Do you prefer hymns over psalms?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BTW, if you are asking the question I rephrased above, this was not at all obvious from the other thread which brought about this one...
 
timfost said:
Izaak,

I know all these arguments. My purpose is not to argue them here. The very line of reasoning you promote above is not one that someone with my convictions can accept as a premise. The OP asks if we "prefer" Psalms or hymns. This question is by default primarily directed to those who include hymnody (uninspired) since the answer to the question by an EP is obvious, as it is not a matter of "preference" but law.

Since the question was primarly directed to those who include hymnody in their worship, by definition, both schools of thought cannot accept the premise of the other side.

Earl, who is EP, asked a question that only has a meaningful answer from a non-EP. I asked rhetorical questions to demonstrate how this line of questioning is loaded against non-EP and does not even account for their own thinking on the matter.

Therefore, you can explain the rationale behind your view all you want, but it does not change the fact that the OP questions those with a different accepted premise than the EP. My purpose was only to show how the OP line of reasoning imposes a false dichotomy that is either ignorantly constructed or purposefully aimed at trying to "trap" the non-EP.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I think we ought to examine the premises, not reject them based on our convictions.

The more I think of it, I think our preference for Psalms or hymns is not actually the most important question to answer. I think the most important question to answer is "what is appropriate to sing in worship"? and to conform our desires to that. It is obviously desirable for us to "prefer" what is good, noble, and right, but what we prefer/desire is not always good because we are still at war with the flesh, and fleshly desires are contrary to the Spirit.

For example, David wanted to build the temple - but that wasn't what God wanted. We may want to sing hymns in some situations, but whether we "want to" or whether we "should" are two separate issues. We must look at our desires and analyze them, and ask "is this desire a biblical desire, or is this sin?" We do this outside church all the time. As people in whom the flesh still has sway, we often have to fight against fleshly desires with our will, based on the Word of God. And over time, as the flesh is killed, our desires will be conformed more and more to the desires of the Lord.

I feel like I am rambling but wanted to air these thoughts.
 
Last edited:
timfost said:
BTW, if you are asking the question I rephrased above, this was not at all obvious from the other thread which brought about this one...
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from. :) So "is there ever any context in which one would prefer a hymn over a Psalm?" Of course I know your answer to that. Now may I ask is not scripture enough for your faith and practice?
 
I know I said I was done, but I just read this encouraging article from David Mathis, and thought his insights were worth sharing.

Sing Something New
Three Psalms start with precisely these words — Psalms 96, 98, and 149 — “sing to the Lord a new song.” As does Isaiah 42:10 (“sing to the Lord a new song”) and Psalm 33:3 (“sing to him a new song”). And Psalm 144:9 adds its voice to the chorus, “I will sing a new song to you, O God.”

Why is this the case? Psalm 40gives us a clue.

The psalmist has “waited patiently for the Lord” for some deliverance. God hears him, and rescues him, and one of the things he does for him in the deliverance is “he put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God” (Psalm 40:3).

New songs of praise are appropriate for new rescues and fresh manifestations of grace. As long as God is gracious toward us, as long as he keeps showing us his power, and wowing us with his works, it is fitting that we not just sing old songs inspired by his past grace, but also that we sing new songs about his ever-streaming, never-ceasing grace.

New Mercies, New Music
And this isn’t just true in this age, but for eternity. God will never cease to inspire awe in us about the breadth and depth and height of who he is and his mindboggling love for us in Christ, and we get the joy of continuing to create and sing new songs of praise to him for it.

If we take our cues from the worship of heaven in the book of Revelation, and get a little foretaste now of the feast of worship to come, it seems God would have us blend in new songs with the old as we prepare to “sing of the steadfast love of the Lord, forever” (Psalm 89:1).

In Revelation 15:3, we’re told that “those who had conquered the beast” sing “the song of Moses” — which is an old song, from Exodus 15 or Deuteronomy 32 — but they also sing “the song of the Lamb,” a new song. So also the worshipers of heaven are said to be “singing a new song” in Revelation 14:3. And in Revelation 5:9, the four living creatures and 24 elders “sang a new song.”

Forever God will continue to “show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:7), and as he does — for his glory and for our joy — we will keep singing new songs.

It’s a beautiful thing when we get a start on that now.
 
De Jager said:
Respectfully, I think we ought to examine the premises, not reject them based on our convictions.
Click to expand...

