no less) that God commands that we sing nothing but Psalms.

But in this, you are assuming that we have the prerogative to make and sing our own uninspired songs in God's worship, without demonstrating from Scripture any such right; whereas we are assuming that God has commanded particular songs (the Psalms) to be sung, which you agree to, and are simply requesting your authority from Scripture to add your non-canonical songs to the songs of the Psalter. Our position is that the Psalms should be sung (you agree). Your position is that other songs should also be sung (we disagree). If yours is the contested position, the burden of proof rests upon you. We don't have to show that God has explicitly forbidden all other songs; you have to show that God has permitted other songs. Again, God's regulation applies to which particular songs are employed in His worship. You must show His appointment of any theologically accurate non-canonical songs, or show that His regulation of particular songs has been relaxed under the New Testament.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Show me the verse that says sing the Psalms only.
2 Chronicles 29:30
Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Kaalvenist1. The word is not hode: in Rev. 5:9 it is oden, in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 it is odais; and it translates as "songs" in the Eph./Col. passages, not "hymn."
You DO know the difference between a lemma and a lexical form, don't you? On the other two points I stand corrected. The resolution on my screen is not that whippy and I misread the accent. My eye also skipped a line..."spiritual songs" is correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top