Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

Status
Not open for further replies.
beloved7 said:
I’m still wondering why EP

Sincere question, why would we only be able to sing psalms and not the other divine songs in the OT? I asked this yesterday to the thread in general but it was never answered because there was so much other activity. I think it got lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

I’ve always wondered this.
Click to expand...
This is a tough thread to get focused in! :) I think it would be ideal to start your own thread with the question as the OP, so that moderation can keep such a thread on track. There is a wealth of information on the PB concerning this, in case you haven't used the search feature for that. I can try to suggest a bit of reading material when I have time, and maybe others on the thread can, as well. But the beginnings of the answer can be found in things like the fact that the Psalms were what the church in the OT and NT sang and used for worship; our Lord sang them (and inspired them); the name of the psalter in Hebrew is "Book of Praises," showing that this is the purpose of the book; those are just a few thoughts.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Without fully addressing your response to the post you quoted, which I believe is flawed, but not tied to OP:

I think you are violating the Mods direction to not ad hominem the other side, brother, by implying I, or someone else, am not honest in inquiry.
Click to expand...
Why do you think Logan was being sarcastic? I didn't take his comment that way. He gave you a non-sarcastic, substantive answer.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
This is a tough thread to get focused in! :) I think it would be ideal to start your own thread with the question as the OP, so that moderation can keep such a thread on track. There is a wealth of information on the PB concerning this, in case you haven't used the search feature for that. I can try to suggest a bit of reading material when I have time, and maybe others on the thread can, as well. But the beginnings of the answer can be found in things like the fact that the Psalms were what the church in the OT and NT sang and used for worship; our Lord sang them (and inspired them); the name of the psalter in Hebrew is "Book of Praises," showing that this is the purpose of the book; those are just a few thoughts.
Click to expand...
I think I understand a bit more now between your reply and Logan’s, so thank you for that.

As a Reformed Baptist this really isn’t something that I’ve ever encountered in person but something that I’ve seen from a far between Presbyterians. Was really only wondering about that specific question but I think I understand now.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Yes, ma'am - please shape your arguments around that, please - or the other premises I have stated.
Click to expand...
I did.
I've wondered if you'd be able to articulate all the arguments I or others have put forth in this thread. This is key to debate, you should always know your opponents' arguments like the back of your hand!

I know yours: it's wrong to sing the Psalms exclusively in worship because they don't specifically use Jesus' name and do not contain words based on New Testament texts concerning his words and deeds.
 
EvanVK said:
The singing of the psalms satisfies your premise 2. Premise 3 is irrelevant since you have added a condition that the scriptures don’t speak to I.e. whether the wondrous works we sing need to be the most “thorough and complete” revelation of those mighty works. Therefore your conclusion is a non sequiter since it assumes those conditions which haven’t been proven to be necessary.
Click to expand...
I missed this earlier - thank you, but the Psalms clearly state that we are to sing of and praise all His works and deeds, which is disobedience if we do not include the NT content
 
panta dokimazete said:
I missed this earlier - thank you, but the Psalms clearly state that we are to sing of and praise all His works and deeds, which is disobedience if we do not include the NT content
Click to expand...

Your argument is self-defeating. You are quoting the Psalms to prove that all of Christ's works and deeds are to be sung and praised, but you have also stated that the Psalms are insufficient that what the Psalms say are types and shadows. To use your own argument, no Psalm says that Jesus' or Christ's works and deeds are to be sung and praised.

You quoted the Psalms saying concerning the "Lord's" works and deeds... Again types and shadows. You need the NT to come to that conclusion. So your premise fails (if we interpret it as you interpret all of our arguments). So your argument(s) are self-defeating.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
I did.
I've wondered if you'd be able to articulate all the arguments I or others have put forth in this thread. This is key to debate, you should always know your opponents' arguments like the back of your hand!

I know yours: it's wrong to sing the Psalms exclusively in worship because they don't specifically use Jesus' name and do not contain words based on New Testament texts concerning his words and deeds.
Click to expand...
Jeri, you did not.

I am aware of and have debated the arguments of EP over the years. There may be some new argument I have not seen, but I feel like very clearly understand the EP doctrine. Feel free to start a thread on one/any of them, but I believe the OP answers and rebuts/invalidates all the EP arguments from the start.

My argument is that EP is flawed and incomplete because it is not consistent with the RPW.

The only way to counter my argument is to show the OP is clearly false.
 
beloved7 said:
I think I understand a bit more now between your reply and Logan’s, so thank you for that.

