• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Regulative principle of worship

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

edie19

Legend
Site Supporter
Sep 5, 2005
20,810
10,316
69
NW Ohio (almost Michigan)
Visit site
✟136,291.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
What is your argument from Scripture?



Could you prove this? BTW: chanting is singing when you get into the nitty gritty.

John Gill: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gill/practical.iv.vii.html

same as before - hymns, psalms and spiritual songs (not psalms only)

as to the second - I've read it several times in my pastor's library - will double check with him re: the sources

I do know this - it would appear very different than how we sing now (even for those of us who sing acappela psalms only)
 
Upvote 0

david01

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2007
3,034
98
73
✟18,721.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
BTW, which translation do you use for the Psalms you sing? The Psalms we sing are a relatively free paraphrase and not a translation. They have been set to a regular meter and rhymed as well as given music which is singable and actually enjoyable. This is something the Puritans did not do until Isaac Watts appeared on the scene in the late eighteenth century. Arguments were presented at that time that it was a violation of the RPW to sing lyrices which were not, at the least, a translation of Holy Scripture and which were, in fact, the work of human invention and creativity.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Apologies if I seem an idiot but I am not to sure what you are saying:

The Psalms we sing are a relatively free paraphrase and not a translation.

Who is 'we'?

They have been set to a regular meter and rhymed as well as given music which is singable and actually enjoyable.

What is 'they'?

This is something the Puritans did not do until Isaac Watts appeared on the scene in the late eighteenth century.

What is 'this'?

Arguments were presented at that time that it was a violation of the RPW to sing lyrices which were not, at the least, a translation of Holy Scripture and which were, in fact, the work of human invention and creativity.

Who produced these arguments and what were the arguments?
 
Upvote 0

david01

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2007
3,034
98
73
✟18,721.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Various individuals debated the use of paraphrased psalms and I believe the various records of the general assemblies of the Presbyterian and Reformed denominations of the period would probably provide ample arguments, assuming that they are accessible. Unfortunately, with various mergers these records are sometimes lost.

The basic lines of argument went like this:

1. Mr. Watts has done a notable service to the church of God by making the Psalms both a pleasure to sing and yet retaining the essential meaning of them.
2. Mr. Watts has done an immense disservice to the church of God by using the force of his own imagination to rewrite God's Holy Word which, for many generations has been honored and revered and, thus, should not be distorted to conform to modern notions of music.

So, my question yet remains unanswered. Which translation do you prefer to use in singing the Psalms?
 
Upvote 0

david01

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2007
3,034
98
73
✟18,721.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Your evidence is written and from an English source. The New England Puritans left a consistent testimony to their beliefs in the physical meetinghouses. Please explain to me why none of these meetinghouses dating from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were constructed without any means of artificial heating. Was this some sort of oversight or could it possibly have emanated from a theological view?
 
Upvote 0

david01

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2007
3,034
98
73
✟18,721.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Unfortunately, you did not provide any definition or examples of unregulated circumstances of worship, although you did state that there are both regulated and unregulated circumstances.

Please provide the scriptural references giving the liturgical order that you have provided. I was frankly surprised to find that a confession of sin is considered to be a sin offering, despite the fact that scripture (Hebrews 9:26) states that Jesus Christ is the sin offering for Christians.

You have failed to account for the following facts:

1. None of the holy days appointed by God for His people in the Old Testament, which you use as your model, are accounted for. Shall we assume that they are insignificant, but that the other aspects are significant. How does one reach this conclusion?
2. The liturgical order given above is not to be found in the Old Testament.
3. There is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament that this order was used by the primitive church.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
So, my question yet remains unanswered. Which translation do you prefer to use in singing the Psalms?

I would be happy to use the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter, but my preference is Coverdale's.

Your evidence is written and from an English source.

Actualy Thomas Shepard was a New England Puritan.

Unfortunately, you did not provide any definition or examples of unregulated circumstances of worship, although you did state that there are both regulated and unregulated circumstances.

I provided the general definition of a circumstance, i.e. something “common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (WCF i.6). By this is meant those things needful to facilitate the worship of God and/or those things that are to accompany the worship of God but do not, in and of themselves, formally constitute worship. Some of these are regulated, e.g. the day (sabbath) but some are unregulated, e.g. the time (8am, 10am, 11am etc.)
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I was frankly surprised to find that a confession of sin is considered to be a sin offering, despite the fact that scripture (Hebrews 9:26) states that Jesus Christ is the sin offering for Christians.

You miss the point. I am not saying that "a confession of sin is considered to be a sin offering" but rather within the order of service the confession of sin parallels the OT sin offering.




2. The liturgical order given above is not to be found in the Old Testament.

Try Leviticus 9

3. There is not a shred of evidence in the New Testament that this order was used by the primitive church.

And your point is....
 
Upvote 0

david01

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2007
3,034
98
73
✟18,721.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

Thank you for your responses. However, I regret that you have yet to provide a reasonable explanation for the absence of artificial heating in the original construction of seventeenth and eighteenth century New England meetinghouses.
 
Upvote 0

david01

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2007
3,034
98
73
✟18,721.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

My point is that if this understanding of the RPW was the apostolic practice, we should find some evidence of its use in the primitive church.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Thank you for your responses. However, I regret that you have yet to provide a reasonable explanation for the absence of artificial heating in the original construction of seventeenth and eighteenth century New England meetinghouses.

What I have demonstrated is that your assertion that the reason for its lack was the sabbatarianism of the Puritans to be wrong. Why did they lacked central heating? Who knows, but it wasn't their view of sabbatarianism.

