Yet another thread about EP...and a poll...

Read the first post - make a choice!

  • Yes - it seems askew

    Votes: 13 35.1%
  • No - it is not askew

    Votes: 19 51.4%
  • Maybe - I need to study the issue more

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • JD has too much time on his hands.

    Votes: 3 8.1%

  • Total voters
    37
Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
What is Isaiah referring to? What is Revelation referring to?

You are cherry picking to fit your flawed exegesis. (Edited to add: Sorry, I apologize for the tone of this sentence.}

new song is new song
 
Last edited:

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
By the way, it wasn't the "new song" argument that brought me to show you that you aren't actually adhering to the RPW. It was your demand for me to produce a text that says what we are commanded not to do, which is the heart of the NPW.

The RPW demands that we worship God as He commands - He commands new song.

That was my intent.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What is Isaiah referring to? What is Revelation referring to?

You are cherry picking to fit your flawed exegesis.

new song is new song



Now you sound like Ergun Caner discussing Limited Atonement.

"'All' means 'all' and that's all 'all' means!"

Are you even willing to try reconciling the term "new song" with the whole counsel of God instead of just eisegeting (sp?) your own meaning into it?
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Ah, the Hitler card, now - so you've given up any pretense of irenic discourse...and the ad hominums begin.


Edited to add: Sorry, I apologize for the tone of this post.
 
Last edited:

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate

New Songs​

Copyright © 1993, Michael S. Bushell Used by Permission.[1][1]​





[In the following excerpt, Mr. Bushell deals with the objection to exclusive Psalmody that there are places in Scripture that refer to a “new song.” The force of the objection is that if Scripture refers to “new songs” then we must be allowed to compose songs for various occasions whether or not we are prophets or being “borne along by the Holy Ghost.” Mr. Bushell demonstrates in this excerpt that the “newness” of the new songs deals with the perspective of the singer and not with supposed compositions apart from the Psalter.]


