Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

Status
Not open for further replies.
beloved7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

He sang a Psalm (hymn is a type of Psalm). Most scholars agree (even non-EP) that they sang Psalms 113-118.
 
panta dokimazete said:
My whole argument is a logical derivative of what you did not deny.
Click to expand...
Ok, we're officially going round in circles now. I've shown why all doesn't mean what you think it does in relation to the premises you stated, if you just keep restating that this is your argument without interacting with the logical problem we won't get very far. Perhaps if you restated your premises (particularly the second one), to clear up the logic problem, people could interact with that and demonstrate why your second premise (as you would have to state it for your argument to make sense) is exegetically wrong. We can only have that discussion if you acknowledge the previously demonstrated non-sequitir issue in your premises as you have stated them.
 
Romans922 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, we certainly agree.

My argument is not about what I want or even against Psalmody. It is about being faithful to what Scripture teaches. EP has created this extensive rationale while wrapping itself in the RPW about how "sing to the Lord a new song" does not mean what it plainly means. My OP illustrates the core inconsistency of EP, that the Psalms command a broader inclusiveness and then how to incorporate it into worship.

To wit:
Your word is truth
Sing of all the mighty works of the Lord
Sing to the Lord a new song
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
Ok, we're officially going round in circles now. I've shown why all doesn't mean what you think it does in relation to the premises you stated, if you just keep restating that this is your argument without interacting with the logical problem we won't get very far. Perhaps if you restated your premises (particularly the second one), to clear up the logic problem, people could interact with that and demonstrate why your second premise (as you would have to state it for your argument to make sense) is exegetically wrong. We can only have that discussion if you acknowledge the previously demonstrated non-sequitir issue in your premises as you have stated them.
Click to expand...
Ok, seeking to understand - you don't deny "all" includes thoroughly and completely.

My premise is that the Psalms command we sing of all the works and deeds of the Lord which I clarified, and you agreed, that "all" includes qualitative and quantitative inclusion of Jesus' NT works and deeds.

To clear up the confusion, how would you restate my premises?
 
panta dokimazete said:
Ok, seeking to understand - you don't deny "all" includes thoroughly and completely.

My premise is that the Psalms command we sing of all the works and deeds of the Lord which I clarified, and you agreed, that "all" includes qualitative and quantitative inclusion of Jesus' NT works and deeds.

To clear up the confusion, how would you restate my premises?
Click to expand...
Wrong, what you said, and I said I do not deny is:

"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?"

I do deny that all (in the context of the portions of Psalms you quoted in the OP) means thoroughly and completely (or exhaustively). That is the logical leap you took between premise 2 and premise 3, and which you keep restating without defending.
 
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...
Ok - since you are unwilling to let this rest and I, apparently, am too OCD to let it pass...

#3 & 4 is patently false, since Psalms command "new song" in several places and they also command we sing of all the works and deeds of the Lord. It is never stated by the NT authors that the Psalms, by themselves, are "enough", as we all know that you can't get to the fullness of Jesus without the NT revelation. In other words, the OT without the NT is just being Jewish, not Christian.
 
panta dokimazete said:
EP has created this extensive rationale while wrapping itself in the RPW about how "sing to the Lord a new song" does not mean what it plainly means.
Click to expand...
How does God define "sing a new song"? We have to read from the context of Scripture not reading back into Scripture what it seems like it plainly means.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
Wrong, what you said, and I said I do not deny is:

"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?"

I do deny that all (in the context of the portions of Psalms you quoted in the OP) means thoroughly and completely (or exhaustively). That is the logical leap you took between premise 2 and premise 3, and which you keep restating without defending.
Click to expand...
Ok, now I think I get it. I think you are saying that when I claim the Psalms that I quoted are commanding we sing of the works of the Lord include the NT as component of "all" Jesus' works and deeds, I have not sufficiently backed up that claim? That the Psalms are as thorough and complete as they need to be? (EP in a nutshell)
 
panta dokimazete said:
Ok - since you are unwilling to let this rest and I, apparently, am too OCD to let it pass...

