/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>popery

>>9124

>Hymn

That's strange fire

<And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

The bible doesn't let us willworship with our own worship music God gave us psalms to sing

>>9128

Respectfully disagree my regulative principle brother

Ephesians 5:19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

Whatever hymns and spiritual songs are rightly understood to be, they are something distinct from psalms that are also appropriate to use in worship.

>>9124

>that image

The mods there banned me for defending SSPX and criticizing the new mass.

>>9130

>Whatever hymns and spiritual songs are rightly understood to be, they are something distinct from psalms that are also appropriate to use in worship.

To the contrary brother, they cannot refer to anything but the psalms

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=ὕμνοις&t=LXX#s=s_primary_0_1

You will notice how the LXX (which I assume we are agreed was Paul's background) uses the term hymnos to refer exclusively to the psalms. It is a dangerous tendency for people to read a familiar word in an ancient text and assume it describes the familiar thing. This is called anachronism. There were indeed people in Paul's day who used hymnos in reference to something other than God's own music: the pagans, who wrote many uninspired hymns for the worship of their false gods. We should not suppose that Paul was deferring to the usage of the world over God's word. Where were the hymns of second temple Judaism which Paul would have been familiar with since childhood, which would have carried over to the new covenant? Fact is that uninspired hymns were not the practice of God's covenant people.

If hymns and spiritual songs are something other than psalms, it would be logical to conclude that they are also something other than each other. But then to what does "spiritual songs" refer? If it is neither hymns nor psalms, is it Christian rock? Does this mean the pastor should break out a sax and start jazzin' out with a band like happens in some black churches today? There was no such thing as "contemporary Christian music" in the first century, we cannot logically conclude spiritual songs refers to anything other than the songs given by the Spirit Himself.

>>9121

>parody by a Lutheran minister about shallow new agey music somehow equals all Protestants.

How's summer going lads?

>>9121

Because prots lost all real connection to God the second they split off from the One True Church. Sobof course they produce Satanic music.

>>9147

>the term hymnos to refer exclusively to the psalms

Not so, you can only prove that hymnois can be used to refer to psalms, not that it exclusively refers to psalms.

The fact that Paul lists them beside each other "psalms and hymns" means they are NOT strictly synonymous.

Why did he say that phrase in your view? "Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs".

Why didnt he just say "psalms"

Are you interpreting it as "psalms and psalms and psalms"

>There was no such thing as "contemporary Christian music" in the first century

Yes there was, anything that is recently produced is contemporary

>>9147

Good point. Let's sing Psalm 96:

> O sing unto the Lord a new song: sing unto the Lord, all the earth.

>>9175

^ /end thread

>>9174

>Not so, you can only prove that hymnois can be used to refer to psalms, not that it exclusively refers to psalms.

So are we just going to ignore the Jewish use of hymnos? In the 1st century, it was used to refer to two things, 1. pagan hymns 2. the psalms

>The fact that Paul lists them beside each other "psalms and hymns" means they are NOT strictly synonymous.

>Why did he say that phrase in your view? "Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs".

>Why didnt he just say "psalms"

>Are you interpreting it as "psalms and psalms and psalms"

Firstly, this is a Jewish style of speech

Exodus 34:7

<Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Acts 2:22

<Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know

Secondly, this is not an argument. Suppose Paul had literally written "psalms psalms and psalms", would you be protesting that he must have meant something other than psalms because it sounds strange?

>>9215

>this is a Jewish style of speech

That's a good argument I have never heard, they could be meant as synonymous even though different terms are listed. You're right that there's a biblical precedent for this as you demonstrated even in the NT.

How can we know certainly that this is or isn't one of those instances?

>In the 1st century, it was used to refer to two things, 1. pagan hymns 2. the psalms

When do we see Christians (potentially wrongly) writing worship music and calling them hymns?

>>9224

>How can we know certainly that this is or isn't one of those instances?

By determining the meaning of hymnois and odais pneumatikais in Pauline usage.

>When do we see Christians (potentially wrongly) writing worship music and calling them hymns?

I haven't studied the history of Christian hymnology, but I suspect a few centuries after the apostles. I have not confirmed this, but have heard that there is still no evidence of Christian hymns by the 2nd century. So possibly beginning in the 3rd century, possibly later, I don't know.

>>9238

Are you a Scot?

Do you know of a good text arguing your position?

>>9244

>Are you a Scot?

Nope.

>Do you know of a good text arguing your position?

http://www.reformedonline.com/uploads/1/5/0/3/15030584/exclusive_psalmody.pdf

>>9247

What church do you go to?

Protestant music thread? Protestant music thread!

J.S. Bach's Cantata "Ein feste burg ist unster Gott" BWV 80

Author known only as K., but probably someone from John Rippon's church, the 18th century English Baptist who first published the hymn.

Played by Ordinary Time, a indie folk/Christian band from British Columbia.

"Great is Thy Faithfulness" Lyrics by Thomas Chisholm, Methodist, and Music by William M. Runyan, also Methodist.

