Again I don’t want to derail the thread but they do hold that the CoG includes the other covenants. They view it as all one covenant.
Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms
- Thread starter panta dokimazete
- Start date
- Status
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Again this is false. I am happy to not derail, but please do not keep restating something that is not true and is not in our primary confession (Westminster). To put is simply, we hold to at least 2 different covenants (CoW & CoG). Further, many, myself included, hold to 3 including the CoR. Regarding the CoG, most do hold to 1 covenant under numerous administrations (myself). This IS the reformed view of CT. But even here there are difference as some see the Covenant of Moses as a republication of the CoW. So again, if you misrepresent the position, then it comes across as disenginuous if you are actually trying to help brothers and sisters seek the truth on a matter.
P.S. @beloved7 , Many reformed baptist (1689 confessing) actually view the CoG as including the OT post-fall covenants as well. So this view is not unique to Presbyterians, nor paedobaptist.
Last edited:
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
For your 2nd paragraph, John Gill your RB father said this (as do most all Reformed writers even those who are not EP):
As for your first paragraph, let me ask a similar question: Paul in 1 Tim. 2 says this,
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
This is the same situation to show the similarity and how your argument fails. You would say according to your argument that Jesus died for all. It's clear. It literally says "all", and God is not a God of confusion. Jesus died for all people everywhere from all times, so all are saved. That's your argument applied to other texts.
What we’re you hoping accomplish with a reply like this? It brings nothing substantive to the conversation.
83r17h
Puritan Board Freshman
@beloved7 as I was typing, I think you removed your reaction. But I think this helpfully clarifies and contributes to the discussion, so I'm posting it relatively unchanged.
I think what Pastor Barnes is trying to do is not to put words in your mouth, but rather to show you the other implications that he sees resulting from your hermeneutical argument. The point is not that you deny limited atonement. The point is that because you affirm limited atonement, you should either clarify or change your hermeneutical argument, which appears logically incompatible with limited atonement.
To clarify in more detail, it appears that your hermeneutical argument is limited in considering the "new song" as an independent occurrence, apart from the rest of Scripture, and thus establishes "new songs." Pastor Barnes is attempting to get you to see that the EP argument uses a different hermeneutical method, which looks at the concept of a "new song" throughout Scripture to interpret the occurrence here, instead of treating it as an isolated thing. He is showing that the same applies in his example about limited atonement. Taken on its own, as an absolute and independent statement, the passage he referenced would appear to imply a universal atonement (and for non-Reformed folks, that settles it!). However, taken in the context of the rest of Scripture, the concept "all" does not have the straightforward meaning that the non-Reformed interpreter gives it.
So his point is that when you say that the hermeneutical argument from the EP position is invalid because it denies the apparent meaning of a "new song" in this one instance, he is trying to get you to see that this is the same hermeneutical argument that Arminians use to reject limited atonement. Instead, while you may disagree with how the EP perspective interprets "new song" throughout Scripture, it doesn't simply wave away the "new song" here and is not eisegesis like you charged.
Hopefully that helps clarify the discussion (@Romans922 please let me know if this matches what you are trying to demonstrate).
I think what Pastor Barnes is trying to do is not to put words in your mouth, but rather to show you the other implications that he sees resulting from your hermeneutical argument. The point is not that you deny limited atonement. The point is that because you affirm limited atonement, you should either clarify or change your hermeneutical argument, which appears logically incompatible with limited atonement.
To clarify in more detail, it appears that your hermeneutical argument is limited in considering the "new song" as an independent occurrence, apart from the rest of Scripture, and thus establishes "new songs." Pastor Barnes is attempting to get you to see that the EP argument uses a different hermeneutical method, which looks at the concept of a "new song" throughout Scripture to interpret the occurrence here, instead of treating it as an isolated thing. He is showing that the same applies in his example about limited atonement. Taken on its own, as an absolute and independent statement, the passage he referenced would appear to imply a universal atonement (and for non-Reformed folks, that settles it!). However, taken in the context of the rest of Scripture, the concept "all" does not have the straightforward meaning that the non-Reformed interpreter gives it.