We cannot enter here into a detailed exegesis of the musical portions of the Apocalypse. A few comments, however, concerning certain aspects of the subject may be of some help. Appeal is sometimes made to the "new song" of Revelation 14:3 as justification for the making of “new songs" now. The passage in question must, however, be seen in the context of the general concept of eschatological "newness" which finds expression in so many of the apocalyptic sections of Scripture. The phrase "new song (ode kaine, shir chodesh)[2][2] is found in a number of places in both Testaments. Originally it signified a song of praise inspired by gratitude for new mercies. As such it occurs six times in the psalter.[3][3]Obviously the reference to a "new song" in each of these instances is either a reference to the particular psalm in question or else a figure of speech to be interpreted metonymically for a doxology or prayer of thanksgiving. In any event they do not constitute a warrant for us to produce uninspired worship song any more than they did for the Old Testament saints. Quite often, especially in the eschatological portions of Scripture, the phrase "new song" is merely a figure of speech, having no direct reference at all to literal worship song. Such is the case, for example, in Isaiah 42:10 (cf. 24:14ff, Rev. 5:13), where the islands and their inhabitants, the cities and their dwellers, and everything that lives and moves in the sea are summoned to praise the Lord with a "new song." Attribution of song here to inanimate objects is, of course, a hyperbolic device intended to express poetically the comprehensive scope of God's saving operations and the fullness of the praise that is due unto His Holy Name (cf. Isa. 55:12ff). Certainly there is no warrant here for the production of uninspired worship song.
The concept of “newness” is a leading feature of the apocalyptic portions of Scripture, and this is particularly true of the Book of Revelation. We are told, for example, of a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21: 1; 2 Pet. 3:13; Isa. 65:17); the new Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12; 21:2); the new name (Rev. 2:17; 3:12; Isa. 62:2; 65:15); and the new song (Rev. 5:9; 14:3). Indeed, we are told that all things will be made new (Rev. 21:5). The concept of "newness" in the Book of Revelation is thus used as a poetic device to express in a heightened sense the fullness and the scope of the eschatological redemption of all things. The "new song," the "new name," the "new heavens," the "new earth," and the "new Jerusalem" are all yet future. The fact that we have in these visions a present anticipation of this newness, provides no more warrant for the production of "new" worship song than it does for the building of a “new Jerusalem." Quite the contrary is the case. It is very significant, in fact, that worship song is placed in the category of the "new" things of John's vision. The distinguishing character of the "newness" attributed to these objects is its divine origin. The old creation groans and travails even now under the corruption of sin, so the Lord Himself will provide a new one. Men do not themselves build the New Jerusalem; it is fashioned directly by the hand of God and brought down from heaven (Rev. 21:2). Eschatological "newness" in the Book of Revelation is functionally equivalent to divine origin. This is just as true of the "new song" as it is of the "new heavens" and the "new earth." Eschatological “newness" in song may thus be seen as functionally equivalent to immediate inspiration by God. Seen in this way, the "new" songs of Revelation, far from providing a warrant for the use of uninspired songs in worship, bring to the fore once again the same basic principle that we have seen time and again in our consideration of the biblical principles of worship, namely, that the production of acceptable worship song is the sole prerogative of the Lord God Himself as He works through inspired authors set apart by Him to that very task.
Of course, it must be conceded that the apocalyptic visions of Isaiah and the Book of Revelation do have reference to a certain extent to our own dispensation. Certainly the "new covenant" (Jer. 31:31ff; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:8ff-, 9:15), the description of the Christian as a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17), and so on, are present anticipations of the eschatological situation described in John's vision.
The question arises as to whether there is any sense, proleptic or otherwise, in which the worship song of the pre-consummation church is to share in this eschatological newness. In response to this question it may be observed, first of all, that much of the “newness” enjoyed by the Church in this dispensation is clearly proleptic or anticipatory in nature. Even our salvation, though complete in Christ, is seen in Scripture to have a future reference. Our redemptive “newness” has not yet been fully realized. We are to put on the “new self” (Eph. 4:22-24) because our "old self" was crucified with Christ (Rom. 6:6), and yet every Christian bears witness to the strength of the "old self' yet remaining (cf. Rom. 7:23). We are new creations in Christ, and yet we wait for that day when all things will be made new. What all of this teaches us is that "newness" in the present state of things is not at all inconsistent with the continuation of certain aspects of the old order. Of the many examples that could be mentioned here, there is perhaps none clearer than that of the "new commandment" given by Christ to His disciples. His "new commandment," that we love one another (John 13:34), was not really a new commandment at all. It was in fact incorporated into the Mosaic law (Lev. 19:18). It was, as John tells us, a new commandment that was at the same time an old commandment (1 John 2:7; 2 John 5). The newness lay in the new perspective that we are given on the old commandment as a result of the manifestation of God's love in Christ. The "newness" of the New Testament with respect to the law of God does not have to do so much with content as with perspective. The law has not been abolished in Christ. It has been fulfilled and therefore placed in a new light, but it has not been superseded by a new law.
In the same way the "newness" in song of which the New Testament is heir does not have to do with content per sebut with newness of perspective. So even if the passages in Isaiah 42:10 and Revelation 5:9 and 14:3 are seen as having pre-consummation significance, there is still no warrant to see in them a mandate for the production of uninspired songs for worship. If in fact the concept of eschatological "newness" is seen in its proper context, quite the opposite is the case. Newness in the eschatological sense absolutely precludes human invention. The one essential presupposition lying behind the necessity of a "new heavens," a "new earth," a "new Jerusalem," a "new covenant," and a "new song" is the fact that the old order had been thoroughly corrupted by the touch of man's sinful hand. God is therefore to be the sole craftsman of the new order, even in its proleptic manifestations.
The Old Testament Psalms may therefore in a particular sense be seen as "new songs" because they have all taken on new significance in the light of their fulfillment in Christ and in the interpretive light that the New Testament sheds upon them. Seen in this way, the Psalms serve quite sufficiently as a proleptic realization of the need for "new songs" in the worship of God. Because of their divine origin and their organic connection with the rest of Scripture, they serve this purpose in a way not to be matched, much less excelled, by the compositions of uninspired men.




[1][1] The title is our own. The extract is reproduced with permission from Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody (Crown & Covenant Publications, 1993), pp. 95-97. Copyright © 1993, Michael S. Bushell. We thank the author and Crown & Covenant Publications for the permission to make this extract available on the FPCR web site. Bushell's book is the standard modern work on the topic of exclusive psalmody.

[2][2] [This is a transliteration of the Greek and Hebrew Bushell used. See Songs of Zion, page 95. This is the only intentional change made to this passage from the book, other than renumber footnotes..]

[3][3]Psalms 32 (33):3; 39 (40):3; 95 (96):1; 97 (98):1; 143 (144):9; 149:1.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Ah, the Hitler card, now - so you've given up any pretense of irenic discourse...and the ad hominums begin.

No, I think it just makes you feel more justified in your position if you can vilify me by making my comments look worse than they really are.

