Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms
- Thread starter panta dokimazete
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Maybe. My point was to explicate what Prof. Duguid was saying, or what I think he was saying.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Ipsissima verba is not the standard for sufficiency of Scripture in systematic theology. Nor is it for preaching. Nor is it for prayer. Therefore to simply assume ipsissima verba as the default for praise begs the question. It must be argued. Paul tells Timothy that there is a pattern for sound teaching. That pattern includes good and necessary consequence for all the Scriptures. Sufficiency applies to the whole counsel of God, not just to ipsissima verba. This is my basic theological argument for non-inspired hymns. The exegetical argument would be a proof that the EP understanding of Colossians 3:16 does not work. But that is the subject of a whole 'nother thread.
You miss my point. So far, you are not doing too well in addressing the actual points I am trying to make. You need to be a bit more careful. My point was not a direct exegesis of Colossians 3:16. My point was pre-exegetical. Neil appears saying that he doesn't even need to do actual exegesis on Colossians 3:16. My point was that the exegesis of Colossians 3:16 is one of the main points in dispute, and therefore to assume that the EP position doesn't even need to do exegesis on the passage to prove that "songs, hymns, and spiritual songs" refers to the Psalter is a false assumption. So far, every major defense of EP I know of seeks to explain what that passage means. So, my point was that if the passage doesn't mean what the EP position says it does, then the IP position would be proven. And yes, I am convinced that Paul has in mind both inspired and uninspired-but-biblical songs in view in the passage.
I respect you Rev. Keister, but I admit I am at a bit of a loss here. This is not a regulative principle argument in the slightest and it has been pointed out ad nauseum in this thread. You keep asking things like "why are we limited to ipsissima verba". It has to be proven for every element what we are required to do, not merely assumed that I can do what I think is best unless restrained by scripture.
You have also massively conflated categories. Systematic theology is not worship proper like prayer, preaching, singing, and reading scripture is. I don't need warrant to do systematics as it is not an act of worship. Similarly, I do not need scriptural warrant for creeds or confessions. They are not elements of worship. We do need warrant to pray or preach with our own words and we have abundant evidence of such.
By your logic if ipsissima verba isn't required for preaching or praying, why not substitute one of Calvin's commentaries in lieu of reading Romans in corporate worship? And in case you think I am being absurd, I have seen an OPC minister conclude that preaching the confession and preaching scripture are both perfectly valid as they are both materially the word of God.
I would say that EP's talk about and offer explanations of that passage (Colossians 3:16) only because it's a main one used by people to dispute EP. So we are just answering, trying to show how it is that it doesn't contain a command to compose or sing uninspired song.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I didn't respond to your previous reply to me because @MChase had already said more or less all I would have replied with, and more eloquently than I could put it. But I have to point out that I never said I don't need to exegete Colossians 3:16 - my point was that the EP position is not resting on that verse - the IP critique of EP rests on that verse, so the burden of proof is on the proponent of IP (not EP) to demonstrate exegetically that this verse requires us to sing something other than the Psalms. In defence of EP we of course do exegete the verse and conclude that it does not impose such a burden on our worship.
As to the rest of your post, again @MChase points out the problem with the reasoning, nothing to add from me - I think I've said enough on this thread.
You’ll pardon me. I quoted your post, but I did not have your comments specifically in mind. I really ought to have been clearer. I meant that it has been asserted over and over again that “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” can refer to man-made songs.
As for “not doing too well” addressing your points, if you are referring to the other thread which you started, I will say frankly that the thread itself was rather vague and unusual, and the responses that you gave hardly helped. I did not find it necessary to reply, and, anyway, most of what I did say went ignored. I was content to leave it there.
Interesting.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm sorry, but I can't keep up with everyone twisting my arguments into unrecognizable pretzels that would take hours and hours for me to unravel. We aren't getting anywhere, so I will bow out.
I know you have been beating this drum a bit but I have a few questions Professor Duguid. Considering all that was written about Moses in the Psalms and the History of Israel, wouldn't the teaching of the Song of Moses basically be found in the Psalms? Just an honest question. Also, we have a closed canon. The book of Psalms is classified as being a part of that canon. Wouldn't God's song book be recognized and put together the same way his scriptures would have been put together?
Last edited:
It is hardly fair to accuse others of “twisting” your arguments. If you really think that is the case, then it is no wonder “we aren’t getting anywhere.”
I totally understand. There are a lot of spin off questions that are important. But it gets rather tedious to keep up with all of it. It takes a lot of gaining new understanding, knowledge, historical stuff, and even realigning our thoughts with God's thoughts. That means ditching what we thought is true because it is what I was raised with, such as the Church has always sang the Psalms as true worship.
Considering this was probably aimed at me, I'll respond. I was trying my best to act in good faith and interpret you as clearly as possible. Unfortunately, this is where most disagreements on this subject end up. One side storms off and claims that the other side wasn't acting in good faith. (EPers are far from immune to this sort of behavior). I expected a bit more.