So his point is that when you say that the hermeneutical argument from the EP position is invalid because it denies the apparent meaning of a "new song" in this one instance, he is trying to get you to see that this is the same hermeneutical argument that Arminians use to reject limited atonement. Instead, while you may disagree with how the EP perspective interprets "new song" throughout Scripture, it doesn't simply wave away the "new song" here and is not eisegesis like you charged.
Hopefully that helps clarify the discussion (@Romans922 please let me know if this matches what you are trying to demonstrate).
Whether or not I’d sing other inspired praises is beside the point. I may be inconsistent, but that doesn’t prove your consistency. I think there is good reason to only sing the psalms and not other inspired praise, but that’s not the issue here. The fact still remains that hymn singers must prove that it is a New Testament duty to sing and compose uninspired praise.
The arguments for ‘new song’ don’t hold up. We are required to sing a new song but never an old song. By that sort of exegesis, the Gloria patri and almost all hymns are out of bounds, as they are not all that new.
Like others have said, I’d be careful with this line of argumentation, particularly with respect to the covenants. Unless you believe there were different ways of salvation, you too believe in a substantial unity to the covenants, albeit maybe less so than the reformed do.
I’m a 1689 Federalist, which is a form of reformed covenant theology.
I do not wish to cause any further strife or quarreling and will respectfully bow out of this thread at this time.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
"Preaching" is more than just teaching and admonishing, though teaching and admonishing is a part of preaching.
Also, by its very nature, the "teaching" done by singing is different than that done by preaching: a song is a fixed text while preaching is more interactive (preacher interacting with the congregation). The qualifications are different: only certain men may preach, while all are exhorted to teach by singing.
Further, the point is not so much that "teaching and admonishing" were narrowed in meaning within a few chapters but rather the source and type of teaching and admonishing is different: from fluid words composed by mere men to using words from a fixed text (and that inspired by the Spirit, as people--not just EPers--argue), and from expositions and applications of a text in a concrete situation to teaching of "good things" and Christ and his work.
Going to Col 3:16, from what I understand, it is instructive that the "in" means that which a person speaks from (as opposed to the content of the speech). But taking the usual interpretation, "psalms" is rarely argued to mean anything other than the psalms in the book of Psalms: there is no real reason to take it to mean anything else in the NT, unless there are contextual reasons to suppose otherwise. If teaching and admonishing can be done by singing them--and they are inspired songs, there is no contextual reason to immediately suppose that other sorts of teaching needs to be done by singing a fixed text. The psalms themselves being a part of wisdom literature, and the holy Scripture being the source of teaching in 2 Tim 3, and also the singing of psalms being considered "teaching" (e.g., Maschils), it is clear that we can teach one another by singing the psalms. Also, those who have experience using the psalms in counseling know by experience that they qualify as being the word of Christ in all wisdom. If the worship of the OT Temple has any bearing on the NT, the psalms have always been the psalms and been an exclusive and repeatededly-used source of teaching by worship song in the OT Temple ritual, and so in the OT, the teaching and admonishing by singing in worship was not done with one's own merely human-composed words and not done by words applied to a concrete situation (since the songs were sung repeatedly).
When one realizes that the psalms actually are a full proclamation and teaching and admonishing of Christ's work ultimately (which we need the NT to fully understand), there really is no contextual reason to suppose "teaching and admonishing" mean other kinds of expositions and applications. If the psalms are to be used as a guide for composing song in the NT (as many non-EPers allege), we see that doctrinal praise using the categories of systematic theology is not really what is in view, neither the private devotions of the people, neither an exposition and application of a text of Scripture (I know of no worship songs like that; in the psalms, biblical history is rehearsed and interpreted, but there is no taking of a text and expositing it like one normally does in preaching or even an exposition of the sort found in topical preaching), but rather the experience of the Messiah and the outflowing of that experience to his people. This is very different from preaching as a part of worship, where the first purpose is not congregationally offering praise to God (direction is Godward first in the singing of praise) but the lifting up of Christ by one man towards men for the building up of Christ's church with specific application to the here and now (this includes teaching and admonishing but more things too), but if one wishes to keep the analogy, Christ himself claims to be the one teaching in the assembly via the Psalms when it comes to the singing of praise per Heb 2:12.
