Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

[PuritanCovenanter]

EP is a doctrine that places a veil over the revealed works and deeds of Jesus in sung worship.

see post directly above yours

So your two beefs are you think Jesus name isn't being sung along with the new song issue. I think you have sufficiently been answered. But...

Here is Denny Prutow on the New Song issue. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...s-to-exclusive-psalmody-pt-2-sing-a-new-song/

OBJECTIONS TO EXCLUSIVE PSALMODY pt 2 Sing a New Song

THE PSALTER COMMANDS NEW SONGS

The Psalms themselves command believers to sing a new song. “Sing to Him a new song; / Play skillfully with a shout of joy” (Ps. 33:3). “Sing to the Lord a new song; / Sing to the Lord, all the earth” (Ps. 96:1). “Praise the Lord! / Sing to the Lord a new song, / And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones” (Ps. 149:1). Coppes invokes Isaiah 42:1, 9, and 10 to make his case.

Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; / My chosen one in whom My soul delights. / I have put My Spirit upon Him; / He will bring forth justice to the nations … Behold, the former things have come to pass, / Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you. / Sing to the Lord a new song, / Sing His praise from the end of the earth! (italics added).

Pointing to verse 9, Coppes says, “This verse defines ‘new’ as something that does not yet exist in the Old Testament period.”(9) He then maintains that the proper exegesis of Isaiah 42:10 is fixed by Revelation 5:9 where God tells us the saints in heaven are singing

“a new song” And they sang a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation …

Thus we see that in heavenly worship, the saints gathered before the throne of God, and hence, within the heavenly holy of holies, are singing a new song as prophesied in Isaiah 42:10 and the words are new words, i.e., words not recorded as one of the Old Testament psalms (cf. Rev. 14:3).(10)

This objection raises three important issues: the Biblical understanding of the term new, the interpretation of Isa. 42:10, and our relationship to the praise of God’s people portrayed in the Book of Revelation.

What is the Biblical understanding of the terms new and newness? George Ladd teaches, “The idea of newness is distinctly eschatological … The idea of newness preserves its eschatological character in the New Testament.”(11) That is, believers live in an era in which the future has dawned. The age to come is pressing into this present age. “Thus,” as Vos puts it, “the other world, hitherto future, has become present.”(12) This is realized eschatology, the already but not yet. R. A. Harrisville adds that, “the ‘new covenant’ is an eschatological concept.”(13) Harrisville then rehearses four characteristics of this concept of newness. The first is that of contrast. “The new covenant exists in contrast to the old by the fact that the community founded upon it is no longer ruled by an external authority from without (i.e., the letter of the law), but is motivated by the Spirit of God from within.”(14) This distinctive of newness, contrast, or discontinuity, presupposes a second characteristic, “the element of continuity. continuity. The new covenant does not replace the old, but rather grows out of it and is related to it as fulfillment to promise.”(15) The new covenant is in essence one with the old; the new is a new administration of the same covenant of grace.

A third “distinctive feature of the idea” of newness “is its dynamic element.”(16) This dynamic element is explained by the power of Jesus Christ and his redemptive activity.(17) Newness is seen and experienced in and through texts such a 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (italics added). The Christian is a new creature or a new creation. Great change has occurred in the newly-converted person. There is discontinuity with the past. The newly-converted person, however, may be readily recognized. There is definite continuity with the past. This tension exists because of the dynamic element of the power of Christ introduced into the life of the Christian.

The fourth distinctive feature of “new” is finality. “The renewal by faith is final; it cannot be repeated because the believer has been placed within the last and final period of God’s redemptive activity which hastens to its goal.”(18) There is finality to newness because as has been observed in the previous chapter, God’s eschatological plan will come to fruition. This fourfold distinctiveness of newness in Scripture—contrast, continuity, dynamic, and finality—fits well with both the subjective element and the eschatology of the Psalter.

