Sorry, but another question about the RPW

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I sense that there is another difference at work in this topic than that of how we view the RPW. I believe I also see a difference in how we regard worship. I know it is broader than this, but a reduction of the difference could be expressed by a narrower view which sees only formal worship as worship, and on the other extreme every act done in appreciation and adoration of a sovereign God being worship. As I said, I know it isn't so black and white, that there are many in-between ideas of worship, varying from one extreme to the other; yet this difference seems to showing itself in this thread.

I am personally persuaded that resting EP on the RPW is disregard to what the RPW really is. It goes against Reformed teaching and practice to do that. I am also persuaded that there is formal worship in a strict sense, but also that there is informal worship, and that all of life is worship in a sense; but that we should not confuse one form of worship with another. Singing or whistling a hymn while working comes from a joy in the heart that comes from daily moment-to-moment worship. This is also there in formal worship, but formal worship is something that extends the meaning of worship to include not only others but also the necessary regulations required so that everything be done decently and orderly. Those regulations would change with the setting, but worship itself is still worship.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
So, new and "uninspired" songs along with the 150 Psalms are required and commanded for sung worship and thus aligned with the RPW.
"Sing a new song to the Lord." If this were to mean, "compose and sing a new song to the Lord," whenever an individual sang "Amazing Grace" he would not be composing/singing a new song to the Lord; ergo, he would be disobeying the "prescription" to compose and sing a new song. If the composing and singing of a new song were merely permitted, and one were still at liberty to sing an old song, then the command is no longer a command but merely a permission. But the RPW "regulates" worship, it does not merely give permission.
 

jaybird0827

PuritanBoard Honor Roll
So, new and "uninspired" songs along with the 150 Psalms are required and commanded for sung worship and thus aligned with the RPW.
"Sing a new song to the Lord." If this were to mean, "compose and sing a new song to the Lord," whenever an individual sang "Amazing Grace" he would not be composing/singing a new song to the Lord; ergo, he would be disobeying the "prescription" to compose and sing a new song. If the composing and singing of a new song were merely permitted, and one were still at liberty to sing an old song, then the command is no longer a command but merely a permission. But the RPW "regulates" worship, it does not merely give permission.
"I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.
"He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings.
"And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD.

--Psalm 40:1-3 (AV), emphasis mine
Question: Does this passage teach us that such "new songs" originate with God and that he has graciously given us, in the Psalms, that which is acceptable praise unto him?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
So, new and "uninspired" songs along with the 150 Psalms are required and commanded for sung worship and thus aligned with the RPW.
"Sing a new song to the Lord." If this were to mean, "compose and sing a new song to the Lord," whenever an individual sang "Amazing Grace" he would not be composing/singing a new song to the Lord; ergo, he would be disobeying the "prescription" to compose and sing a new song. If the composing and singing of a new song were merely permitted, and one were still at liberty to sing an old song, then the command is no longer a command but merely a permission. But the RPW "regulates" worship, it does not merely give permission.
Hi, Matthew :)

I think my previous post begins to approach this concern.

We are all commanded to sing a new song - we are not, however, all commanded to compose new songs for worship any more than we are all commanded to be teachers.

Those whom are called and qualified to compose new songs do so for the edification of the body in corporate worship, just as some do in terms of preaching and praying.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
We are all commanded to sing a new song - we are not, however, all commanded to compose new songs for worship any more than we are all commanded to be teachers.
At this point you have undermined your argument that "sing a new song" implies "compose a new song." You now have no basis for saying that "new songs" allow for uninspired songs.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
To further address your concern - the apostle commands us to sing the 150 Psalms as well as to be taught by them to sing new songs, thus we are commanded to sing the "new" and the "old" songs. Just as we are to be taught and admonished by the "Old" Testament and the "New".