#3 & 4 is patently false, since Psalms command "new song" in several places and they also command we sing of all the works and deeds of the Lord. It is never stated by the NT authors that the Psalms, by themselves, are "enough", as we all know that you can't get to the fullness of Jesus without the NT revelation. In other words, the OT without the NT is just being Jewish, not Christian.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. The “new song” argument has been answered as you well know. Obviously you don’t agree but that’s a different thread I suppose.
 
Romans922 said:
How does God define "sing a new song"? We have to read from the context of Scripture not reading back into Scripture what it seems like it plainly means.
Click to expand...
Nope - not going any further with this, as it derails the OP. I am perfectly familiar with this argument and I believe the OP will be a substantiation to counter the EP position on "new" song. In other words, if the OP is true, then all EP doctrine that supports it is false.
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's a historical argument, not an exegetical one. And even if it were true, it doesn't change the fact that they had to arrive at that position "by good and necessary consequence" since there is no specific command to sing the "Book of Psalms only".

Even the Confession does not say "Book of Psalms only", is just says "singing of psalms" (21.5.), which is the only reference to song in the whole standards. Yes, many (not all) divines held EP, but even they did not enshrine the "only" when they had the opportunity. It's a little difficult to call it an "EP document" in light of a single reference. All others since then have had to supplement the Confession with an EP or non-EP interpretation. For example, the RPCNA had to supplement the Confession with their additional Testimony to affirm EP. Later denominations like the OPC and PCA do not interpret "psalms" as "Book of Psalms" but a more generic meaning of "songs", without any change in substance of the regulative principle articulated there, just a different interpretation about what is actually commanded. The need for later supplements show it was not an obvious "EP" document at face value.

But ultimately, it matters more what Scripture commands than what the the Confession says. A more generic understanding of "psalms" does not require amending the Standards, only properly understanding what the proof-texts actually say. Developments in doctrine and terminology still occurred after the Confession was written, which we also consider to be standard terms for orthodoxy now even though the Confession did not say them then; for example the imputation of Christ's "active obedience", the "covenant of redemption", and even more recently the "regulative principle of worship", etc.

I don't want to derail the thread by an argument about the Confession's original intent or the animus imponentis of later denominations, so if anyone wants to discuss that further, it's probably wiser to start a new thread. I just wanted to point out, even the Confession is not as clear as my brother, Randy, would like :)

And the exegetical argument is the one that matters most anyway.

Two cents...
 
panta dokimazete said:
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.
Click to expand...
La la la la la la la..... With fingers in your ears. Okay. We know this about you. We have spent the last few threads knowing this. Futile. Done.
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
Okay, allow me to rephrase this. What is specifically missing you think we need to sing about? Specifics.... Doctrines....
Click to expand...
Let's see... Christology, Trinitarianism, the details of the Virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, the details of the suffering on the Cross contrasted with the glorious resurrection, the list goes on and on, none of which the Psalms fully cover. Also - don't forget how many hymns were written to directly combat heresy.
 
Puritan Sailor said:
That's a historical argument, not an exegetical one. And even if it were true, it doesn't change the fact that they had to arrive at that position "by good and necessary consequence" since there is no specific command to sing the "Book of Psalms only".

Even the Confession does not say "Book of Psalms only", is just says "singing of psalms" (21.5.), which is the only reference to song in the whole standards. Yes, many (not all) divines held EP, but even they did not enshrine the "only" when they had the opportunity. It's a little difficult to call it an "EP document" in light of a single reference. All others since then have had to supplement the Confession with an EP or non-EP interpretation. For example, the RPCNA had to supplement the Confession with their additional Testimony to affirm EP. Later denominations like the OPC and PCA do not interpret "psalms" as "Book of Psalms" but a more generic meaning of "songs", without any change in substance of the regulative principle articulated there, just a different interpretation about what is actually commanded. The need for later supplements show it was not an obvious "EP" document at face value.

But ultimately, it matters more what Scripture commands than what the the Confession says. A more generic understanding of "psalms" does not require amending the Standards, only properly understanding what the proof-texts actually say. Developments in doctrine and terminology still occurred after the Confession was written, which we also consider to be standard terms for orthodoxy now even though the Confession did not say them then; for example the imputation of Christ's "active obedience", the "covenant of redemption", and even more recently the "regulative principle of worship", etc.