I don't believe Lane was doing this. These discussions can get a bit rabbit trailed. They do have topics that are relevant but it is very hard to take all the time needed to give a sufficient answer. Lane is a Pastor and excellent theologian. He has a lot on his plate already and it isn't fair to him to respond to his post this way. Just my humble opinion
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
There's a lot being said, but no one has interacted with my questions/probings about the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 31 on post #408 and #415.
The only ones who interacted were Tom and Jeri. Wow, that's kind of funny as I write it. . .
Jeri and Tom, thanks for the brief interaction, but I'm still left more convinced with IP than ever.
Tom, you haven't responded to my response to you in post #415.
Jeri, your reasoning is going around in circles to me: "since it wasn’t included in our inspired book of praises, it’s no longer to be sung by the church." Isn't the EP position summarized as: It's not to be sung by the church because only the Psalms are commanded to be sung by the church? That's the whole point we're debating: What God has commanded in His word to be sung by the church. If God's Word commands you to sing something outside the Psalter, but you're not open to that because it's outside the Psalter, I don't know what more to say. Further, it is not true that the song of Moses is no longer sung by the church. It is indeed sung by the church, including the NT church, again in Revelation 15.
The only ones who interacted were Tom and Jeri. Wow, that's kind of funny as I write it. . .
Jeri and Tom, thanks for the brief interaction, but I'm still left more convinced with IP than ever.
Tom, you haven't responded to my response to you in post #415.
Jeri, your reasoning is going around in circles to me: "since it wasn’t included in our inspired book of praises, it’s no longer to be sung by the church." Isn't the EP position summarized as: It's not to be sung by the church because only the Psalms are commanded to be sung by the church? That's the whole point we're debating: What God has commanded in His word to be sung by the church. If God's Word commands you to sing something outside the Psalter, but you're not open to that because it's outside the Psalter, I don't know what more to say. Further, it is not true that the song of Moses is no longer sung by the church. It is indeed sung by the church, including the NT church, again in Revelation 15.
Can't forget Tom.
Brother, you and I both understand that as God progressively reveals things he abrogates and defines. Does that sorta give an answer. I wonder if the contents of the Song of Moses aren't included in the Psalms already.
It is exactly what he did. He accused EP folks of twisting his words and left. No one is requiring that anyone spend an undue time online debating these things, but there is a far better way to go about bowing out than justifying ones departure by accusing the other side of "twisting".
Do you believe that we are required to sing the song of Moses?
My point is that we have to hear him as he speaks and defines himself. He probably could untangle this but probably doesn't have the time nor energy to unravel. I am just trying to allow you to understand what it takes to do his job even here on the PB. It takes a lot of time going through the threads and reading as much as we can and do what we have to do on top of that. Sometimes it is just time to bow out of discussions for no other reason than it is becoming increasingly difficult to juggle.
Yes, and that would have been fine. I cannot find anywhere that someone was being purposefully dense and not responding to his arguments. It is not fair to accuse your opponent of twisting your words merely because you do not have time to respond. It is fine not to have time, not fine to accuse your interlocuters of twisting your words when they aren't as justification for your departure. Just say you're bowing out. No need to cast stones.
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Can you just answer my questions before you ask a new one that feels like you're kind of laying a trap? Just respond if you can then I can respond back. I'm not trying to trap anyone. I've laid out what I've got and just asking for a response.
I don't believe the other inspired songs can be definitively proved as necessary content of public worship. They were written in the midst of the church under age and as the psalter was put together they could have been included and weren't. Given that we do have a song of Moses in the Psalter, there was clearly a path to them being added and it wasn't taken. I am fine with a certain degree of difference of opinion on this though.
So do you believe that the Song of Moses is to be sung of necessity?
Rev. Jon, you propose an “if” scenario (“if God’s word commands you to sing a song that is outside the psalter”); it misses that although God did give inspired songs not included in our psalter, there was no command to sing those songs in perpetuity; and by God’s design, they weren’t included in the Tehilliam (pulling out my Hebrew on you
), the book of praises provided for the church. This would also include Moses’ two songs, Deborah’s song, and Isaiah’s song, and likely more I’m not thinking of. So, the EP position is quite sure there is no command to now sing anything outside the Psalter.As far as the song sung in Revelation 15, the scene in that vision is of course in a book of a particular genre that must be taken into account. The saints in the vision are singing “the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” (you left out the second part). Interestingly, the song contains words not found in the two songs of Moses in Exodus or Deuteronomy.
Are you sure this is what happened? It seems you know Lane better than I do. He sensed he was being misunderstood and his terminology misunderstood. It is nearing the weekend and Pastors have a lot of refining to do. He doesn't have the time nor does he need to spend the energy clearing up the mud puddle. I am just a bit uncomfortable with the idea of imputing ill motive to Lane if that is what you are doing.
I don't know the Rev. Keister at all. But I am not sure how else to take it when someone says that 'you are twisting my words into an unrecognizable pretzel'. It is not imputing ill motive. It is reading words at face value.
Hehe!
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
@JTB.SDG
To help out a bit with your question about songs not in the Psalter, the question is: What should we sing in praise to God today as NT Christians under the situation of a closed canon? When the EPer looks through the Bible, we see that the psalms are commanded. When we look further, we see that at all points in redemptive history, worship song has been of an inspired quality. The conclusion is then: by the RPW, we must seek songs of an inspired quality.
