Question on EP

Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
The point is, good fellow, that you can't read, pray AND sing the Psalms all in one motion, as is clear from the very manner in which you state the case. The Bible clearly distinguishes these actions as modes of worship. The sooner you concede the obvious, the sooner this discussion can proceed apace.
Brother, I am honestly beginning to believe we may be have a cultural or contextual misunderstanding - and I certainly apologize if it is so! :)

I can certainly read, pray and sing a Psalm simultaneously - unless you mean read in a declamatory fashion as opposed to read the text on the score and pray the words as I sing them. Which I do quite often, BTW...

Psalm 42:8
By day the LORD commands his steadfast love,and at night his song is with me,a prayer to the God of my life.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Is there anyone here who believes that the Psalter was not appointed by God for singing in public worship?

If everyone here believes that the Psalter was appointed for this purpose, does this not indicate the way in which God regulates song in worship -- that songs must be appointed by God for them to be sung in His worship?

Since the Psalter was appointed for this purpose, but other books of the Bible were not appointed for this purpose, and other songs were not appointed for this purpose; does this not indicate the exclusive position of the Psalter as the Church's hymnal?
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Sean:

Your reasoning does not necessarily follow. But to show that will take some time because I don't want to alienate anyone that is trying to think through these things with a sincere heart, but is mistaken. You aren't suggesting that non-EPers believe that the book of Psalms is not appointed for worship, are you?

I think there are some presuppositions at play here that need to be dealt with. Given certain presuppositions, you could say, your reasoning follows. But are those presuppositions correct? And is there not more to consider here? Ought we not, for instance, take into account that God loves to hear the praise of sinners, whether thought, spoken, or sung, whether in prayer, in conversation, or in worship? Not because they're perfect, but because they represent a submitted heart. Should we not consider the fundamental principles of justification and sanctification in this equation? If we do, we in no wise contradict the idea that God ordained the book of the Psalms for worship.

But to speak to the other part of your reasoning, that no other book is appointed for the worship of God, we must immediately contradict. On two grounds: one, you have no warrant; and two, the entire Bible is appointed to us that we may worship God in spirit and in truth. The lines you are drawing are arbitrary and convenient, but do not necessarily follow. You are saying that the Psalms' purpose is to supply a book of praise for formal worship, excluding all others. That is assuming the conclusion in the premise. But even the rules of logic aside, this contravenes the rules for stating doctrine.
 

Kaalvenist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Sean:

Your reasoning does not necessarily follow. But to show that will take some time because I don't want to alienate anyone that is trying to think through these things with a sincere heart, but is mistaken. You aren't suggesting that non-EPers believe that the book of Psalms is not appointed for worship, are you?

I think there are some presuppositions at play here that need to be dealt with. Given certain presuppositions, you could say, your reasoning follows. But are those presuppositions correct? And is there not more to consider here? Ought we not, for instance, take into account that God loves to hear the praise of sinners, whether thought, spoken, or sung, whether in prayer, in conversation, or in worship? Not because they're perfect, but because they represent a submitted heart. Should we not consider the fundamental principles of justification and sanctification in this equation? If we do, we in no wise contradict the idea that God ordained the book of the Psalms for worship.

But to speak to the other part of your reasoning, that no other book is appointed for the worship of God, we must immediately contradict. On two grounds: one, you have no warrant; and two, the entire Bible is appointed to us that we may worship God in spirit and in truth. The lines you are drawing are arbitrary and convenient, but do not necessarily follow. You are saying that the Psalms' purpose is to supply a book of praise for formal worship, excluding all others. That is assuming the conclusion in the premise. But even the rules of logic aside, this contravenes the rules for stating doctrine.
John,

1. I am not suggesting anything. I am asking. Because I believe that my conclusions follow naturally, logically, and of their own accord from that first point, I am asking to make sure that everybody agrees with that first point.

2. Right now, we are talking about songs in worship. I believe that God has appointed baptism as a sacrament of the church. I do NOT believe that the sincerity of the worshipper affects whether or not that sacrament has been appointed. Likewise, I don't believe that the salvation or sincerity of any one individual, or of an entire church, affects whether or not the Psalter has been appointed to be sung in worship.

3. I did not say "there is nothing else appointed for the worship (in the broad, "all-of-life" sense) of God." Yes, we are to draw our principles for the worship of God from all of Scripture. But, and here's what I WAS saying, no other books have been appointed to be SUNG in worship. As I have frequently said, the book of Ephesians was not given for the same purpose as the book of Psalms in this regard. The FIRST principle I am maintaining is that the Book of Psalms has been appointed as a PSALTER, as a HYMNAL, as a SONGBOOK. Leviticus has not. Song of Songs has not. Titus has not. The SECOND principle is, nothing else has been so appointed. The THIRD, concluding principle is, all others are therefore excluded by the RPW.
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Sean:

Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I understood you correctly, according to this clarification. I'm not questioning your sincerity, just your reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top