From this perspective, it is simplistic to hold that new refers to something that does not already exist. John 13:34 is a helpful example: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” Harrisville comments, “The new commandment is thus the rule of the new eschatological community. It is an eschatological commandment … Thus though the commandment is not new from a purely historical point of view, it is new as given by Jesus.”(19)

... to read the rest click on the link.

 

[Logan]

wow - y'all are really, really trying to paint me into the "Scripture is insufficient" box. Read my earlier response to a similar attempt.

I believe you are failing to recognize the logical consequence of your position. And are dismissing any critique without due consideration.

But I am absolutely baffled that you don't think you're saying the psalter is insufficient. That's practically the entirety of your position against EP.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I believe you are failing to recognize the logical consequence of your position. And are dismissing any critique without due consideration.

But I am absolutely baffled that you don't think you're saying the psalter is insufficient. That's practically the entirety of your position against EP.

Because I am not arguing the sufficiency of the Scripture. I am arguing the incomplete and disobedient worship of EP doctrine. Strictly speaking, yes, the Psalms are insufficient as the sole source of sung worship for the NT church, just as the OT is insufficient as the sole source of Scriptural revelation for the NT church. To say otherwise is patent absurdity.

(Sorry if this comes across as raising my voice, just making sure I am emphasizing my point.)

 

[panta dokimazete]

So your two beefs are you think Jesus name isn't being sung along with the new song issue. I think you have sufficiently been answered. But...

Here is Denny Prutow on the New Song issue. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...s-to-exclusive-psalmody-pt-2-sing-a-new-song/

OBJECTIONS TO EXCLUSIVE PSALMODY pt 2 Sing a New Song

THE PSALTER COMMANDS NEW SONGS

The Psalms themselves command believers to sing a new song. “Sing to Him a new song; / Play skillfully with a shout of joy” (Ps. 33:3). “Sing to the Lord a new song; / Sing to the Lord, all the earth” (Ps. 96:1). “Praise the Lord! / Sing to the Lord a new song, / And His praise in the congregation of the godly ones” (Ps. 149:1). Coppes invokes Isaiah 42:1, 9, and 10 to make his case.

Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; / My chosen one in whom My soul delights. / I have put My Spirit upon Him; / He will bring forth justice to the nations … Behold, the former things have come to pass, / Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you. / Sing to the Lord a new song, / Sing His praise from the end of the earth! (italics added).

Pointing to verse 9, Coppes says, “This verse defines ‘new’ as something that does not yet exist in the Old Testament period.”(9) He then maintains that the proper exegesis of Isaiah 42:10 is fixed by Revelation 5:9 where God tells us the saints in heaven are singing

“a new song” And they sang a new song, saying, You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation …

Thus we see that in heavenly worship, the saints gathered before the throne of God, and hence, within the heavenly holy of holies, are singing a new song as prophesied in Isaiah 42:10 and the words are new words, i.e., words not recorded as one of the Old Testament psalms (cf. Rev. 14:3).(10)

This objection raises three important issues: the Biblical understanding of the term new, the interpretation of Isa. 42:10, and our relationship to the praise of God’s people portrayed in the Book of Revelation.

What is the Biblical understanding of the terms new and newness? George Ladd teaches, “The idea of newness is distinctly eschatological … The idea of newness preserves its eschatological character in the New Testament.”(11) That is, believers live in an era in which the future has dawned. The age to come is pressing into this present age. “Thus,” as Vos puts it, “the other world, hitherto future, has become present.”(12) This is realized eschatology, the already but not yet. R. A. Harrisville adds that, “the ‘new covenant’ is an eschatological concept.”(13) Harrisville then rehearses four characteristics of this concept of newness. The first is that of contrast. “The new covenant exists in contrast to the old by the fact that the community founded upon it is no longer ruled by an external authority from without (i.e., the letter of the law), but is motivated by the Spirit of God from within.”(14) This distinctive of newness, contrast, or discontinuity, presupposes a second characteristic, “the element of continuity. continuity. The new covenant does not replace the old, but rather grows out of it and is related to it as fulfillment to promise.”(15) The new covenant is in essence one with the old; the new is a new administration of the same covenant of grace.