The thing that then differentiates EP from the all Inspired Songs position is: Has God also commanded us to sing other inspired songs in our current situation? Different EPers will answer "no" for a variety of reasons and will answer in different ways, but they come down to a lack of proof that various alleged or real songs recorded in Scripture were intended to be used in worship perpetually or in worship in the NT.
As part of building a positive case for EP against Inspired Songs (as opposed to merely giving a negative case, i.e., showing that the attempted proofs for using other inspired songs do not necessarily follow or that the approved examples are not truly relevant, etc.), the EPer will often note the development of a canonical hymn book in the Bible. There could be various other inspired songs that were used in worship for their own purpose and seasons, but the end result was a canon of praise. Hence why you hear the EPer say, "It did not make it into the Book of Psalms." It sounds like circular reasoning because the premise about a canonical hymnbook is often left hidden (or on some occasions, an EPer will state that we today are commanded to sing from the Book of Psalms and not commanded to sing from anything else, so if it's not in the Book of Psalms, then we ought not to sing it, and then this premise is left hidden).
Another part of building a positive case for EP against Inspired Songs is noting the historical limitations of various songs in themselves that show they were not intended to be used continuously (e.g., the song of Deborah has much historically limited language unique to the situation, whereas the book of Psalms is deliberately more general in its approach with the intention of being singable at all times, as can also be seen by its repeated use long after David in the OT, placement in the canon as a hymnbook, and prophetic nature that looks far ahead to the fullness of times in its use of language). More could be said to fill out the argument on this front.
There are more things an EPer can say vs the all Inspired Songs position, but I am trying to help clarify what you have seen in this thread.
With regards to the song in Deuteronomy, I would note that this is not presented as a worship song. It is presented as a song of testimony of God against Israel and a song of warning. It functions purely as a "teaching" (for lack of a better word off the top of my head) device. EPers do not usually have a problem with writing and singing other songs--even ones dealing with religious subjects; EP is strictly about what songs we should sing as praise to God in worship. Other EPers may answer differently and argue for its time-limitedness to the Mosaic Covenant.
To help out a bit with your question about songs not in the Psalter, the question is: What should we sing in praise to God today as NT Christians under the situation of a closed canon? When the EPer looks through the Bible, we see that the psalms are commanded. When we look further, we see that at all points in redemptive history, worship song has been of an inspired quality. The conclusion is then: by the RPW, we must seek songs of an inspired quality.
The thing that then differentiates EP from the all Inspired Songs position is: Has God also commanded us to sing other inspired songs in our current situation? Different EPers will answer "no" for a variety of reasons and will answer in different ways, but they come down to a lack of proof that various alleged or real songs recorded in Scripture were intended to be used in worship perpetually or in worship in the NT.
As part of building a positive case for EP against Inspired Songs (as opposed to merely giving a negative case, i.e., showing that the attempted proofs for using other inspired songs do not necessarily follow or that the approved examples are not truly relevant, etc.), the EPer will often note the development of a canonical hymn book in the Bible. There could be various other inspired songs that were used in worship for their own purpose and seasons, but the end result was a canon of praise. Hence why you hear the EPer say, "It did not make it into the Book of Psalms." It sounds like circular reasoning because the premise about a canonical hymnbook is often left hidden (or on some occasions, an EPer will state that we today are commanded to sing from the Book of Psalms and not commanded to sing from anything else, so if it's not in the Book of Psalms, then we ought not to sing it, and then this premise is left hidden).
Another part of building a positive case for EP against Inspired Songs is noting the historical limitations of various songs in themselves that show they were not intended to be used continuously (e.g., the song of Deborah has much historically limited language unique to the situation, whereas the book of Psalms is deliberately more general in its approach with the intention of being singable at all times, as can also be seen by its repeated use long after David in the OT, placement in the canon as a hymnbook, and prophetic nature that looks far ahead to the fullness of times in its use of language). More could be said to fill out the argument on this front.
There are more things an EPer can say vs the all Inspired Songs position, but I am trying to help clarify what you have seen in this thread.
With regards to the song in Deuteronomy, I would note that this is not presented as a worship song. It is presented as a song of testimony of God against Israel and a song of warning. It functions purely as a "teaching" (for lack of a better word off the top of my head) device. EPers do not usually have a problem with writing and singing other songs--even ones dealing with religious subjects; EP is strictly about what songs we should sing as praise to God in worship. Other EPers may answer differently and argue for its time-limitedness to the Mosaic Covenant.
Last edited:
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
My comment was aimed at most of the EP'ers. No matter how hard I try to explain my viewpoint, the EP'ers are twisting my argument into something I don't recognize. Extension fallacies happening right and left. My church is hosting presbytery tomorrow, and I simply don't have time to unravel all the problems. Randy has it exactly right.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Brother, I'm in full Sunday mode now, but if the thread remains open longer or doesn't crash and burn, I'll try to explore this with you more later. Blessings, Shipmate.
- Status