As a Reformed Baptist this really isn’t something that I’ve ever encountered in person but something that I’ve seen from a far between Presbyterians. Was really only wondering about that specific question but I think I understand now.
Click to expand...
There are still Reformed Baptists who are EP, and it once not so long ago was the norm. The history of how man-made hymns were introduced and the response of the reformed churches is important to know.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
There are still Reformed Baptists who are EP, and it once not so long ago was the norm. The history of how man-made hymns were introduced and the response of the reformed churches is important to know.
Click to expand...
I do know that the original London Particular Baptists were predominantly EP, and that it was excluded from the confession for the sake of unity. Nehemiah Coxe was EP if I’m not mistaken.

My comment was in regard to us modern Reformed Baptists, the resurgence that was seen from the late 60s on (Carlisle PA etc). All of the churches in my church’s circle use the Trinity Hymnal Baptist Edition and the Baptist Hymnal.
 
panta dokimazete said:
I missed this earlier - thank you, but the Psalms clearly state that we are to sing of and praise all His works and deeds, which is disobedience if we do not include the NT content/
Click to expand...
Maybe this will help us JD. What works and deeds are missing from the book of Psalms that we are not singing about? In general I think we love to praise the LORD (Jehovah our Saviour) for all of his works in general. We can't possibly know all of them literally as St. John noted that that is impossible. Maybe if we start with something that the Psalm's don't contain that we might be able to see what you are saying. We see the Works of Salvation and the Crucifixion painted in ways the New Testament doesn't. I actually don't agree with Augustine. I do believe the Old is fulfilled in the New. I do believe that the New explains the Old but I also believe the Old explains the New. Examples are depictions in the Old such as Isaiah defining Sabbath Worship and giving us prophetic looks at the Messiah's response as a lamb led quietly and submissively to the slaughter or that the Christ wasn't anything exceptional to look at. He wasn't desired because he was a handsome strapping young man. There are things in the old that give better light in New. It can go both ways.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Thank you, I do appreciate the attempt.

So, to restate, you agree with premise 1 and 2, but you do not believe that they are related in any way to premise 3, (which you also agree with) but you don't show how they are unrelated. You just make unsubstantiated assertions. Is Jesus not the Lord? Are his mighty works and deeds referenced in the Scriptures I quoted not most thoroughly and completely revealed in the NT? Help me understand better the disconnect.
Click to expand...
No, I did show how they are unrelated as you will see if you read my last post - the qualifier "most thoroughly and completely" is integral to premise 3 (and the whole basis of your conclusion), but is absent from premise 2, and if you add it to premise 2 then premise 2 would be false.
 
Romans922 said:
Your argument is self-defeating. You are quoting the Psalms to prove that all of Christ's works and deeds are to be sung and praised, but you have also stated that the Psalms are insufficient that what the Psalms say are types and shadows. To use your own argument, no Psalm says that Jesus' or Christ's works and deeds are to be sung and praised.

You quoted the Psalms saying concerning the "Lord's" works and deeds... Again types and shadows. You need the NT to come to that conclusion. So your premise fails (if we interpret it as you interpret all of our arguments). So your argument(s) are self-defeating.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Implicit in the RPW is "Scripture interprets Scripture" - my argument is aligned to the RPW, which means I interpret the Psalms in context to all Scripture which includes the NT. Your objection is invalid.

The Psalms command we sing of all the Lord's works and deeds.
The NT reveals that Jesus is Lord and more fully reveals His works and deeds.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Thank you.

Implicit in the RPW is "Scripture interprets Scripture" - my argument is aligned to the RPW, which means I interpret the Psalms in context to all Scripture which includes the NT. Your objection is invalid.

The Psalms command we sing of all the Lord's works and deeds.
The NT reveals that Jesus is Lord and more fully reveals His works and deeds.
Click to expand...
Okay. So while I would of course afford you that, and you are correct. You have not afforded us that same truth, but have continuously replied "types and shadows" asserting our arguments are worthless.
You have to be consistent but thus far you have not been. Scripture indeed interprets Scripture, and when we sing the Psalms (with knowledge as has been pointed out many times) we are singing exactly of what you want to see, namely, all the works and deeds of our Lord, even Christ, to His praise and exaltation.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
No, I did show how they are unrelated as you will see if you read my last post - the qualifier "most thoroughly and completely" is integral to premise 3 (and the whole basis of your conclusion), but is absent from premise 2, and if you add it to premise 2 then premise 2 would be false.
Click to expand...
The Psalms say to sing of all, how does all not mean at least thorough and complete?
 