In other words, that we are instructed to be "teaching and admonishing" in song are inconclusive when it comes to determining psalms only vs other songs too and when it comes to determining the meaning or referent of psalms, hymns, and songs. It depends on what one believes the psalms, hymns, and songs refer to and also whether one believes that the NT commands the composition of other songs without the gifts of the Spirit (if there is no command for such, then our human reasonings about what is "needed" in worship is just that: human reasoning, not divine prescription).
Also, by its very nature, the "teaching" done by singing is different than that done by preaching: a song is a fixed text while preaching is more interactive (preacher interacting with the congregation). The qualifications are different: only certain men may preach, while all are exhorted to teach by singing.
Further, the point is not so much that "teaching and admonishing" were narrowed in meaning within a few chapters but rather the source and type of teaching and admonishing is different: from fluid words composed by mere men to using words from a fixed text (and that inspired by the Spirit, as people--not just EPers--argue), and from expositions and applications of a text in a concrete situation to teaching of "good things" and Christ and his work.
Going to Col 3:16, from what I understand, it is instructive that the "in" means that which a person speaks from (as opposed to the content of the speech). But taking the usual interpretation, "psalms" is rarely argued to mean anything other than the psalms in the book of Psalms: there is no real reason to take it to mean anything else in the NT, unless there are contextual reasons to suppose otherwise. If teaching and admonishing can be done by singing them--and they are inspired songs, there is no contextual reason to immediately suppose that other sorts of teaching needs to be done by singing a fixed text. The psalms themselves being a part of wisdom literature, and the holy Scripture being the source of teaching in 2 Tim 3, and also the singing of psalms being considered "teaching" (e.g., Maschils), it is clear that we can teach one another by singing the psalms. Also, those who have experience using the psalms in counseling know by experience that they qualify as being the word of Christ in all wisdom. If the worship of the OT Temple has any bearing on the NT, the psalms have always been the psalms and been an exclusive and repeatededly-used source of teaching by worship song in the OT Temple ritual, and so in the OT, the teaching and admonishing by singing in worship was not done with one's own merely human-composed words and not done by words applied to a concrete situation (since the songs were sung repeatedly).
When one realizes that the psalms actually are a full proclamation and teaching and admonishing of Christ's work ultimately (which we need the NT to fully understand), there really is no contextual reason to suppose "teaching and admonishing" mean other kinds of expositions and applications. If the psalms are to be used as a guide for composing song in the NT (as many non-EPers allege), we see that doctrinal praise using the categories of systematic theology is not really what is in view, neither the private devotions of the people, neither an exposition and application of a text of Scripture (I know of no worship songs like that; in the psalms, biblical history is rehearsed and interpreted, but there is no taking of a text and expositing it like one normally does in preaching or even an exposition of the sort found in topical preaching), but rather the experience of the Messiah and the outflowing of that experience to his people. This is very different from preaching as a part of worship, where the first purpose is not congregationally offering praise to God (direction is Godward first in the singing of praise) but the lifting up of Christ by one man towards men for the building up of Christ's church with specific application to the here and now (this includes teaching and admonishing but more things too), but if one wishes to keep the analogy, Christ himself claims to be the one teaching in the assembly via the Psalms when it comes to the singing of praise per Heb 2:12.
In other words, that we are instructed to be "teaching and admonishing" in song are inconclusive when it comes to determining psalms only vs other songs too and when it comes to determining the meaning or referent of psalms, hymns, and songs. It depends on what one believes the psalms, hymns, and songs refer to and also whether one believes that the NT commands the composition of other songs without the gifts of the Spirit (if there is no command for such, then our human reasonings about what is "needed" in worship is just that: human reasoning, not divine prescription).
