The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum True Worship John 4:23

Do the Psalms come with their own sheet music? If not, how do we know we are singing them properly?


God bless,

william

Welcome Andy (my friend),

Your point regarding the content of the hymns mentioned is right on track. Since my church is experiencing with more contemporary music, actually trying to have a blended service - both old and new, I shall keep that observation in mind. Although rote is better than nothing, it really isn't true worship. My guess is that Psalms only, the great old hymns can fall into a rote mentality, thus not being true worship.

I'm interested. Do the Baptists have the equivalent of the Regulative Principle? Sometimes I think it is more of a hindrance than a help with the way it is used.

Another question for all, is true worship always vertical in focus - God-centered or Christ-centered. I'm thinking that there is an horizontal element as well in that we are called to edify one another.

If used properly regulative worship will work wonders on your soul, but like anything else in Scripture it must be used correctly. See attached example (3 posts--3 files). These files were large and it took Pilgrim to reduce them just so we could post them. For best viewing copy them to your picture folder and then increase their size in your viewer.

Regulative Worship Continued

Regulative Worship Continued

John,

Some of the RBC and Founder's SBC churches have adopted RPW, but by and large there is no equivalent to the RPW in the baptist church today. Did we adhere to something like that in the past? Probably, but with the introduction of seeker-sensitivity (i.e. Rick Warren, Willow Creek, FAITH evangelism, etc.) we have thrown any semblance of tradition and history right out in the name of, IMHO, numbers.

On your second point is there a horizontal aspect to worship? I think so. Refer to my earlier post on Ephesians 5. This relates directly to the encouragement and edification of fellow believers in the corporate sense.

What about Jesus? Although the Psalms certainly foreshadow him and his work, he is never mentioned explicitly. I think Pilgrim made a comment in another thread on this topic a while back that he couldn't imagine never singing a hymn that didn't mention Jesus (sorry, I'm working from memory here. I'll try to find the thread later). There are many truths/theological doctrines contained in the Psalms that are much more fully explained/revealed in the New Testament. Shouldn't we be able to use that much more complete knowledge of God's truth to write hymns?


Edit: Actually, I seemed to have missed some of the posts in this thread. I just saw this point is discussed above. Sorry for being redundant.

John

There exists absolutely no counter-argument to the notion that instruments are mentioned in the Scriptures, and that instruments were used in worship. However, that notion alone (mention / use) is not enough to satisfy their prescription and necessity.
- If-There was mention of musical instruments being used in OT therefore they should also be used now.
- By same point- There is mention of smoking sensors being used in OT therefore they should also be used now
- By same point- There is mention of praising God with dance being used in OT therefore dance should also be used now
- By same point- There is mention “...And a two-edged sword in their hand, To execute vengeance on the nations…(Psalms 149:6)” in the OT (in conjunction with praise might I add), therefore we should be using a two-edged sword to execute vengeance on the nations now (every time we praise God).

Hope you see what I am trying to get at… Why is it that we give a certain preference to musical instruments in worship? Is it because they have an intrinsic capability to outline a beat or underline the tone? In OT there are explicit institutions of musical instruments, but only in conjunction with Temple Ordinances and as such, they had a picture-like value – a reference so to say -- and not a value of convenient utility.

1. Did you know that in the practice of some forms of Satanism they do not use instruments? They do this because of the Bible’s mention of instruments. Thus, to think that idolatry may be avoided because of the lack of the use of instruments is easily dismissed as an invalid argument.

Satanists and other cults, when they gather, gather either in buildings or in open, therefore we cannot gather in building or in open, but only somewhere in the sky or on the moon. Reducing logical inferences to absurdity can lead to …ahh … a lot of absurdity.

3. Saying instruments are not necessary for worship is also not a valid argument. Are chairs necessary in a church for people to worship? Why do you have pews or chairs?

As far as my experience is concerned, I am yet to see someone be emotionally aroused according to the chair they sit on. Nowhere in Scriptures does it say we can/ cannot hold a petting-zoo session during worship service. Therefore, the question becomes whether or whether not it is a good idea (based upon implicit/ explicit arguments). Now, substitute “instruments” in for a “petting-zoo” and you will have the topic I am currently dealing with. As such my argument was that using instruments during worship service can facilitate idolatry therefore it is not a great idea having instruments there.

Thanks for replying and making an extremely important point in my behalf. The point being, that the singing of the Psalms only is insufficient to worship God because they lack the fullness of meaning in and of themselves of the truth of God's redemption in Christ Jesus.

…errr, wrong point. My point: singing of Psalms only in light of Psalms only is insufficient. Now, the book of Psalms cannot stand alone. Psalms are sung in light of the entire Scriptures. The revelation of the entire Scriptures (Genesis – Revelation), enables us to sing Psalms alone (because Psalms does not stand alone).