This is true, though not in the scope of this thread. To be clear, I don't hold my convictions because they are my preference, but rather because I believe them to be in accord with scripture. I've made my case in many other threads and believe this thread is not the appropriate place.

Blessings,

Tim
 
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
I know I said I was done, but I just read this encouraging article from David Mathis, and thought his insights were worth sharing.

Sing Something New
Three Psalms start with precisely these words — Psalms 96, 98, and 149 — “sing to the Lord a new song.” As does Isaiah 42:10 (“sing to the Lord a new song”) and Psalm 33:3 (“sing to him a new song”). And Psalm 144:9 adds its voice to the chorus, “I will sing a new song to you, O God.”

Why is this the case? Psalm 40gives us a clue.

The psalmist has “waited patiently for the Lord” for some deliverance. God hears him, and rescues him, and one of the things he does for him in the deliverance is “he put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God” (Psalm 40:3).

New songs of praise are appropriate for new rescues and fresh manifestations of grace. As long as God is gracious toward us, as long as he keeps showing us his power, and wowing us with his works, it is fitting that we not just sing old songs inspired by his past grace, but also that we sing new songs about his ever-streaming, never-ceasing grace.

New Mercies, New Music
And this isn’t just true in this age, but for eternity. God will never cease to inspire awe in us about the breadth and depth and height of who he is and his mindboggling love for us in Christ, and we get the joy of continuing to create and sing new songs of praise to him for it.

If we take our cues from the worship of heaven in the book of Revelation, and get a little foretaste now of the feast of worship to come, it seems God would have us blend in new songs with the old as we prepare to “sing of the steadfast love of the Lord, forever” (Psalm 89:1).

In Revelation 15:3, we’re told that “those who had conquered the beast” sing “the song of Moses” — which is an old song, from Exodus 15 or Deuteronomy 32 — but they also sing “the song of the Lamb,” a new song. So also the worshipers of heaven are said to be “singing a new song” in Revelation 14:3. And in Revelation 5:9, the four living creatures and 24 elders “sang a new song.”

Forever God will continue to “show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:7), and as he does — for his glory and for our joy — we will keep singing new songs.

It’s a beautiful thing when we get a start on that now.
Click to expand...
Ryan,

A few of my own thoughts.

Revelation is not a book intended to instruct us how we should conduct literal corporate worship in the NT era. At least it does not seem as such to me. Otherwise, we would be required to bring bowls and lamps in too.

See here for dealing with the phrase “new song”:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/purely...23/psalmody-objections-answered-new-song/amp/

Seeing “new song” as let’s all write worship songs, fails to acknowledge how scripture uses “new”. That also fails to understand who wrote the Psalms, inspired men, who we don’t have living today.
 
Last edited:
timfost said:
This is true, though not in the scope of this thread. To be clear, I don't hold my convictions because they are my preference, but rather because I believe them to be in accord with scripture. I've made my case in many other threads and believe this thread is not the appropriate place.

Blessings,

Tim
Click to expand...

Fair enough! Hope you have a wonderful evening Tim.

I respect you.
 
timfost said:
It is enough, and it moves me to respond in singing praises to God!
Click to expand...

Sometimes with hymns preferred over psalms. What was your scriptural justification for this again in a nutshell?

Sorry I didn't want to comb through your posts for that answer. :)
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
I don't. We are commanded to sing both.
Click to expand...

And this is where the fork in the road is. Everyone admits that the scriptures command us to sing "psalms" (psalmos), "hymns" (hymnos) and "songs" (odee). The question is what do those words mean.

Anyone in the EP side is convinced that these words denote various psalms from the book of Psalms, nothing more, nothing less. And there are good reasons to hold to that conviction.
 
earl40 said:
Not if one is EP. :)

So why do you prefer hymns over psalms?
Click to expand...

You have very strange logic.

Since you will not interact with arguments and keep coming back to putting words in the mouths of others, there is nothing more that I desire to contribute.

Have a good day.
 
Harley said:
And this'll lose the debate for everyone on the EP side.
Click to expand...