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
@Grant Van Leuven apologies about the late reply. Here is the reference in TVOE that you were searching for, starting on the right page at the very top.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Just a quick response to several points:
First I understand why someone would argue that "hymns and spiritual songs" doesn't mean psalms. But then you'd have to positively show what they do mean, and to me, the definition of "whatever we want to write that is edifying" seems a bit loose for the regulative principle (and again I'd have to ask, why are you wanting to worship with manmade hymns, which by consequence means you are replacing what could have been psalms? Even if you believe you can, why do you want to?).
The claim has been repeated that the gentiles at Ephesus and Colossae would not have known about the titles in the psalms. I don't see why that would be the case. Seems the first thing they would do is to search out copies and familiarize themselves with it, and it would have been the Greek translation.
Second, even supposing the new song in Revelation is a song no one has ever composed before, the regulative principle would lead us to say we are commanded to sing that, but...we don't know it so it's a moot point. And it seems an extrapolation to say "well, because there will be a new song (inspired) then we can create our own new songs in the meantime (uninspired). That's the normative principle creeping in.
So once again, the EP position seems to me to be the logical default of both Scripture and the Regulative Principle derived from it, and it would be up to those who want to depart to prove exactly how they are commanded to depart (not "allowed", that's normative principle, but "commanded"). "We are commanded to write whatever we want that teaches and admonishes" would be a broad command.
First I understand why someone would argue that "hymns and spiritual songs" doesn't mean psalms. But then you'd have to positively show what they do mean, and to me, the definition of "whatever we want to write that is edifying" seems a bit loose for the regulative principle (and again I'd have to ask, why are you wanting to worship with manmade hymns, which by consequence means you are replacing what could have been psalms? Even if you believe you can, why do you want to?).
The claim has been repeated that the gentiles at Ephesus and Colossae would not have known about the titles in the psalms. I don't see why that would be the case. Seems the first thing they would do is to search out copies and familiarize themselves with it, and it would have been the Greek translation.
Second, even supposing the new song in Revelation is a song no one has ever composed before, the regulative principle would lead us to say we are commanded to sing that, but...we don't know it so it's a moot point. And it seems an extrapolation to say "well, because there will be a new song (inspired) then we can create our own new songs in the meantime (uninspired). That's the normative principle creeping in.
So once again, the EP position seems to me to be the logical default of both Scripture and the Regulative Principle derived from it, and it would be up to those who want to depart to prove exactly how they are commanded to depart (not "allowed", that's normative principle, but "commanded"). "We are commanded to write whatever we want that teaches and admonishes" would be a broad command.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
This point reminded me of something else I wanted to say: I am a bit confused by this argument also. Paul assumes familiarity with the psalms and the Scriptures by mere referencing. Furthermore, Ephesus was the church where Apollos taught mightily from the Scriptures in the synagogues, where there were Jewish converts, and Paul declared the whole counsel of God. Ephesus had much teaching and teaching from the OT for several years. On top of those facts, a Google search indicates Ephesians is said to be composed quite some time after the events of Acts 18-20.
As for Colossae, although there is not reliance on Scripture quotation in the letter and little is canonically known, we do know it is a general pattern that the preaching was in the synagogues first and then to the Gentiles, and Paul uses much language that requires the OT to truly understand: hence, we use the OT in understanding the language, rather than assuming that Paul must mean something different, as we do with other Scriptures post-canonically (are we not justified post-canonicaly in understanding other NT letters and terminology by the OT background?); the Colossians were clearly familiar with Jewish practices and terminology for those practices (e.g., Sabbath days). It is not as though the book of Psalms was an obscure piece of Scripture: all agree that the early Christians were singing at least them, and the book is constantly referenced or alluded to in the NT. We know that the NT epistles were circulated around the various churches too. The Colossians are instructed to let the Word of Christ dwell in them richly, which if that is understood ultimately to be the Scriptures, they would need to have access to them.
