Quote
Now, the book of Psalms cannot stand alone. Psalms are sung in light of the entire Scriptures.
But again, this begs a hermeneutical question: On what basis do you make the Psalms the central portion of Scripture by which all else is to be relegated to a supportive role? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Dare I not to go against prescribed interpretations of OT and NT, and prescribed degree of meaning in the separation of the two, but would now the author of Hebrews beg to differ with you, when he wrote the entire first and second chapter of his letter parading OT passages not to prove that they talk about Jesus (aka out of all the possible candidates these passages could talk about, the true one is Jesus),… but he wrote entire by first taking a dogmatic stance that they do talk about Jesus, and then he uses those passages (from the OT) to form the doctrine of the NT. Now, it seems (at least to me) that it is not the new interpreting the old, but the old defining the new.
But you evidently DO dare to go against the Bible's own hermeneutic and that which the Church from the beginning has understood and used as the very foundation of interpreting the biblical record. Augustine is often quoted as one who held to that which I have insisted upon, i.e., "The new in the old contained, the old in the new explained." This is nothing more than Hermeneutics 101:
  • The N.T. interprets the O.T.
  • The Epistles interpret the Gospels
  • The universal interprets the local
  • The didactic interprets the symbolic

Thus, I would have to reject your understanding of how the writer of Hebrews uses the O.T. It his purpose to interpret, i.e., to bring further light upon the O.T. by revealing that which was "hidden" in types and shadows which light was not known before in its fulness. This is the exact same purpose the Holy Spirit gave us the entire N.T.; to bring to light that which was not understood beforehand.

Quote
…that’s the entire point. Its not the “music” which is important. Music (i.e. melody) is not part of doctrine. Music is not necessary for proper worship, but proper doctrine is.
But the music (melody) is an essential element in singing. It is impossible to sing anything without melody. God certainly thought the "music" was an important element in His worship, for He was very particular in who should play the music, in that there is explicit direction for choosing those who were to participate. The other elements you brought into your argument, e.g., a "petting zoo", of which I fail to comprehend how that has anything to do with the issue of "worship". The use of instruments cannot be shown to have been a temporary matter which belonged solely to the theonomic essence of Israel, which passed away when the nation was rejected by God. Nor can music be relegated to the ceremonial or civil law, which also were abrogated when the new covenant was established. Where, therefore, is it said that instruments in worship are forbidden in new covenant worship? They were used during the earthly ministry of Christ and beyond. Could you point to that portion of Scripture where instruments are no longer valid and/or to be used?

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]