If your church lackes a cantor, precentor, choir, or soloist, how are the Psalms then sung in light of the fact that congregational singing is foreign to the pages of scripture?

The congregation sings the psalms as we are told to do so in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.

John Gill writes A Discourse on Singing of Psalms as a Part of Divine Worship:

...what I shall chiefly attend to, will be to prove that gospel churches, or the churches of Christ, under the gospel dispensation, ought to sing the praises of God vocally; and this I shall do from the following considerations.

1. From the prophecies of the Old Testament, which declare, that the churches, in gospel times, should sing; and in which they are called upon, exhorted, and encouraged to do it. In many of the psalms, which respect the times of the Messiah, and the gathering of the Gentiles to him under the gospel dispensation, such as the 47th, 68th, and 95th, the people of God are frequently invited to sing praise unto him, and make a joyful noise unto him with psalms. Likewise, in the prophecies of Isaiah (Isa. 52:7, 8, 9; 35:1, 2, 6, 10; 26:1; 54:1) it is declared, that not only the watchmen, gospel ministers, such whose feet are beautiful on the mountains, who bring good tidings, and publish peace and salvation, shall lift up the voice, and that with the voice together shall they sing; but also the churches under their care, and such souls they are made useful to, are called upon to break forth into joy, and sing together; yea, it is promised, that the Gentile church, under the name of the wilderness, and solitary place, shall be glad and rejoice, even with joy and singing; that even the tongue of the dumb shall sing, and the ransomed of the Lord return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads.
Moreover, that in that day, meaning the gospel day, shall this song be sung in the land of Judah, in the gospel church: We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks. To add no more; how expressly is the Gentile church exhorted and encouraged to this work, in another part of these prophecies? where it is said, Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing; and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child; for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wise, saith the Lord. Blessed be God, these predictions are, in a great measure, fulfilled; gospel churches among the Gentiles, as well as in the land of Judea, have lift up their voices, and sung the praises of God according to these prophecies; which is, at once, a confirmation of the authority of the scriptures, and of the truth of this ordinance.



But,


2. I prove it to be a duty incumbent on gospel churches, under the New Testament dispensation, from express precepts and directions given to them concerning it. It is not only prophesied of in the Old Testament, but it is also commanded in the New, that they should sing. The church at Ephesus was a gospel church, as was also that at Colosse; and they are both expressly enjoined as such, by the Apostle Paul, who in this, as in their things, had the mind of Christ to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Besides, if singing was not a duty belonging to New Testament churches, why should any directions about it be given to them? such as to sing with grace in their hearts, with the spirit, and with the understanding; and to do it in such a manner, so as to speak to themselves, and to teach and admonish one another (1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).


3. That New Testament churches should sing, will more fully appear from New Testament instances and examples. There are not only prophecies and precepts, but also precedents in favor of this practice; and the first instance of this kind I shall mention, is, that of Christ and his Apostles, who sung an hymn, as a church, at the close of the Lord’s supper; of this the evangelist assures us; When they had sung an hymn, says he, they went out unto the mount of olives (Matthew 26:30): Our ears are continually dinned, by those who are of a different mind from us, with an old translation, in which, they say, the words are rendered, When they had given thanks. But, First, This work was done already; he, i.e. Christ, took the cup, and gave thanks.
My point is that if this understanding of the RPW was the apostolic practice, we should find some evidence of its use in the primitive church.

Not really, as I noted before, the order of service is not governed by the RPW only the elements of worship. You disagree with how a friend of mine interprets Levitcus 9, fine and dandy, but that simply means you disagree with his order of service, which isn't governed by the RPW anyway.
 
Upvote 0

david01

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2007
3,034
98
73
✟18,721.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single

More to the point, given the fact that the order of service does not fall under the RPW, is the lack of evidence that the primitive church meetings were governed by the same understanding of the RPW as the Puritan church meetings.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Would you care to give me some idea as to why you think the New England meetinghouses of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were constructed without heating?

Who cares? This may interest someone who likes the history of New England meetinghouses of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries but it has nothing to do with the RPW. At any rate, the place of meeting is a circumstance of worship not an element and so is not covered by the RPW.

There just might have been a religious motivation. This has been discussed heretofore.

This has been discussed and your hypothesis has been shown to be highly doubtful. William Ames (1576-1633) writes in his The Marrow of Theology that it was lawful to light fire on the sabbath. Thomas Shepherd (New England Puritan), who taught at Harvard, used Ames' book as the core text and taught the same. Further, Cotton Mather (another New England Puritan) said that if a student of divinity were to have nothing but the Bible and The Marrow, he would be a most able minister.

In Ephesians there is nothing concerning any instruction for the congregation as a body to sing...he tells them to sing with thankfulness in their hearts (plural) to the Lord.

Well you have just contradicted yourself.

Because God has not commanded congregational singing, shall we presume that He accepts it as proper worship?

He has commanded congregational singing as I have shown previously.

Every Seder meal incorporates the singing of Psalms. This is a familial activity unassociated with synagogue worship.

But it was at this event that Christ established the sacrament of the Lord's Supper which is an element of worship. He attached the singing of psalms to it. So those who sing psalms are doing no less than following the example of Christ himself.

More to the point, given the fact that the order of service does not fall under the RPW, is the lack of evidence that the primitive church meetings were governed by the same understanding of the RPW as the Puritan church meetings.

I don't understand the question. The RPW governs the elements of worship. The elements of worship are the same from the NT church as they are now.

 
Upvote 0