A third “distinctive feature of the idea” of newness “is its dynamic element.”(16) This dynamic element is explained by the power of Jesus Christ and his redemptive activity.(17) Newness is seen and experienced in and through texts such a 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (italics added). The Christian is a new creature or a new creation. Great change has occurred in the newly-converted person. There is discontinuity with the past. The newly-converted person, however, may be readily recognized. There is definite continuity with the past. This tension exists because of the dynamic element of the power of Christ introduced into the life of the Christian.

The fourth distinctive feature of “new” is finality. “The renewal by faith is final; it cannot be repeated because the believer has been placed within the last and final period of God’s redemptive activity which hastens to its goal.”(18) There is finality to newness because as has been observed in the previous chapter, God’s eschatological plan will come to fruition. This fourfold distinctiveness of newness in Scripture—contrast, continuity, dynamic, and finality—fits well with both the subjective element and the eschatology of the Psalter.

From this perspective, it is simplistic to hold that new refers to something that does not already exist. John 13:34 is a helpful example: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” Harrisville comments, “The new commandment is thus the rule of the new eschatological community. It is an eschatological commandment … Thus though the commandment is not new from a purely historical point of view, it is new as given by Jesus.”(19)

... to read the rest click on the link.

Brother, you are not taking into account the fullness of my argument.

Do you deny that the Psalms command the church to sing of all the revealed works and deeds of the Lord?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Do you deny that the Psalms command the church to sing of all the revealed works and deeds of the Lord?

And the Psalms do that and they are commanded to be sung exclusively by definition. I finally picked up on what Paul was saying in a historical context as he penned Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs when I listened to this.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Another example supporting the OP - EP denies the NT church to sing:

... "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" [Revelation 5:12 ESV]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Just to help cut through the rhetoric:

1) An argument about the sufficiency of Scripture in this debate is a category mistake:
The OT itself taught it was incomplete. Thus to say the Psalms are inadequate to fully reveal or explain the identity and work of Christ is not a controversial statement nor an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. The OT itself promised of a new covenant and a Messiah who would come to teach us more. Even Jesus and the apostles had to supplement the Psalms they quoted with an explanation of what they meant. Are they denying the sufficiency of Scripture in doing so? Again, this is a category mistake and should be left out of the debate. The doctrine of Scripture's sufficiency refers to the completed canon (WCF 1.2, 6). The OT Scriptures were sufficient "for that time" in which they were given (WLC 34, WCF 7.5) but that did not mean more revelation was not needed. No one is denying the sufficiency of Scripture in this debate, but the role of the Book of Psalms within the redemptive-historical unfolding of that completed canon.

2) The whole crux of the argument is really the command: where are we commanded to sing the Book of Psalms exclusively?
All other arguments are supporting arguments, not the main argument. This is the actual point of disagreement and where the discussion needs to be had, on the ground of the RPW and what is actually commanded. The fact is there is not a command to sing the book of Psalms exclusively. Therefore, such a command must be deduced from "good and necessary consequence" (WCF 1.6).

The EP advocates try to make that case by arguing that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" in (Col. 3:16, Eph 5:19) refers the "book of Psalms". Those arguing for inclusive psalmody (singing Psalms but not exclusively) argue that there is no evidence within these texts to deduce Paul meant "the Book of Psalms only". Paul and the apostles knew how to say "the Book of Psalms" (Lk 20:42, Acts 1:20). And such an important clarification would have been extremely helpful to predominantly Gentile churches who were being taught how to worship. But he didn't say "book of Psalms". He gave song types with specific content "the Word of Christ" which the surrounding context explains as the message of the gospel, not just the inspired book of Psalms. The inclusive psalmody advocates are not persuaded that the argument for EP can be deduced by good and "necessary" consequence, either by what is commanded, or by the natural use of grammar or context into which Paul spoke there.