Romans922 said:
Okay. So while I would of course afford you that, and you are correct. You have not afforded us that same truth, but have continuously replied "types and shadows" asserting our arguments are worthless.
You have to be consistent but thus far you have not been. Scripture indeed interprets Scripture, and when we sing the Psalms (with knowledge as has been pointed out many times) we are singing exactly of what you want to see, namely, all the works and deeds of our Lord, even Christ, to His praise and exaltation.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that we must and do sing the Psalms with knowledge the NT has revealed concerning Christ, but what has also been pointed out is that even the NT authors knew that the Psalms/OT are incomplete as it concerns the fullness of the Lord Jesus' works and deeds. Simple understanding of the messianic components of the Psalms is not what the Psalms command. They command we sing of all His works in their revealed glory.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Am I wrong to see that this implies a level of dishonest inquiry present in the thread?
Click to expand...
I don't think Logan intended to imply a level of dishonest inquiry in your post. I also don't think he was referring to the entire thread. He saw what he thought was an honest inquiry and answered it. I know you probably feel as if you're getting ganged up on here, but you have to be careful not to get paranoid in such a context. You're doing better in the latter part of this thread. Keep in that vein, sticking to the issues.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
All doesn't mean thorough and complete - one is quantitative and the other is qualitative.
Click to expand...
I see we are now arguing semantics.

Do you deny that the NT quantitatively (completely) and qualitatively (thoroughly) finalizes the Scriptural revelation of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?

That is, the OT as well as the NT make up all of what has been Scripturally revealed concerning Jesus?
 
greenbaggins said:
I don't think Logan intended to imply a level of dishonest inquiry in your post. I also don't think he was referring to the entire thread. He saw what he thought was an honest inquiry and answered it. I know you probably feel as if you're getting ganged up on here, but you have to be careful not to get paranoid in such a context. You're doing better in the latter part of this thread. Keep in that vein, sticking to the issues.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I admit to getting a little "prickly" :) - thanks.
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
What is missing that you want to sing about?
Click to expand...
A lot - the details of His perfect life, His righteous acts, His miracles, His death on the cross, His resurrection, His appearance before many witnesses, etc. etc.

And now you will attempt to show how the Psalms do all of that, right? Not being snarky, but I know this argument. It does not invalidate the OP.

It's not about what I want, it's about aligning to the RPW.
 
panta dokimazete said:
I see we are now arguing semantics.

Do you deny that the NT quantitatively (completely) and qualitatively (thoroughly) finalizes the Scriptural revelation of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?

That is, the OT as well as the NT make up all of what has been Scripturally revealed concerning Jesus?
Click to expand...
No, I don't deny that. But that doesn't prove that's what we are commanded to sing, which is the logical problem with your thesis. What you've said above doesn't speak to the argument you are making.
 
1.we are commanded sing all of his marvelous works

2. We are commanded to sing psalms

3. There is an absence of a command to sing or compose any other songs for worship

4. The psalms contain all of his marvelous works that need to be sung about.
 
EvanVK said:
1.we are commanded sing all of his marvelous works

2. We are commanded to sing psalms

3. There is an absence of a command to sing or compose any other songs for worship

4. The psalms contain all of his marvelous works that need to be sung about.
Click to expand...
This is not a decomposition of the OP, this is a red herring.
 
panta dokimazete said:
A lot - the details of His perfect life, His righteous acts, His miracles, His death on the cross, His resurrection, His appearance before many witnesses, etc. etc.

And now you will attempt to show how the Psalms do all of that, right? Not being snarky, but I know this argument. It does not invalidate the OP.

It's not about what I want, it's about aligning to the RPW.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day it isn't about what YOU want. No one here could care less about you want when it has to do with His worship. The question isn't what is going to satisfy you. But what does the Lord command? He commands us to sing the Psalms. And by your own principle, the Psalms are sufficient for Scripture interprets Scripture, and we are to sing and know the Scriptures with knowledge (many times attested in this thread).

The question cannot be where can you make an argument against Psalmody. The question finally is "Where does the Lord command in worship to sing anything else than Psalms?" If the Psalms alone are what God commands, all human logic against that is meaningless. If God commands us to sing other, than you must prove that from Scripture. No one here disagrees we should sing Psalms in worship, so it is on you to prove where God commands us to sing something other.
 
EvanVK said:
1.we are commanded sing all of his marvelous works

2. We are commanded to sing psalms

3. There is an absence of a command to sing or compose any other songs for worship

4. The psalms contain all of his marvelous works that need to be sung about.
Click to expand...
On #3, how does the EP position interpret Matthew 26:30? Even in Greek the word is hymnesantes. Christ literally sang a hymn with His disciples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top