Quote
E_F_Grant wrote:
Later I was at a conference in which the speaker (Michael Horton) said that singing the Psalms was a better way than regular hymns because in singing a Psalm, one gets the whole counsel of God rather than the favorite bits and pieces that someone decided to write up into a hymn.
With all due respect to Michael Horton, and assuming that this is an accurate quote and in context, I would have to strongly disagree. It is simply erroneous to assert that "[in a] Psalm, one gets the whole counsel of God . . ." which one doesn't get if one sings a hymn. If that were true, then it would be theoretically sufficient to know one Psalm to apprehend the entirety of God's revealed will. If that were true, why did the Spirit include 150 Psalms? And if that were true, why would the Spirit chose to include 66 books? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

The fact is, the Psalms of the O.T. are beautiful, instructive, and reveal much of God and the heart of a believer. But they are hardly sufficient to instruct one in the "whole counsel of God", never mind the ability of just one of them to do so. The New Testament interprets the Old Testament and it builds upon and expands on the Old Testament. Thus, for example, we are given to know the details of the atonement, the name of the Redeemer, details of that which awaits all those whose hope rests on Him, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Personally, I cannot fathom NOT singing praises to God but never mentioning the name of Jesus my LORD. Simply put, I cannot restrict my new life in Christ to the types and shadows of the Old Testament Psalms. But likewise, I cannot possibly sing praises with a full understanding of that praise unless I also include the Psalms. It is not a matter of "either/or", but rather BOTH. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]