The PP rationale used to rebut Exclusive Psalmody  

Posted by panta dokimazete

From this thread:

 I am merely asking that we ensure that the passages speaking of new songs are truly commanding us to compose new, uninspired song. I am only requesting an evidenced hermeneutic. That is all that I meant by what I said. Not only should we give prooftexts that speak of new songs, but also we should say what exactly the "sing a new song" means. Surely you can agree with this.
Surely I do - I also believe a hermeneutic should be as simple as it needs to be and not one shred more complicated than it must.

In fact, I have conceded (grudgingly) one potentially faulty premise that the EP'er has constructed. That is the synonym usage of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs as primarily and exclusively referential to the 150 Psalms.

However, I take the words of the apostle literally when he says to be taught by the Psalms.

I then examine the Psalms for what they teach in context as a new covenant believer desiring to worship God in Spirit and Truth.

Those Psalms teach a variety of things concerning worship and praxis.

Among them are several instances of the positive command - sing to the Lord (or Him) a new song.

I then ask myself in a non-skeptical manner, since this is the Lord speaking in His Word - what is the simplest interpretation of these positive commands?

Well, as a new covenant believer, it seems a good and necessary consequence that the NT church may compose and sing new songs of praise in the fullness of understanding that the old covenant only spoke of in types and shadows.

So, new and "uninspired" songs along with the 150 Psalms are required and commanded for sung worship and thus aligned with the RPW.

This entry was posted on 28 October 2008 at Tuesday, October 28, 2008 . You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments feed .


Post a Comment