Last edited:
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
While I still consider myself EP, maybe you can help me out here? I am not sure I am comfortable with this standard being Set forth in bold. Would this not also cause a Christian to doubt the value of their own prayers vs. reciting an inspired prayer? It seems like you are saying even if uninspired hymns were commanded, why would we pick this over the very songs of God?
To be clear, I am not trying to conflate the elements of prayer and singing. I am just not sure your point of EP defense is safe. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume uninspired hymns are commanded. In light of my comments of concern on the bolded, would this same conviction you feel here not prevent you from offering impromptu prayer? Would this also not lead me to say “Grant why read Valley of Vision, when you could be reading Christ’s High Priestly prayer?”. I hope i am being clear and I am just asking for you clarify and/or flesh this out a bit more.
This seems to minimize the current active work of the Holy Spirit working in a modern Christian through means outside of specific bible verses. The spirit still can overwhelm us to cry out in our private mediations both in prayer and songs at times. Of course this is not inspired in the way of scripture, but still important nonetheless. I say that even as being a lite-cessationist.
Last edited:
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Thanks Grant. Perhaps my thinking could be corrected on this but I meant it mostly as a soul-searching or attitude-searching question, not as a rule everyone must follow. If someone says "I could sing this hymn, or I could sing this psalm...I'll go with the hymn" then I just wonder why. Could it be too low a view of the psalms that, in practice, places them on an equal footing with manmade own hymns?
As to prayers, we have many passages of extemporaneous prayers, Jesus telling us we should pray "like this" (not "these exact words"), Paul in Romans 8:26 telling us "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Prayers are very clearly personal and the exact words unprescribed. We don't have a book of corporate prayers in the Bible.
As to prayers, we have many passages of extemporaneous prayers, Jesus telling us we should pray "like this" (not "these exact words"), Paul in Romans 8:26 telling us "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Prayers are very clearly personal and the exact words unprescribed. We don't have a book of corporate prayers in the Bible.
I sympathize with this not being the strongest line of argumentation, and Logan seems to as well but I think there is certainly something here.
I am often one quite unpleased with my own prayers and it is something that I hope to continue to improve upon. (although, the moment one is wholly pleased with their prayer they should shudder). But the more and more scripture we have memorized and offer up as praise back unto Jehovah in Christ, the more pleasing and satisfying it is to our own soul. I am certainly not one to have set prayers, as I think prayer is largely to be an extemporaneous thing, but I do find it quite helpful and profitable to pray God's words back unto him all the while making personal application. So the best prayer for the moment is often not an inspired one, but a weak one helped by the promised comforter all the while making use of his words.
And that is where the difference lies in my mind at least. Song will never and can never be an extemporaneous thing, particularly in public worship. There is no way to have these personal applications extemporaneously and I do wonder if that is in large part to do with God not designing it to be such. If the difference between prayer and song were merely the meter to which they were spoken, I think hymn singers would have a good point and I'd probably be one. But the Psalms are far more than prayer - my prayers plead to God and the psalms are often pleading to and searching my own heart. So a psalm might not have me pray for my brother in need, but neither will a hymn. And I have never met a hymn which shows me more of Christ and more of my sin than a psalm would have.
Before this thread goes the way of all threads, I wanted to post a page from the website which is written by our own Rev. Daniel Kok (@Poimen). This page from his website is titled "Objections." This is a project he did on singing the Psalms some years ago, and into which he poured many hours of research and writing, so it's a concise and complete resource for those genuinely wishing to find answers for some questions and objections. https://kingandkirk.com/kings-songs/objections/
You'll see a tab above that says "King's Songs," where the Objections page is nestled. In addition, under the tab you'll find Exegetical, General, and History links and information on the singing of Psalms. It's a gold mine.
You'll see a tab above that says "King's Songs," where the Objections page is nestled. In addition, under the tab you'll find Exegetical, General, and History links and information on the singing of Psalms. It's a gold mine.
Last edited:
No, and that is not really the argument. Paul's use of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is all language appropriated by the psalter - particularly in the vulgar tongue of the day. We know for a fact we are to sing from the psalter. The burden of proof relies upon the hymn singer to show that Paul's use of these terms must mean an uninspired song, which cannot be proved as a necessary conclusion based on the language found in the LXX (among other reasons).