…This is a fundamental axiom of biblical hermeneutics, i.e., the O.T. is interpreted by the N.T. as the N.T.'s foundation is built upon the O.T…

…The O.T. and the N.T. compliment each other, but they are not to be so combined that they lose their uniqueness and purpose which God the Spirit designed…

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.

If you are thinking from the point-of-view of the entire scriptures when you are worshiping why cannot I do the same from the N.T.? Why can I not do the same from the truths of doctrine expressed throughout the Scripture?

…because you are at-least engaging in redundancy. Once again give me ideas/ doctrines/ experiences mentioned in any chosen hymn, which are not found expressed in some psalm. (You can take me up on this; this challenge was made on pure “speculation”)

Do the Psalms come with their own sheet music? If not, how do we know we are singing them properly?

…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.

What about Jesus? Although the Psalms certainly foreshadow him and his work, he is never mentioned explicitly.

It so seems (at least to me) that the author of Hebrews would disagree with you (particularly in opening chapters).

jenya andreyev

PS insert where applicable:

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="" />

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.

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,

I will relent to you (especially Augustine) concerning Hermeneutics 101 (including Hebrews). If those views are incorrect then be they anathema, so if I may recurs my argument and state it in other form and fashion.

"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

I think the definitions and implications of the word “interprets” are fully known to you, but just for kicks:
- If I give you a sentence consisting of all Russian words. It will be of little use to you (if you don’t speak Russian). Sure you will make out some facts like that it is some sort of a Cyrillic dialect and that it is a sentence (begins w/ capital letter, period). However if I interpret that sentence, that congloboration of symbols will have meaning and as long as that interpretation is sound in your mind, those particular Cyrillic symbols can never loose their meaning (even though you may still have no knowledge of Russian).
- Isaiah 53 mentioned something about some dude who was humble and in a real social/ physical mess because of others. And before the fullness of revelation came, that passage was nothing more then that. But in light of the Gospels, does Isaiah 53 still remain a mention about some dude who was humble and in a real mess. By all means no! That passage now teaches the same identical type of doctrine as the Epistles do.

..The truths found in the Psalms are "shadows" and "types" of the coming of Jesus…

Therefore, my question to you is, “When you read the OT (in which Psalms is found), do you still see only “shadows” and “types”?” Surely, we would assume a shadow to be inferior to reality, so if OT to us is only but a “shadow” would we not epitomize the NT above the OT? After all, if we have with us the Revelation of the Truth (ie NT), why do we still need to pay attention to the “shadows”?

”The new in the old contained…” That means: OT >= NT (the “container” must be bigger then the contents it contains). We might want to be careful in using the word “shadow” here.

“…the old in the new explained…” For something to be explained it must first be convoluted, however, if now it is explained then it is convoluted no more. Now, therefore, it has meaning which it did not have before.

Therefore, I disagree with this premise

The point being, that the singing of the Psalms only is insufficient to worship God because they lack the fullness of meaning in and of themselves of the truth of God's redemption in Christ Jesus.

because before, that which was shadow, in the old was explained by the new. So it is impossible to sing psalms apart from that explanation which was presented by the NT.

courteous when I ,
jenya andreyev

jenya,

I perceive you are working on the premise, "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've got my mind all made up!"

Now, that's fine. And perhaps you are unable, or perhaps unfortunately unwilling to accept the basic understanding of biblical hermeneutics and its application. We DO come to understand the O.T. by the N.T., but we cannot overwrite the O.T. with the N.T. We must preserve the historical, social and theological content of what the Holy Spirit inspired and maintain its divine purpose; i.e., the foundation of the N.T. They are reciprocally complimentary. Therefore, if you insert the name of the Lord Jesus Christ into a Psalm, you are not singing the actual Psalm, but N.T. revelation, which goes to prove my point, i.e., we are to sing ALL the truth of the Scripture which is God's self-revelation and of His great redemption accomplished in The Lord Christ.

Secondly, the N.T. is no less inspired than the O.T. and thus contains inerrant and infallible propositional truth which is essential to the life of a believer. Thus it is just as valid a source for doctrine as the O.T. concerning both, objective truth and experimental truth.

Thirdly, there is nowhere to be found a command restricting the worship of God in song to the Psalms. We are, however, told to "sing unto the Lord a new song" and even to do so accompanied by instrumental accompaniment. Notice that these injunctions are contained in the Psalms themselves, indicating something other than the actual Psalm where these injunctions occur. (Ps 33:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9. Cp also: Isa 42:10; Rev 5:9; 14:3)

Lastly, and again I recommend this article to you if you haven't read it already: Exclusive Psalmody or New Testament Hymnody?.

In His Grace,

Don't confuse me with the facts…

… after all these years of being an American, and I still don’t get that phrase… …Must do more cogitation

Now, that's fine. And perhaps you are unable, or perhaps unfortunately unwilling to accept the basic understanding of biblical hermeneutics and its application.