Performed by Shane & Shane

Who can forget the most well-known hymn? Written by john Newton with help from William Cowper. Music arranged by American Baptist composer William Walker who use the tune "New Britain".

Performed by the Empress of Gospel herself, Mahalia Jackson

That's it for now while you papists and others listen and bask in Protestant's glorious aural legacy.

>>9308

Forgot to mention who performed this. It's the Munich Bach Choir and Orchestra, conducted by Karl Richter.

With solos by the greatest baritone, Dietrich Fischer Dieskau, and pretty good soprano Edith Mathis.

>>9247

I'm sorry, but the document's interpretation of "new song", on page 16 in particular, is eisegesis-a-riffic in regards to it's interpretation of said scripture. Various pro-exclusive psalmody interpretations are given that are seemingly based on conjecture and personal interpretation without any solid scholarship. The page pretty much highlights any point in the OT or NT that has the phrase "new song", and basically says "This phrase means literally anything else other than a literal new song outside of the Psalms or Bible in general, because of reasons that are supportive of my premise and bias, that I think are right."

Also, I can understand God closing the canon of scripture in terms of laws and mandates. But God, a God who desires and is worthy of worship and the highest praise, and who literally specifically designed us to be creatures that are only truly and deeply fulfilled when we praise and worship him, would go "And……….that's it. Sure I gave y'all gifts of creativity and invention to be used for my glory. But songs of worship? Only 150. To ever be used. Ever. That's it. I'm capping it there." I find that premise rather….. implausible? Silly even?

>>9308

Is that Shatner?

>>9319

>I'm sorry, but the document's interpretation of "new song", on page 16 in particular, is eisegesis-a-riffic in regards to it's interpretation of said scripture. Various pro-exclusive psalmody interpretations are given that are seemingly based on conjecture and personal interpretation without any solid scholarship

This really isn't an argument, it's certainly not a counter-exegesis. I feel the important take away from that section is that the references to eternal worship in Revelation fail to function as justification for the use of uninspired hymns, because these songs are 1. sung in heaven and 2. inspired. Also, I think it's worth noting that Revelation 14:3 says "No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth", which I would see as clear evidence that we're not talking about a literal "song" at all, I would see this as a metaphorical reference to the effects of regeneration upon a man. The "new song" is in reality the new heart.

>Also, I can understand God closing the canon of scripture in terms of laws and mandates. But God, a God who desires and is worthy of worship and the highest praise, and who literally specifically designed us to be creatures that are only truly and deeply fulfilled when we praise and worship him, would go "And……….that's it. Sure I gave y'all gifts of creativity and invention to be used for my glory. But songs of worship? Only 150. To ever be used. Ever. That's it. I'm capping it there." I find that premise rather….. implausible? Silly even?

Consider for a moment, that we could apply this same logic to the books of scripture themselves in the context of the sermon. We could argue that it is silly for God to give us such gifts of creativity, but then restrict us to but 66 books from which to preach. In worship, it is not the number of works which is significant, but their author.

Also, we should consider the question of sufficiency. Is the psalter sufficient for the musical needs of the Church, or is it not? If the former, then there is no need for hymns, the content of which originating from the hand of man is strange fire before the Lord. We should be content to end where God ends. But if it is the latter, then we can already hear the ghosts of the counter-reformers crying out in victory, because God left us with a scripture which does not provide for all the needs of the Church.

>>9349

The first point still doesn't account for the other references to a "new song" referenced throughout the Psalms themselves. Once again, the text you cite (and by extension, the 'Songs of Zion' book that it cites, and cites repeatedly throughout the text), basically just asserts what the author thinks/wants the phrase to mean, without any real backing evidence: like something rooted in the original Hebrew/Aramaic language, or solid context within the scriptures that is non-conjectural, or an archaeological or historical frame of reference. Without such things, the simplest answer seems to be to take such phrases at face value, instead of trying to make up an interpretation to force fit them into a preconceived viewpoint.

As for your second point. There is a big difference between laws, rules, regulations, timeless absolute truths, etc. and inspired artistic expression to glorify God. If our songs of worship should be limited to only the 150 Psalms in the Bible, why shouldn't our churches be limited to the specific designs of the temples and objects within the temples that God ordained through hyper-specific design and measurements, as detailed in the Old Testament? Do the new designs of churches, whether they be medieval cathedrals, or the old school or modernist churches of the Presbyterians, and other Protestants, that go beyond these designs imply that "scripture is not sufficient?" Should we only restrict all worship art to sculptures of cherubim, animals, trees, and metallic seas? Where in the Bible does it specifically instruct the use of a cross, whether in sculpture, relief, or pictorial form, as an aesthetic of devotional art? Furthermore, should nothing two-dimensional be utilized at all since it is not specifically mentioned in the Bible? Are stain-glass windows just right out?