For inclusive psalmody, the command to "compose" or "write" songs is found in the specific terms Paul commanded, Col 3:16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs..." The command is to "teach" and "admonish" with songs and to do so "with wisdom". These are the exact same words in Greek that Paul used to describe preaching before in Col 1:28, "Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom..." Songs then are commanded as means of instruction to be used with wisdom, in expounding the Word like preaching. Thus, the inclusive psalmody argument is that we are commanded to teach "the Word" (the whole Word, as taught in OT and NT) and admonish with singing, not to teach human heresies etc. If a song fails to teach the Word faithfully or wisely, then we reject it. Yes, it's true that you won't find any heresy in the Psalms, but there are plenty of hymns that proclaim Christ and the Word without heresy as well. The boundaries for the content of our song is "the Word" and the quality of those songs are determined by "teaching", "admonishing" and doing so with "wisdom".

I know I am not presenting both sides fully here, and that is not my intent. I'm just trying to point out where the exegetical arguments need to be focused, rather than on more peripheral doctrines to this debate (which neither side denies).

3) Another unhelpful argument is trying to make "singing" an entirely separate category of worship. The book of Psalms itself doesn't make such a rigid distinction. The Psalms also call themselves "prayers" and as such can teach us how to pray. Singing is men directing their hearts and words toward God and thus it is a form of prayer. The Psalms are also inspired "Scripture" to be read and preached to us, not just sung by us. The Psalms are more than just a hymnbook for singing. They are part of the redemptive historical revelation of Christ, and occupy an important place within the Canon, but not just as a hymnbook. Both sides know this so leave it out of the argument. It doesn't help. No one here is denying the usefulness of the Psalms for singing. The question is the command for exclusive use. Go back to there.

I don't intend to get sucked in to yet another EP thread, only trying to help reign in the unhelpful rhetoric and bring the arguments back into focus. The whole debate hinges on what is actually commanded. You will have a more constructive discussion if you focus on that.

My two cents...

 

[Logan]

Because I am not arguing the sufficiency of the Scripture. I am arguing the incomplete and disobedient worship of EP doctrine. Strictly speaking, yes, the Psalms are insufficient as the sole source of sung worship for the NT church, just as the OT is insufficient as the sole source of Scriptural revelation for the NT church. To say otherwise is patent absurdity.

(Sorry if this comes across as raising my voice, just making sure I am emphasizing my point.)

I did intentionally limit myself to talking about the purported insufficiency of the psalter...please read my post?

 

[Romans678]

Because I am not arguing the sufficiency of the Scripture. I am arguing the incomplete and disobedient worship of EP doctrine. Strictly speaking, yes, the Psalms are insufficient as the sole source of sung worship for the NT church, just as the OT is insufficient as the sole source of Scriptural revelation for the NT church. To say otherwise is patent absurdity.

(Sorry if this comes across as raising my voice, just making sure I am emphasizing my point.)

How do you emphasize words? Do you add an asterisk or two to the phrase or is there another way? I'm using Tapatalk.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[panta dokimazete]

And the Psalms do that and they are commanded to be sung exclusively by definition. I finally picked up on what Paul was saying in a historical context as he penned Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs when I listened to this.

Show me an example of Psalms that say

"Jesus died on the cross to save sinners"

"At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess"

"There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved than Jesus"

"Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!"

in a plain way that is not "types and shadows".

This is the point of the OP, please reread it.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Sections added by me:

Section 1:
Premise: EP is wrong and insufficient.
Conclusion: EP is wrong and insufficient.

Section 2:
You've begged the question from the very beginning. There's no use in discussion at that point.

Section 3:
Let us note though that your position is that the Holy Spirit has left the church with an insufficient psalter and expects us to make up that deficiency ourselves, and if we restrict ourselves only to what the Holy Spirit has provided, we are sinning. I find that absurd.