We all know 'psalm' could refer to a psalter selection. Almost everyone would grant that 'hymn' and 'song' could too. So the words themselves don't prove anything. Given that, one would have to make an exegetical case that singing man-made hymns is commanded in the New Testament apart from the lexical fallacy that 'hymn' means Isaac Watts.
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Sophomore
While I am personally undecided on the matter, I see this argument used all the time by EP and I don’t think it necessarily follows. The IPer can argue that singing is the element required, just as preaching is. The specific words and their arrangement are not specified apart from being agreeable to scripture. The IPer can say Paul’s use of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are not restrictive (ie three types of psalms), but rather expansive. Sing to God in songs of all sorts! The Hebrew words corresponding to psalms hymns and songs are used in scripture for things outside the 150 as well.
Are they used anywhere for uninspired songs?
We do in fact have the words specified to us:
2 Chron. 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.
Putting the question of other inspired songs besides those found in the psalter, where would you go to show that we must sing uninspired praise based off of the new testament text? It cannot be mere conjecture, rather it has to be a necessary conclusion. It is a conjecture that the threefold description of song is expansive to include uninspired praise.
No one denies that the words correspond to things other than the psalter. We know they correspond to things within the psalter and it must be proven that Paul is using them to mean something other than the psalter.
A related question to ask is, is God less concerned with the content of our song than he was in the OT? Everything about the tabernacle and the temple, from the design, to the utensils, to those who served, to the instruments played (and when and by whom), and to the writing and content of song, were highly regulated. Did he loosen up after Christ's ascension and open the door for any and all to write songs for the worship of God's people?
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Sophomore
So do you only sing those psalms specified as being from David or Asaph?
Eyedoc84
Puritan Board Sophomore
And I would add, do you make sure only Levites sing and do you use the specified instruments?
Of course not, because of the fulfillment in Christ of temple worship ceremony. But then how do you take one partial verse from that context and claim that restricts the content of our worship when the rest of the context is “reinterpreted” (rightly so)?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
But this is not the same argument, is it? I have now seen this quite often in the EP position. The arguments for EP are not the same as those for "inspired words only." Scott Clark, for example, believes that one may only sing inspired words in worship, but that we are not limited to the Psalms. I believe that was Murray's position as well. When an IP proponent mentions that the words "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refer to words other than the 150 psalms, the EP'er responds with "but it's still inspired, right?" But that response is not to the point. Arguing against EP is not the same as arguing against the position I dub "Biblical Words Only" (BWO). I have seen these distinct issues conflated by countless EP advocates. If the OT saints sang the song of Moses, and the new heavens and new earth people sing the song of Moses, but the church cannot, that seems too narrow. But that is not in itself an argument for uninspired hymns as it is an argument against EP. Just as the IP position would have to argue in two distinct steps (1. we are not limited to the 150 Psalms; and 2. we are not limited to ipsissima verba of Scripture), so also the EP position has two steps: 1. We are limited to ipsissima verba, and 2. We are limited to the 150 Psalms. Arguments for either step in either position are NOT arguments for both.
Right; Eyedoc had said "The Hebrew words corresponding to psalms hymns and songs are used in scripture for things outside the 150 as well," and I assumed he might mean instances of uninspired song. I agree that the arguments for EP aren't the same as those for the broader "inspired words only" but they overlap somewhat. I think one has to realize why our song in worship must be inspired as a step on the way to realizing we're to sing from the biblical psalter.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Jeri, I don't believe the arguments overlap. I think EP'ers want them to overlap in people's minds. However, I haven't seen one argument yet that "works for both." The two positions agree that only inspired words may be sung. But they disagree on the limits of what is to be sung. The only reason I am pointing this out is because of the error in reasoning I have seen. Answering an IP advocate by saying "We are only to sing inspired words," when their argument is only aimed at EP and not aimed at BWO is not a valid answer. I think your assumption regarding Eyedoc's argument might just be false.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
The point for the quotation is found in Hebrews 2:10-11 "For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers" and Hebrews 2:14-15 "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery." He quotes from Psalm 22:22 and Isa. 8:17-18 as evidence of this broader point showing the solidarity of Christ with his brothers and children as our high priest. He redeems, he gathers, and he leads them in praise to God.