I don't want to derail the thread by an argument about the Confession's original intent or the animus imponentis of later denominations, so if anyone wants to discuss that further, it's probably wiser to start a new thread. I just wanted to point out, even the Confession is not as clear as my brother, Randy, would like :)

And the exegetical argument is the one that matters most anyway.

Two cents...
Click to expand...
Amen to that :)
 
panta dokimazete said:
Let's see... Christology, Trinitarianism, the details of the Virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, the details of the suffering on the Cross contrasted with the glorious resurrection, the list goes on and on, none of which the Psalms fully cover. Also - don't forget how many hymns were written to directly combat heresy.
Click to expand...
All of it is in the Psalms. We've been over this. And because that's not good enough for you, it's not good enough. The plain thing is this, if God commands us to sing Psalms, and there is no command to sing anything else, then the Psalms are sufficient no matter what 'logic' you use. This thread is going in circles, so I'll bow out. Have a good day.
 
Romans922 said:
All of it is in the Psalms. We've been over this. And because that's not good enough for you, it's not good enough. The plain thing is this, if God commands us to sing Psalms, and there is no command to sing anything else, then the Psalms are sufficient no matter what 'logic' you use. This thread is going in circles, so I'll bow out. Have a good day.
Click to expand...
All of it is in the Psalms with the understanding that the NT more explicitly lays it out. Regardless, if the OP is true, EP is false. I really do thank you for participating, though.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Ok, now I think I get it. I think you are saying that when I claim the Psalms that I quoted are commanding we sing of the works of the Lord include the NT as component of "all" Jesus' works and deeds, I have not sufficiently backed up that claim? That the Psalms are as thorough and complete as they need to be? (EP in a nutshell)
Click to expand...
Basically, yes.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Let's see... Christology, Trinitarianism, the details of the Virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, the details of the suffering on the Cross contrasted with the glorious resurrection, the list goes on and on, none of which the Psalms fully cover. Also - don't forget how many hymns were written to directly combat heresy.
Click to expand...
The Psalms lack Christology? At this point you clearly cannot be serious.

Many hymns were also written to directly teach heresy - what does that have to do with anything?
 
Well, after all that, does anybody have an easy reference list of which psalms speak of Jesus? I'm not EP, but since the first Sunday this year I have been including a psalm with every service. A woman from church asked last year about singing psalms. Last week we did 102a (to this my prayer). When I talked to her about it after, she said she didn't like it because it didn't speak of Jesus, his blood, or the cross. I'm not sure she knew what she was asking for.

A reference list of sorts would be useful.
 
Wonderkins said:
Well, after all that, does anybody have an easy reference list of which psalms speak of Jesus?
Click to expand...

Psalms 1 through 150 :D

2, 22, and 110 are very obvious ones. But as Jesus said, the Scriptures testify of him. I'm not sure I could come up with any psalms that don't speak about Jesus.
 
Logan said:
Psalms 1 through 150 :D

2, 22, and 110 are very obvious ones. But as Jesus said, the Scriptures testify of him. I'm not sure I could come up with any psalms that don't speak about Jesus.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I'll have to be more observant.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Brother, why do you have to resort to mocking and aspersions? It is no secret that I am contra-EP.
Click to expand...
Brother JD. Love ya. But you aren't dealing with anything I post. You are just flinging accusations.
panta dokimazete said:
Christology, Trinitarianism, the details of the Virgin birth, the flight to Egypt, the details of the suffering on the Cross contrasted with the glorious resurrection, the list goes on and on, none of which the Psalms fully cover.
Click to expand...
Prove it.
 
Last edited:
Wonderkins said:
Well, after all that, does anybody have an easy reference list of which psalms speak of Jesus? I'm not EP, but since the first Sunday this year I have been including a psalm with every service. A woman from church asked last year about singing psalms. Last week we did 102a (to this my prayer). When I talked to her about it after, she said she didn't like it because it didn't speak of Jesus, his blood, or the cross. I'm not sure she knew what she was asking for.

A reference list of sorts would be useful.
Click to expand...
See the old thread I just posted and re-opened (which I didn't realize I was doing :p) about the 2019 Christopher Ash lectures on Christ in the Psalms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top