Section 4:
We are commanded to sing the psalms (Col 3:16, Eph 5:19). If they are insufficient, then why did the Spirit command to sing them at all? Wouldn't it make at least portions of the worship service deficient, according to your definition?

Section 5:
Do man-made hymns fulfill your pre-supposed requirement to speak of all aspects of Christ's life? I don't recall ever hearing a hymn speaking about Jesus falling asleep or changing water to wine. Are you applying your own metric consistently?

Section 1: You are clearly mischaracterizing my premises in an uncharitable and misleading way

Section 2: "The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it"

Please back up your assertion - I start with premises that support the conclusion

Section 3: I addressed this earlier - yes, insufficient as the sole source of sung worship, just as the OT is insufficient as the sole source of Scriptural revelation, to state otherwise is absurd

Section 4: this is certainly begging the question that psalms, hymns and spiritual song are all referring exclusively to the 150 Psalms - an EP tenet to which I do not subscribe

Section 5: A seeming ad absurdum attempt, that completely misses the OP's point and the Psalms' command - also absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but this song addresses the "water to wine" assertion - could probably find the other if I worked at it.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Just to help cut through the rhetoric:

1) An argument about the sufficiency of Scripture in this debate is a category mistake:
The OT itself taught it was incomplete. Thus to say the Psalms are inadequate to fully reveal or explain the identity and work of Christ is not a controversial statement nor an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. The OT itself promised of a new covenant and a Messiah who would come to teach us more. Even Jesus and the apostles had to supplement the Psalms they quoted with an explanation of what they meant. Are they denying the sufficiency of Scripture in doing so? Again, this is a category mistake and should be left out of the debate. The doctrine of Scripture's sufficiency refers to the completed canon (WCF 1.2, 6). The OT Scriptures were sufficient "for that time" in which they were given (WLC 34, WCF 7.5) but that did not mean more revelation was not needed. No one is denying the sufficiency of Scripture in this debate, but the role of the Book of Psalms within the redemptive-historical unfolding of that completed canon.

2) The whole crux of the argument is really the command: where are we commanded to sing the Book of Psalms exclusively?
All other arguments are supporting arguments, not the main argument. This is the actual point of disagreement and where the discussion needs to be had, on the ground of the RPW and what is actually commanded. The fact is there is not a command to sing the book of Psalms exclusively. Therefore, such a command must be deduced from "good and necessary consequence" (WCF 1.6).

The EP advocates try to make that case by arguing that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" in (Col. 3:16, Eph 5:19) refers the "book of Psalms". Those arguing for inclusive psalmody (singing Psalms but not exclusively) argue that there is no evidence within these texts to deduce Paul meant "the Book of Psalms only". Paul and the apostles knew how to say "the Book of Psalms" (Lk 20:42, Acts 1:20). And such an important clarification would have been extremely helpful to predominantly Gentile churches who were being taught how to worship. But he didn't say "book of Psalms". He gave song types with specific content "the Word of Christ" which the surrounding context explains as the message of the gospel, not just the inspired book of Psalms. The inclusive psalmody advocates are not persuaded that the argument for EP can be deduced by good and "necessary" consequence, either by what is commanded, or by the natural use of grammar or context into which Paul spoke there.

For inclusive psalmody, the command to "compose" or "write" songs is found in the specific terms Paul commanded, Col 3:16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs..." The command is to "teach" and "admonish" with songs and to do so "with wisdom". These are the exact same words in Greek that Paul used to describe preaching before in Col 1:28, "Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom..." Songs then are commanded as means of instruction to be used with wisdom, in expounding the Word like preaching. Thus, the inclusive psalmody argument is that we are commanded to teach "the Word" (the whole Word, as taught in OT and NT) and admonish with singing, not to teach human heresies etc. If a song fails to teach the Word faithfully or wisely, then we reject it. Yes, it's true that you won't find any heresy in the Psalms, but there are plenty of hymns that proclaim Christ and the Word without heresy as well. The boundaries for the content of our song is "the Word" and the quality of those songs are determined by "teaching", "admonishing" and doing so with "wisdom".