Again, the content of the "praise" is not specified. It's stating a general point which is made throughout the whole book, that Jesus is the one who brings us back to God, into the true holy place, and to the true Zion, and so on. Even if the author had a direct psalm in mind on the lips of Jeus it has no bearing on the question at hand.
Where are we commanded to only the book of Psalms? Such a command is not found in Hebrews 2. Christ is leading us in whatever form of worship he commanded. If he command us to teach with songs, then he leads that. If he commanded us to only sing the Book of Psalms, then he leads us in that. But where is such a command?
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
These assertions smuggle in an ahistorical assumption, namely that the Psalter, as a canonical collection, existed at this point. The assumption is required, since without a canonical collection of psalms, you couldn't know which psalms you could sing and which other songs you shouldn't. Yet the present canonical psalter clearly post-dates the exile (see Ps 137). So what collection of Davidic and Asaphic psalms were they singing? Did it grow gradually or chunk by chunk? Where were the psalms utilized before they were collected? How did they know, prior to the completion of the whole collection, which ones were inspired? We have nothing in the Old Testament as far as I know that shows that the words of David and Asaph referenced here was a closed collection. If anything the reverse is true, since there are Davidic psalms in every part of the psalter, which suggests some Davidic psalms were preserved (and sung?) outside the process of collecting songs into a psalter, before they were included in the final form. I know these are complex historical questions, but it demonstrates the difficulty of asserting that the Old Testament saints believed in EP
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
See my earlier comments to Logan. Teaching requires composing, just as it does for preaching.
Here is where the EP argument misapplying the doctrine of inspiration begins to warp Christology. Was every word Jesus said in his human nature "inspired"? Is that how Scripture uses that concept of inspiration? When he said "mom, I'm hungry" or "Disciples, pardon me, I need to go to the restroom" was that inspired? The concept of inspiration is limited to God's intentional communication of revelation, especially in writing Scripture (2 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 1:21). When we sing praise to God, it is not an act of revelation, but of human response to God. There is no reason to think that Jesus' words in worship are required to be "inspired" by the Spirit. This is a category confusion. Jesus said many things in his human nature that were not inspired.
Again, it comes back to the command. If God commanded us to teach with songs (not just the book of Psalms), then Jesus would have no problem singing an "un-inspired" song so long as it accurately communicated the Word, just as he blesses un-inspired preaching that accurately communicates the word. Again, if Jesus commanded us to teach with songs, then he has no problem singing them too.
You keep falling back to this idea that we can only sing "inspired" songs. Where is such a command found in Scripture?
You have never come across as impertinent to me. I've enjoy our respectful dialogue
I don't need a closed psalter or a closed canon for that matter to believe in it's sufficiency. The canon wasn't closed when Paul wrote 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and no one has a problem using that as a thoroughgoing proof for the sufficiency of scripture. Similarly, when Paul says to preach the word, we must not assume that preaching Revelation would have been out of bounds as it was not yet written. So no, the argument doesn't assume a canonical collection of psalms. Rather it must be shown why we have recorded what they sang and not merely that they sang. The thrust of the hymn singing argument is that it doesn't really matter what we sing so long as it isn't wrong.
Synecdoches exist. Even now, we have no problem saying things like "the psalms of David" and by that don't mean the psalms of David to the exclusion to the other biblical psalms.
This whole line of argumentation assumes that things during the gradual process of time must have taken place as a sort of a narrow linear development to what we have today. As a committed exclusive psalmist, I have no problem admitting that there could have been certain inspired songs in the earliest days of the church. But what has God left to us as a manual of praise? The conclusive evidence is that it is the psalter.
Last edited:
- Status