The debate is over, the Bible is clear, the confession supports this. It’s time in the church that we stop trying to be effeminate and nice to everyone and we start playing hardball, being nice as God in us in this current state of affairs that we are in
 
BG said:
The debate is over, the Bible is clear, the confession supports this. It’s time in the church that we stop trying to be effeminate and nice to everyone and we start playing hardball, being nice as God in us in this current state of affairs that we are in
Click to expand...
Well take me as one recent case, of one who was not convinced, but rather turned away by "hardball" approaches and snarky one liners (not from you to be clear). Rather, it was those who were gracious, patient, and loving towards my likely "already been addressed 1,000,000 times" questions that helped me come around. I was ultimately convinced of EP/AO, but it was certainly not by a hardball approach. As such, I certainly hope to never become a curmudgeon towards others on the subject.:detective:
 
Last edited:
timfost said:
You have very strange logic.

Since you will not interact with arguments and keep coming back to putting words in the mouths of others, there is nothing more that I desire to contribute.

Have a good day.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't see the logic don't call it strange. :)
 
Both sides have strong and Biblically grounded positions, but one thing is sure, we are to be gentle and loving to those with opposing views.
"Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,
2 Timothy 2:25"

Someone's demeanor will either attract one to the position or push them away from it.
 
BG said:
The debate is over, the Bible is clear, the confession supports this. It’s time in the church that we stop trying to be effeminate and nice to everyone and we start playing hardball, being nice as God in us in this current state of affairs that we are in
Click to expand...

I've got nothing more to add than what the brother says in this post. In fact, such rhetoric was a turnoff in my Baptist inclusive hymnodist days.

Grant Jones said:
Well take me as one recent case, of one who was not convinced, but rather turned away by "hardball" approaches and snarky one liners (not from you to be clear). Rather, it was those who were gracious, patient, and loving towards my likely "already been addressed 1,000,000 times" questions that helped me come around. I was ultimately convinced of EP/AO, but it was certainly not by a hardball approach. As such, I certainly hope to never become a curmudgeon towards others on the subject.:detective:
Click to expand...

Well said.

@timfost you're probably exhausted by all this now, so I don't want to add to it, though I do intend to get back to you on your reply.
 
The proper interpretation of scripture terms requires that we discover, not what we mean by these terms when we use them today, but what the inspired writer meant when he used them. And it is one of the oddities of biblical interpretation that this rule is commonly observed with reference to the term ‘psalms’, and commonly disregarded with respect to the terms ‘hymns’ and ‘songs’. For the fact is that all three of these terms are used in the Bible to designate various selections contained in the Old Testament Psalter. In the Greek version of the Old Testament familiar to the Ephesians and Colossians the entire Psalter is entitled ‘Psalms’. In sixty-seven of the titles within the book the word ‘psalm’ is used. However, in six titles the word ‘hymn’ is used, rather than ‘psalm’, and in thirty-five the word ‘song’ appears. Even more important twelve titles use both ‘psalm’ and ‘song’, and two have ‘psalm’ and ‘hymn’. Psalm seventy-six is designated ‘psalm, hymn and song’. And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read that ‘the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended’. (Ps. 72:20.) In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said ‘psalms’, than when he said ‘hymns’ and ‘songs’, for the simple reason that all three were biblical terms for psalms in the book of psalms itself. We are in the habit of using the terms ‘hymns’ and ‘songs’ for those compositions that are not psalms. But Paul and the Christians at Ephesus and Colossae used these terms as the Bible itself uses them, namely, as titles for the various psalms in the Old Testament Psalter. To us it may seem strange, or even unnecessary, that the Holy Spirit would use a variety of titles to describe His inspired compositions. But the fact is that He did so. Just as the Holy Spirit speaks of His ‘commandments and his statutes and his judgmentss’ (Deut.. 30:16, etc.), and of ‘miracles and wonders and signs’ (Acts 2:22), so He speaks of His ‘psalms, hymns and songs’. As commandments, statutes and judgmentss are all divine laws in the language of scripture; as miracles and wonders and signs are all supernatural works of God in the language of scripture; so psalms, hymns and songs are the inspired compositions of the Psalter, in the language of scripture itself… The New Testament evidence sustains this conclusion. On the night of the Last Supper Jesus and His disciples sang ‘an hymn’ (Matt. 26:30). Bible expositors admit that this was ‘the second part of the Hallel Psalms (115-118)” which was always sung at the Passover. (New Bible Commentary, p. 835.) Matthew called this psalm a ‘hymn’ because a psalm is a hymn in the terminology of the Bible. To the same effect is the Old Testament quotation in Hebrews 2:12, in which the Greek word ‘hymn’ is quoted from Psalm 22:22. In this quotation from an Old Testament psalm, the word ‘hymn’ is used to denote the singing of psalms because the Old Testament makes no distinction between the two. But if Scripture itself says that psalms are hymns, and that hymns are psalms, why should we make any distinction between them? If we grant that the Apostle used biblical language in a biblical sense there is no more reason to think that he spoke of uninspired hymns in these texts (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19) than to think that he spoke of uninspired psalms, because hymns are inspired psalms in the holy scriptures.
Click to expand...