Not either/or, but both/and.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
We are all commanded to sing a new song - we are not, however, all commanded to compose new songs for worship any more than we are all commanded to be teachers.
At this point you have undermined your argument that "sing a new song" implies "compose a new song." You now have no basis for saying that "new songs" allow for uninspired songs.
Sorry, I don't follow - how can one sing a new song unless it is composed?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Question: Does this passage teach us that such "new songs" originate with God and that he has graciously given us, in the Psalms, that which is acceptable praise unto him?
I believe so. There is no basis for concluding that "sing a new song" equates to "compose a new song."
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Sorry, I don't follow - how can one sing a new song unless it is composed?
If "new song" means "new words," then it must be composed. This is your basic argument as to why uninspired songs should be permitted. I am pointing out that a prescription does not merely permit, but requires. If that is the case, then every individual who is commanded to sing "new words" must necessarily compose new words to be sung, and that only once. Once the words have been sung they are not "new" any more.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
so - to follow your reasoning - when the Lord creates in us a new heart, in the next instant it becomes an old heart?

And when He creates a new heaven and a new earth, they, at some point, become old?

And the New Testament is now actually the Old Testament?

Sorry, this reasoning is very confusing to me.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
so - to follow your reasoning - when the Lord creates in us a new heart, in the next instant it becomes an old heart?
Sorry, this reasoning is very confusing to me.
This is your reasoning, not mine. You claim that "new song" must require "new words," not me. I am perfectly content with the orthodox teaching that "new" refers to the circumstances in which the song is sung, not to the nature of the song.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
I'm sorry and with all due respect - I think you are flogging a strawman.

Please explain where I am recommending "new words" and in what context.
 

Confessor

Puritan Board Senior
This point begs the question. Of course you can argue that nothing no uninspired song is recorded in Scripture, because we presuppose that everything in Scripture is inspired, therefore if it is recorded in Scripture, it is inspired. But traditionally exclusive psalmists do not argue that we can sing any inspired text, but only the psalms.
Gabriel, it is possible for Scripture to record an instance where people sing uninspired song. The song need not be printed in Scripture (and therefore inspired), just stated as an instance. That is, if the Bible were to explicitly sing, "and they sang hymns composed by men, and God was pleased," it would be an instance of an uninspired song.

Also, what you are claiming is not that he was fallaciously begging the question, but rather stating a meaningless truism.

The question then is do we see people singing songs outside of the 150 psalms, and the answer is yes.
And that is the point in dispute... :gpl:
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Not really - the point in dispute (as I see it) is whether Scripture commands that new covenant believers sing new songs along with the Psalms.
 
Last edited:

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Please explain where I am recommending "new words" and in what context.
You are appealing to the command to sing a new song as warrant to compose uninspired songs; therefore your argument assumes new songs require new words. If you accepted that a new song allows for an old song to be sung in new circumstances, you would undercut the basis on which you allege uninspired songs are necessitated by the command to sing new songs.
 

timmopussycat

Puritan Board Junior
This was addresed towards panta dokimazete. I am not sure I am correct here but new songs in a plural sense seems a bit overboard. But I might be mistaken. I am struggling with the command that we are to write new songs for worship. Especially in light of the stuff that people are singing in Churches today.

I referenced the following to show what the New Song for the New Covenant should be. It is the type fulfilled and the anti-type revealed. Most modern worship music doesn't do this in my opinion. It also seems to hypnotic unlike the songs revealed in scripture.

(Rev 5:9) And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

(Rev 5:10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
I agree that much "Christian worship music" written today does not show the type fulfilled and the anti-type revealed but is in contrast, hypnotic. But some good CWM is being written. 20 years ago a good friend wrote a beautiful anthem on these verses.
 

Confessor

Puritan Board Senior
I then ask myself in a non-skeptical manner, since this is the Lord speaking in His Word - what is the simplest interpretation of these positive commands?
I think this is the only significant place at which we disagree. I believe we are to be taught by the Psalms, and thus we should learn through the beautiful worship songs of God, but I do not think "sing a new song" in those contexts implies that we are to compose and sing uninspired songs in worship -- reading over the Psalms does not seem like an exhortation to actually sing it, just like a congregation singing "Praise the Lord!" are not actually encouraging other people to praise the Lord (everyone else already is!).