I was just pointing out that the way you are arguing for the definition of "new song" sounds like Ergun Caner's defense of the "all men" passages. Unless you aren't a five-point Calvinist, I'm assuming that you agree with me when I say that the way he exegetes those passages is ridiculous. If so, why do you do the same thing with the "new song" passages? I'm trying to get you to see that sometimes it's not as easy as just looking at a word and take it's most base, literal meaning without consulting the whole counsel of God.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Take a look at the instances of new in Scripture.

Where the fact is that many instances of all can be shown to mean "all kinds" or "not the totality of"

new consistently means "brand new" or "significantly different/better"
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What is Isaiah referring to? What is Revelation referring to?

You are cherry picking to fit your flawed exegesis.

new song is new song

Isaiah is in part talking to land masses, actually.

Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them."


Sing to the LORD a New Song
Sing to the LORD a new song,
his praise from the end of the earth,
you who go down to the sea, and all that fills it,
the coastlands and their inhabitants.
Let the desert and its cities lift up their voice,
the villages that Kedar inhabits;
let the habitants of Sela sing for joy,
let them shout from the top of the mountains.

If we look at these passages in the context of their own chapters, and especially in the context of the whole counsel of God, which you continuously refuse to do, we can see that the point God is trying to make here is not "ok everyone, go out and write new compositions." If so, we'd better give the desert, the coastlands, and buildings a pen and paper! See Jeff's quote of Bushell's eschatological explanation of "new songs" above.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Great - we can all pull quotes to defend our viewpoints. Edited to add: Sorry, I apologize for the tone of this post.

Do you have something on the Isaiah passage, too?
 
Last edited:

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Isaiah is in part talking to land masses, actually.



If we look at these passages in the context of their own chapters, and especially in the context of the whole counsel of God, which you continuously refuse to do, we can see that the point God is trying to make here is not "ok everyone, go out and write new compositions." If so, we'd better give the desert, the coastlands, and buildings a pen and paper! See Jeff's quote of Bushell's eschatological explanation of "new songs" above.

You are kidding right?

"and those that dwell on them"

It is our job to do so - in the words of Christ:

Luke 19:40
But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!"
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Take a look at the instances of new in Scripture.

Where the fact is that many instances of all can be shown to mean "all kinds" or "not the totality of"

new consistently means "brand new" or "significantly different/better"

This is just patently false, and it can be shown from your own quotations.

The "new grain offering" is not new in substance! That which constituted the grain offering didn't change. It's just that another of the same kind of grain offering was brought.

Do you really think "new wine" means "brand new?" In Acts when the apostles are accused of being full of "new wine" do you really that's what it means?? They were accusing the Apostles of being full of "new wine as opposed to some old wine?" Was that their point in making that comment?

In 1 Samuel when a "new moon" was mentioned does that mean that it was a different moon from the moon they had seen before?
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Folks are replying faster than they can possibly be taking the following board rule seriously.:judge:
3. Pause Before You Post
This is something that everyone can benefit from. Before you send the latest jab, punch, tweak, etc into cyberspace, take a minute (or two, or five) to make sure that you are doing so in a spirit of Christian maturity (cf. #4 below). Study first, pray, post after.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
You are kidding right?

"and those that dwell on them"

It is our job to do so - in the words of Christ:

Luke 19:40
But Jesus answered, "I tell you, if these become silent, the stones will cry out!"


No, I'm not kidding. I'm showing you that that passage isn't meant to be taken literally in the sense of which you interpret it. It does say 'and those that dwell on them' but that doesn't negate the fact that the terrain is also addressed.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Great - we can all pull quotes to defend our viewpoints.

Do you have something on the Isaiah passage, too?

JD,

I'm asking you to just look at those points, which are all made with sound exegesis through looking at all of scripture. If you can refute them by not just saying "new always means brand new" which I've shown not to be true, from the scripture quotes you yourself gave me, then please do so.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Folks are replying faster than they can possibly be taking the following board rule seriously.:judge:
3. Pause Before You Post
This is something that everyone can benefit from. Before you send the latest jab, punch, tweak, etc into cyberspace, take a minute (or two, or five) to make sure that you are doing so in a spirit of Christian maturity (cf. #4 below). Study first, pray, post after.


Sorry :eek: :handshake:

Sounds like a good time for a dinner break.
 

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
This is just patently false, and it can be shown from your own quotations.

The "new grain offering" is not new in substance! That which constituted the grain offering didn't change. It's just that another of the same kind of grain offering was brought.

You make my case - It is not the old grain re-offered time and time again, just as new song is the same in substance it is the same kind of song, just different words - words guided by the Holy Spirit and bounded by Scripture.