I know I am not presenting both sides fully here, and that is not my intent. I'm just trying to point out where the exegetical arguments need to be focused, rather than on more peripheral doctrines to this debate (which neither side denies).

3) Another unhelpful argument is trying to make "singing" an entirely separate category of worship. The book of Psalms itself doesn't make such a rigid distinction. The Psalms also call themselves "prayers" and as such can teach us how to pray. Singing is men directing their hearts and words toward God and thus it is a form of prayer. The Psalms are also inspired "Scripture" to be read and preached to us, not just sung by us. The Psalms are more than just a hymnbook for singing. They are part of the redemptive historical revelation of Christ, and occupy an important place within the Canon, but not just as a hymnbook. Both sides know this so leave it out of the argument. It doesn't help. No one here is denying the usefulness of the Psalms for singing. The question is the command for exclusive use. Go back to there.

I don't intend to get sucked in to yet another EP thread, only trying to help reign in the unhelpful rhetoric and bring the arguments back into focus. The whole debate hinges on what is actually commanded. You will have a more constructive discussion if you focus on that.

My two cents...

I'd say this is a "buck-fiddy"

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

"At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue confess"

Commandment 1
Are the 10 commandments found in the Psalms?

"There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved than Jesus"

Jesus is Greek as you know. Are you looking for the Word Joshua in the Psalm? I can find Jehovah Saves all through them. Isn't that what Joshua means?

"There is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved than Jesus"

Again, ... No disagreement here. I believe the Psalms prove that. Saviour is all through the Psalms. Do I have to speak the Hebrew tongue for Jehovah Saves or do I have to use the Greek word Jesus?

in a plain way that is not 'types and shadows

It wasn't necessarily type or Shadow to those who embraced by faith in either the old or new Covenant. It becomes real when the vail is taken away by God through faith by grace in both Testaments.

All of this is beside the point. God commands that we worship a certain way. He prescribed that we sing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs which by definition are found in the 150 songs by definition.

 

[Romans678]

You guys ok in here?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I'd say this is a "buck-fiddy"

I'd give it a full two. LOL

 

[panta dokimazete]

It wasn't necessarily type or Shadow to those who embraced by faith in either the old or new Covenant. It becomes real when the vail is taken away by God through faith by grace in both Testaments.

You just pointed out a key flaw of EP - "both Testaments" are not present in EP sung worship.

And you are begging the question when you assert psalms and hymns and spiritual songs all refer to the 150 Psalms.

 

[retroGRAD3]

It would make sense at this point for the EP advocates to response to Puritan Sailors premises. I thought he did a great job laying it out.

 

[panta dokimazete]

It would make sense at this point for the EP advocates to response to Puritan Sailors premises. I thought he did a great job laying it out.

@Puritan Sailor did a great job of addressing how many of the arguments being brought forward do not really address or distract from the OP and I thank him for that

 

[Logan]

Sections added by me:

Section 1: You are clearly mischaracterizing my premises in an uncharitable and misleading way

Section 2: "The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it"

Please back up your assertion - I start with premises that support the conclusion

Section 3: I addressed this earlier - yes, insufficient as the sole source of sung worship, just as the OT is insufficient as the sole source of Scriptural revelation, to state otherwise is absurd

Section 4: this is certainly begging the question that psalms, hymns and spiritual song are all referring exclusively to the 150 Psalms - an EP tenet to which I do not subscribe

Section 5: A seeming ad absurdum attempt, that completely misses the OP's point and the Psalms' command - also absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but this song addresses the "water to wine" assertion - could probably find the other if I worked at it.