G.I. Williamson
 
Michael Bushell/SONGS OF ZION

Page 217:

There are only a few passages in the New Testament that have a direct bearing on the question of what songs we should sing in worship. Most of them can be found conducting a simple survey of the terms used in the New Testament to express the idea of song. There are only three verb forms, along with their substantives, that need to be considered. The words are psalmos (ψαλμός), ōdē (ὧδή ) and humnos (ὕμνος). They are commonly translated psalm, son and hymn respectively. It almost goes without saying that these three musical terms did not necessarily mean the same thing to new testament readers as they do to us now.

The meaning of the religious terms used in the New Testament were condition to a large extent by the usage of those terms in the Septuagint , the Greek version of the Old Testament in common use at that time.

Psalmos (ψαλμός) occurs some 87 times in the Septuagint, some 78 of which are in the Psalms themselves, and 67 times in the Psalm Titles.

Humnos (ὕμνος) occurs some 17 times in the Septuagint, 13 of which are in the Psalms, 6 times in the titles. In 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah there are some 16 examples in which the Psalms are called “hymns” or “songs” and the singing of them is called “hymning”. Philo (d A.D. 40) frequently designates certain Psalms as “hymns”. The historian Josephus also repeatedly alludes to to the Psalms as “hymns”.

Odee (ὧδή ) occurs some 80 times in the Septuagint, 45 of which are in the Psalms, 36 in the Psalm titles.

“Psalm seventy-six is designated ‘psalm, hymn and song.’ And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read ‘the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended’ (Ps. 72:20). In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said ‘psalms,’ than when he said ‘hymns’ and ‘songs,’ for all three were biblical terms for (the) psalms in the book of psalms itself.”[20] To ignore how Paul’s audience would have understood these terms and how these terms are defined by the Bible; and then instead to import non-biblical modern meanings into these terms is exegetical malpractice.
Click to expand...
 
Harley said:
@timfost you're probably exhausted by all this now, so I don't want to add to it, though I do intend to get back to you on your reply.
Click to expand...

Jake,

Take your time. Sometimes EP proponents come across as obnoxious and prideful. You are certainly not one of them and I always appreciate reading your posts, even if we disagree on EP.

Blessings, brother!
 
earl40 said:
Just because you don't see the logic don't call it strange. :)
Click to expand...

Earl,

I mean no disrespect by this. Let me break it down. Perhaps I'm missing something?

1. You have taken my "preference" and others who've made similar statements to mine and concluded that we prefer hymns over Psalms.

2. You've concluded this because for one to ever song a hymn means that they chose that over a Psalm, and therefore would rather song hymns.

3. This is fallacious reasoning since by the same exact logic, we simultaneously prefer Psalms over hymns since sometimes we choose to sing a Psalm instead of a hymn, which by your logic means we prefer Psalms over hymns.

4. Part of your logic is flawed because you are applying a general conclusion from specific examples that do not set a rule.

5. If your logic is applied consistently, you also prefer reading the confessions over scripture because sometimes you read them when you could be reading scripture.

Earl, do you see how ridiculous this starts to get?

EP proponents, do you see that this logic is flawed? I would appreciate your input in this regard. Certainly in not asking you to agree with my position on EP, but rather the specific use of logic in Earl's thinking and his conclusions.

Thanks!
 
Scott Bushey said:
Michael Bushell/SONGS OF ZION

Page 217:
Click to expand...
This sounds very impressive but it isn't really a complete picture. humnos, ode and even psalmos are all used of non-inspired songs in the Old Testament, as well as by Philo and Josephus and the intertestamental literature. In fact all three occur together with reference to a new composition in Judith 15:13-16:17 (before I get slammed for referencing non-canonical materials, Bushell was the one who appealed to them first). So Paul might be referring to the psalms, but this word study is a long way short of definitive proof. In reality, the LXX does not provide conclusive support for one position or the other, which must be argued on other grounds (none of which have to do with preference).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top