… I will make sure to read the article.

We DO come to understand the O.T. by the N.T., but we cannot overwrite the O.T. with the N.T. We must preserve the historical, social and theological content of what the Holy Spirit inspired and maintain its divine purpose; i.e., the foundation of the N.T. They are reciprocally complimentary.

Overwriting the new with the Old would eliminate the New which explains the Old, which would remain non-explained Just because the Old is now explained, how does that counteract historical, social, and theological context in which it was written?

Therefore, if you insert the name of the Lord Jesus Christ into a Psalm, you are not singing the actual Psalm, but N.T. revelation, which goes to prove my point…

but who else do we have in mind when we read (ex) “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool..”? David? Literally substituting Jesus in would break this passage’s historical context (in that it was written as a prophesy). OT including Psalms do talk about Jesus, maybe not in literal terms, nevertheless is not what Jesus accomplished in the Gospels is the subject of OT? (Luke 24:27) ”And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”
…so in light of said

we are to sing ALL the truth of the Scripture which is God's self-revelation and of His great redemption accomplished in The Lord Christ.

if there exists a point of doctrine that is not corroborated in Psalms… I would have to take a really big shoe out of my mouth. Otherwise, spending brain cells making new words which rime about Jesus, we would be engaging, at least, in redundancy (because the words written in psalms corroborated it already).

Jenya andreyev

PS I got a PERL project to finish and the deadline is upon me, I would not be able to make lengthy posts ‘till that is finished.

English Bibles, are not necessary for Worship either, but they sure make worship a little more fulfilling (and they are not even mentioned in Scripture!). Does true worship involve the Word of God—the Bible? Since the original NT was in Greek why don’t you carry one of them to church instead of one that is translated? Since, the original OT was written in Hebrew/Aramaic why don’t you carry one of them to church instead of one that is translated? Why do you allow the prescription of foreign language Bibles (English) in your congregation? Could it be to assist the people in true worship? The Scriptures do not say they are necessary, nor do they directly prescribe them? Your argument from this perspective continues to be invalid!

While the Scripture does not say the words instruments are necessary it does reveal to us a pattern of the use of instruments in worship of our LORD in the assembly. My point is the LORD our God gives us patterns that should be emulated for His glory. Unless one be dispensational in their view of the Church, then one must concede that the Church in some forms continues from the OT to the NT. Since, in the OT instruments were used and in the NT they are not proclaimed as vain things from hell, IMHO their use should continue (see below).

No one said anything of the mere mention of instruments alone was enough to substantiate the use of instruments in worship—this is your misdirection of the issue. It is not only that they are merely mentioned numerous times, but the context in which they are mentioned. What you are espousing is that we do away with their context and praise God according to your experience, instead of praising God in accordance with what is in the Holy Writ. No offense meant, but I think we have a higher and more exact experience to go by—contained in the patterns of Holy Scripture.

Is not just the mere singing of a song (without instruments) to a beat and to a tone as well? How do you sing, much less speak without any tone. Are all beat and tones sinful—please show us where in Scripture? Does God listen to the musical tone and beats from the instruments in heaven?

The Bible records the history of the early Church. It is of a great mystery to me why the Apostle Paul when speaking of psalms, hymns, etc. did not specify the non-use of instruments seeing he knew full well their use in the OT with the Psalms (and in his day, et. al.)? Are we to believe that the OT saints were allowed to worship God with instruments (2 Sam 6:5, 21; 1 Chron 23:5; 2 Chron 29:25; Psalm 43:4, 68:25, 150:3-5), and that there are presently instruments in heaven itself (Rev 5:8, Rev 14:2, etc.), but that God prohibits them now in His Church? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> That is some serious hermeneutical gymnastics. Where is this prohibition mentioned in the NT?


PS: Please answer people’s individual posts. You appear to read several different posts from different individuals and then answer then all in one post. Please do not combine them—You are making things confusing???

Hi again Pilgrim,

You will not be surprised to hear I have been following this with great interest.I must thank you however for the Lee Irons article,one thing I have always found gets my attention is the manner and open way some people are able to express things.I have read Lee Irons he is most interesting unlike respectfully most of the input here so far ,he has forced me to at least understand the other point of view.I shall prayerfully consider his and others thoughts.It has been suggested to me that perhaps those of us who practice EP are in fact so concious of our sin that we can only rely on Gods word.Thanks again for I believe I now at least I understand even though I find it hard.By the way we sing ALL the psalms including 150 much to the amusement of my own children. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />
Your greatfull brother in Christ
Duncan

I've not read this book yet, but it comes recommended to me by another person on the Reformed Baptist discussion list I'm on. It sounds good!

http://www.bmrpublications.com/foreword.html