1./2. I don't think so. You've made an assertion upon which you build your conclusion, but your conclusion is integral to your assertion. I deny your premise and thus your conclusion. You assume your premise in your interpretation, and thus your conclusion. This is by definition, begging the question.

3. No, you miss the point entirely. If the psalms are insufficient when used exclusively, then they are insufficient when they are used partially, and thus the Holy Spirit gave us an insufficient song book and we must supply the lack.

4. No, I made the assumption that everyone would agree that psalms are commanded to be sung, but I intentionally did not argue from an exclusivity point of view.

5. I don't think you recognize the arbitrariness of your position. You are the arbiter of whether the hymns are sufficient or whether more hymns are needed. Are the hymns you've added "sufficient" to make up for the psalter's "insufficiency"? How do you know when your hymnal is good enough and when it isn't? You aren't consistent with your own premise unless you exhaustively cover every possible aspect of the NT.

 

[panta dokimazete]

1./2. I don't think so. You've made an assertion upon which you build your conclusion, but your conclusion is integral to your assertion. I deny your premise and thus your conclusion. You assume your premise in your interpretation, and thus your conclusion. This is by definition, begging the question.

Let's start here:

1/2. Which assertion/premise do you deny? I've numbered them to make it easy.

 

[Romans922]

5. I don't think you recognize the arbitrariness of your position. You are the arbiter of whether the hymns are sufficient or whether more hymns are needed. Are the hymns you've added "sufficient" to make up for the psalter's "insufficiency"? How do you know when your hymnal is good enough and when it isn't? You aren't consistent with your own premise unless you exhaustively cover every possible aspect of the NT.

This is one of the great supplemental points to the position of EP. Supplemental, i.e. not primary. As a Pastor in the PCA and I would suspect many pastors of PCA and OPC churches here often dealt with what I did, that it was up to me to decide what was 'worthy' and 'doctrinally sound' to add to the bulletin for the congregation to sing. All that was not 'worthy' or 'doctrinally sound' of the hymnal we had (which included Psalms) we didn't sing. But it was left to me, a frail man. And Pastor ABC will make different decisions than Pastor XYZ. Somewhere along the line there are churches singing unbiblical and doctrine in hymns that is false--all based upon the decision of a man (and Session of course, but primarily the Pastor). That had, up until we began singing EP, for me been an odd and excruciating decision making process. I'm the one who judged doubly for such decisions... And then there may be some in the congregation (of all our congregations) who disagree with singing hymn 123, so they refrain from singing because their conscience is bound (liberty of conscience) had been broken. Another inevitable issue.

 

[Logan]

1/2. Which assertion/premise do you deny? I've numbered them to make it easy.

"Therefore, new songs concerning the mighty and wondrous works and deeds of Jesus from the NT are commanded and required for proper worship."

That does not follow from your OP point 3. It's a premise.
However, EP people would say that the psalms do tell of the mighty and wondrous deeds of Jesus. You say it's not good enough or clear enough. That's also a premise.

Okay, I've said my piece. If I haven't made a dent in this many posts then I don't think I ever will.

 

[panta dokimazete]

This is one of the great supplemental points to the position of EP. Supplemental, i.e. not primary. As a Pastor in the PCA and I would suspect many pastors of PCA and OPC churches here often dealt with what I did, that it was up to me to decide what was 'worthy' and 'doctrinally sound' to add to the bulletin for the congregation to sing. All that was not 'worthy' or 'doctrinally sound' of the hymnal we had (which included Psalms) we didn't sing. But it was left to me, a frail man. And Pastor ABC will make different decisions than Pastor XYZ. Somewhere along the line there are churches singing unbiblical and doctrine in hymns that is false--all based upon the decision of a man (and Session of course, but primarily the Pastor). That had, up until we began singing EP, for me been an odd and excruciating decision making process. I'm the one who judged doubly for such decisions... And then there may be some in the congregation (of all our congregations) who disagree with singing hymn 123, so they refrain from singing because their conscience is bound (liberty of conscience) had been broken. Another inevitable issue.