Do you really think "new wine" means "brand new?" In Acts when the apostles are accused of being full of "new wine" do you really that's what it means?? They were accusing the Apostles of being full of "new wine as opposed to some old wine?" Was that their point in making that comment?

Because new wine was cheaper than the good and better old stuff - so drunkards drank the new wine.

Luke 5:39
"And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good enough.'"
In 1 Samuel when a "new moon" was mentioned does that mean that it was a different moon from the moon they had seen before?

You are pulling exceptions to make the rule. Cooper's rule is better.
 
Last edited:

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
Folks are replying faster than they can possibly be taking the following board rule seriously.:judge:
3. Pause Before You Post
This is something that everyone can benefit from. Before you send the latest jab, punch, tweak, etc into cyberspace, take a minute (or two, or five) to make sure that you are doing so in a spirit of Christian maturity (cf. #4 below). Study first, pray, post after.

agreed :handshake: My wife just said I am being anti-social.

Look, ma! I can argue!

Apologies...
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
6 to 4, not askew. I love polls.

Since we're doing polls, let's just do a survey of the largest Presbyterian denominations (pulled from Adherents.com). As far as I know, there are no non-Presbyterian denominations (including Dutch Reformed) that mandate EP.

Non-EP:
ARP: 250 churches
PCA: 1130 churches
OPC: 198 churches

EP:
RPCNA: 86 churches

Well, what do you know? Roughly 5% of these Presbyterian churches practice exclusive Psalter.
 

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Since we're doing polls, let's just do a survey of the largest Presbyterian denominations (pulled from Adherents.com). As far as I know, there are no non-Presbyterian denominations (including Dutch Reformed) that mandate EP.

Non-EP:
ARP: 250 churches
PCA: 1130 churches
OPC: 198 churches

EP:
RPCNA: 86 churches

Well, what do you know? Roughly 5% of these Presbyterian churches practice exclusive Psalter.

Ahhhh....but I think most on the PB would admit that the reformed church today needs some work. If one wants to know the reformed position, take the same poll 350 years ago!
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
Ahhhh....but I think most on the PB would admit that the reformed church today needs some work. If one wants to know the reformed position, take the same poll 350 years ago!

Ah, yes, but it has been reforming for the last 350 years! ;) Or should we go back to thinking that the papacy is the Anti-Christ? Not all change from the historic position is bad.
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
Ah, yes, but it has been reforming for the last 350 years! ;) Or should we go back to thinking that the papacy is the Anti-Christ? Not all change from the historic position is bad.

When it rejects the Pope as the AntiChrist and includes them as brothers it does.
 

MrMerlin777

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Since we're doing polls, let's just do a survey of the largest Presbyterian denominations (pulled from Adherents.com). As far as I know, there are no non-Presbyterian denominations (including Dutch Reformed) that mandate EP.

Non-EP:
ARP: 250 churches
PCA: 1130 churches
OPC: 198 churches

EP:
RPCNA: 86 churches

Well, what do you know? Roughly 5% of these Presbyterian churches practice exclusive Psalter.

There are a handfull of ARP churches that are EP though the denomination as a whole isn't.
 

elnwood

Puritan Board Junior
Correction: Not all OPC Churches are "Non-EP". Also, I think that Joel R. Beeke's (Netherlands Reformed or something like that) is EP. There is also a Reformed Baptist Church in KS, that I believe is EP.

It's a rough estimate. I'm only counting English-speaking Presbyterian Churches in NAPARC. There may be a few stray EP churches in the PCA, OPC or ARP, but not enough to significantly change the figure. Besides, if we put in the Dutch Reformed churches and the Reformed Baptist Churches, the number will be even smaller.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Fear not, LITTLE FLOCK; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
I believe the good Reverend is referring to God's love for his LITTLE flock in contradistinction to a previous posters attempt to marginalize EP by citing a poll listing a LITTLE number of Presbyterians who sing the psalms exclusively.

:)
I suspect the number of Sabbatarian Presbyterians in our day is pretty small, and on a host of other issues as well. Doesn't mean anything; the test of truth is still the Scriptures. To turn it around, it does tend to be the case that the larger number are "Wrong" on issues today in the visible church.;)
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
I suspect the number of Sabbatarian Presbyterians in our day is pretty small, and on a host of other issues as well. Doesn't mean anything; the test of truth is still the Scriptures. To turn it around, it does tend to be the case that the larger number are "Wrong" on issues today in the visible church.;)

:up:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top