We have gone over the interpretation of those specific passages before, so I don't think we can do anything else at this point.
 

Confessor

Puritan Board Senior
JD, what I believe the brother is saying is that if we are commanded to sing a new song, then we are not merely allowed to sing a new song, but we are required to sing it -- the essence of the RPW. Further, that means that every song we use must be actually new, i.e., it must be newly composed. And if you argue that it does not have to be newly composed each time it is sung, then you undercut your basis from the beginning when you stated that the "new song" mandated to be sung in the Psalms refers to a newly composed song.

Is that right, Rev. Winzer?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
You are appealing to the command to sing a new song as warrant to compose uninspired songs; therefore your argument assumes new songs require new words.
Ok, to strain the gnat - the argument assumes an arrangement of words that may contain an arrangement of words in an old way and include words that are arranged in such a way as to reference new circumstance as they are contextualized in the truth of the new covenant.

If you accepted that a new song allows for an old song to be sung in new circumstances, you would undercut the basis on which you allege uninspired songs are necessitated by the command to sing new songs.
I do and it doesn't - anymore than preaching the OT in light of the new circumstance undercuts commanded, yet uninspired, preaching from the NT.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
JD, what I believe the brother is saying is that if we are commanded to sing a new song, then we are not merely allowed to sing a new song, but we are required to sing it -- the essence of the RPW. Further, that means that every song we use must be actually new, i.e., it must be newly composed. And if you argue that it does not have to be newly composed each time it is sung, then you undercut your basis from the beginning when you stated that the "new song" mandated to be sung in the Psalms refers to a newly composed song.

Is that right, Rev. Winzer?
Exactly right. One is not at liberty to swap sailing vessels in the middle of a regatta.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
If you accepted that a new song allows for an old song to be sung in new circumstances, you would undercut the basis on which you allege uninspired songs are necessitated by the command to sing new songs.
I do and it doesn't - anymore than preaching the OT in light of the new circumstance undercuts commanded, yet uninspired, preaching from the NT.
You can't support your supposition that new songs requires uninspired songs so you revert back to your conflation of the elements of worship. Please stick to the argument being discussed.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
JD, what I believe the brother is saying is that if we are commanded to sing a new song, then we are not merely allowed to sing a new song, but we are required to sing it -- the essence of the RPW. Further, that means that every song we use must be actually new, i.e., it must be newly composed. And if you argue that it does not have to be newly composed each time it is sung, then you undercut your basis from the beginning when you stated that the "new song" mandated to be sung in the Psalms refers to a newly composed song.

Is that right, Rev. Winzer?
Exactly right. One is not at liberty to swap sailing vessels in the middle of a regatta.
Only if one accepts that "new" implies totally and completely newly composed every time - which we know that it doesn't - otherwise the Psalms contradict themselves. By the EP'ers own rationale, "new" can mean both "totally new" and "in a refreshed context", so the uninspired new song can be composed, then sung completely new and in a refreshed context afterwards.

And after this, I am done with semantic loops - let the reader judge.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
If one is a non-EP'er, it is not conflation in terms of having "uninspired" content.
You are utilising a different argument to avoid facing the difficulties presented to your new songs argument. Please deal with the new songs difficulty first, and if you decide to abandon that then we can look at your preaching analogy.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
If one is a non-EP'er, it is not conflation in terms of having "uninspired" content.
You are utilising a different argument to avoid facing the difficulties presented to your new songs argument. Please deal with the new songs difficulty first, and if you decide to abandon that then we can look at your preaching analogy.
Matthew, I can see that I am being forced to debate only on your terms, so, respectfully, I, once more, am bowing out of the thread.

Maybe another time, packabacka.

Pax to all.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Matthew, I can see that I am being forced to debate only on your terms, so, respectfully, I, once more, am bowing out of the thread.
You are being challenged to account for the way you are using terms to establish an argument; but to bow out of the thread is you choice. Blessings!
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
(Rev 5:9) And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

(Rev 5:10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Here is a New Composition that is being sang in Heaven..... And this is inspired. This is spiritual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top