Not to belittle, but this rationale could be used concerning any element of worship. It is a "do the safest thing"/scruples argument, not a Biblical one. I do not find it convincing. There should be deep consideration for the content and context of every element of worship. "for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control" [2 Timothy 1:7 ESV]

 

[panta dokimazete]

"Therefore, new songs concerning the mighty and wondrous works and deeds of Jesus from the NT are commanded and required for proper worship."

That does not follow from your OP point 3. It's a premise.
However, EP people would say that the psalms do tell of the mighty and wondrous deeds of Jesus. You say it's not good enough or clear enough. That's also a premise.

Okay, I've said my piece. If I haven't made a dent in this many posts then I don't think I ever will.

I understand what you are trying to get at, but you are wrong. I was very careful that conclusion flowed from the premises. Decompose my premises and show how the conclusion does not follow.

You keep ignoring "thoroughly and completely", which is key to the conclusion. EP prohibits Biblically thorough and complete sung worship, as it purposefully ignores NT content.

 

[Romans678]

I understand what you are trying to get at, but you are wrong. I was very careful that conclusion flowed from the premises. Decompose my premises and show how the conclusion does not follow.

You keep ignoring "thoroughly and completely", which is key to the conclusion. EP prohibits Biblically thorough and complete sung worship, as it purposefully ignores NT content.

Hey brother, hope your day is going well. I've been wondering something as I'm reading this thread. What Confession do you hold to? Just curious.

EDIT: I've been looking at your website "http://www.oddxian.com/" on your PB profile and I can't seem to find any mention of a Confession at all. Am I missing something?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[panta dokimazete]

Hey brother, hope your day is going well. I've been wondering something as I'm reading this thread. What Confession do you hold to? Just curious.

EDIT: I've been looking at your website "http://www.oddxian.com/" on your PB profile and I can't seem to find any mention of a Confession at all. Am I missing something?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

I'm WCF with minor exceptions associated with infant election and, you guessed it, exclusive psalmody

I tuned my stuff, so my confessional alignment is clearer.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

You just pointed out a key flaw of EP - "both Testaments" are not present in EP sung worship.

And you are begging the question when you assert psalms and hymns and spiritual songs all refer to the 150 Psalms.

1) We are going to disagree about the first statement. That is all I will say about that.

2) Yes, that is mostly undisputed that those three classifications of music are all present and that St. Paul's reference to Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs are the collected 150 Songs of Israel. That is why I posted a link to a podcast where Dr. Bacon discusses the issue.

 

[panta dokimazete]

1) We are going to disagree about the first statement. That is all I will say about that.

2) Yes, that is mostly undisputed that those three classifications of music are all present and that St. Paul's reference to Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs are the collected 150 Songs of Israel. That is why I posted a link to a podcast where Dr. Bacon discusses the issue.

1) I am not surprised
2) Yep - that is certainly the EP position on those verses - if anyone is interested in understanding that it is not a hendiatris, as my brother is contending, let me know, but it is outside the OP scope

 

[Tom Hart]

This is one of the most unpleasant threads I have ever read through on the PB. Endless assertions, insubstantial arguments, and more than one “Nice try.”

Clearly, the OP is not intended to promote any substantial discussion. I have not forgotten that this started (in another, now closed, thread) with the accusation that Exclusive Psalmody is a “doctrine of Satan.”

If there are any members who are willing to have a real conversation on this topic, if they are genuinely curious about EP, or if they want to work out some knots they have with the doctrine, then I might suggest they take those questions to a new thread.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The fact is there is not a command to sing the book of Psalms exclusively. Therefore, such a command must be deduced from "good and necessary consequence" (WCF 1.6).

But even the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't agree with you here Patrick. It is an EP document. I am not so sure of your application of good and necessary consequences either. Someone smarter than me is gonna have to deal with that. I have forgotten so much in the past few years. LOL.