Also, you utilize "strange fire" in a very eisegetical fashion here. This was from a time where a Levitical priest would have a rope tied around his waist so that he could be literally pulled out in the event that he was struck dead by God, behind the holy of holies curtain, for accidentally doing something wrong. In other words, from a time when only accidental sin could be forgiven, while willful sin was punished by death. Even then, a man was struck dead for merely accidentally grasping the ark of the covenant in order to prevent it from falling. From a time of overbearing laws whose point was to make future generations realize how much they need Jesus. Laws that our Lord literally suffered and died to free us from. To echo an earlier point and to make this point more abundantly clear: can you say with a straight face that your Presbyterian church is a perfect, flawless, immaculate recreation of Old Testament temple style worship according to the Bible, minus the obvious, like animal sacrifices? Could it even be a literal mirror image of a 1st century church? Or even a 2nd or 3rd century church? Or even later? According to the Scriptures?

So is Solae Scriptura meant to be a new Pharisaical pedantry? Or is this anon's interpretation of this concept more correct? >>8678

>Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

>>9375

Even the Lord's Prayer, while beautiful to say of it's own accord, is meant to be a template, a model prayer, not always just a straight reading; a magnificent prayer of it's own accord, AND a guide to our prayer life:

-Glorification of the Lord and recognition of his authority.

-Requests for physical and spiritual sustenance.

-Confessing and asking for forgiveness of sins.

-Requests for strength, faith, perseverance, and protection from evil.

-Further Glorification of the Lord.

Yet even then, God did not mean us to merely say the Lord's Prayer over and over again, but to be led by the Holy Spirit in prayer. John 14:26 and especially Romans 8:26 say that the Spirit will teach us and speak for us in prayer:

>Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

What are hymns and songs of worship, if not forms of prayer? Why would such Spirit led forms of prayer be limited only to spoken personal prayers to God? Why would he not inspire us to sing a "new song" as well, as the Psalms themselves tell us to? Also, when the Psalms instruct us to worship with instruments, are we to take Psalm 33 as literally instructing us to only utilize the specific 10 string harp from Old Testament times exclusively, or risk engaging in "strange fire"?

Under such a strict interpretation of Solae Scriptura, there is not ONE church, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. that is not guilty of "strange fire" in worship under such standards. Scripture is certainly sufficient, but even tradition exists, as long as it is ultimately subservient to Scripture. And I seriously doubt that the divine inspiration of God, in terms of art made for his glory, ceased after 150 songs, and after the designs of the temple. Later hymns, and even much contemporary worship music utilize the Psalms as springboards, or make blatant references to Scripture.

In light of such things, Solae Scriptura, in regards to worship, makes more sense as a guide, rather than a Talmudic regulatory manual. Which is more in tune with the spirit of Reform, in contrast to the neo Pharisaism of the Counter-Reformation.

>>9375

>Without such things, the simplest answer seems to be to take such phrases at face value, instead of trying to make up an interpretation to force fit them into a preconceived viewpoint.

My brother, don't you see that's exactly what you've done? You have filled the phrase with an unnatural meaning and assumed it is the natural meaning, you've turned an expression into a saying. You seem to be saying every instance of the phrase "new song" is a prophesy which specifically prophesies the writing of uninspired hymns in the new covenant. I would say that is far from the "face value". Was it really the intention of the psalmists to say that? For example, take the afore cited Psalm 96, what is natural interpretation of its use of "new song"? Considering it is about the superiority of true religion to false, and declaring the superiority of the true God before the heathen, the natural interpretation is not that this is a command to sing hymns in corporate worship, which would be most out of character with the rest of the psalm, but is a metaphor along the lines of "turn a new leaf", or perhaps a more appropriate parallel considering our context, "to change one's tune".

>If our songs of worship should be limited to only the 150 Psalms in the Bible, why shouldn't our churches be limited to the specific designs of the temples and objects within the temples that God ordained through hyper-specific design and measurements, as detailed in the Old Testament?

The temple was a part of the sacrificial system of the old covenant which explicitly passed away with the sacrifice, resurrection, and intercession of Jesus Christ. The death of the whole entails the death of all parts.

>Do the new designs of churches, whether they be medieval cathedrals, or the old school or modernist churches of the Presbyterians, and other Protestants, that go beyond these designs imply that "scripture is not sufficient?"

The church is not a building. Throughout the new covenant, and especially its early history, churches have been known to meet in homes, caves, woods etc etc.. Christians do not have a holy land, there is no such thing as a holy site, every parcel has been made sacred by the blood of Christ. As such, the location at which the church meets for worship is not an element of worship, anymore than the seating arrangements. Now do you see the difference between something trivial like the shape of the roof, and something so essential to His worship as singing His praises? Shape of the roof-not worship, singing His praises-worship.

>Should we only restrict all worship art to sculptures of cherubim, animals, trees, and metallic seas?

We should restrict worship art to none whatsoever. How we have forgotten the second commandment, that we put up images of corruptible man and birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things in God's house. Lord have mercy.

>Even then, a man was struck dead for merely accidentally grasping the ark of the covenant in order to prevent it from falling

Should we take away from this that we are to gawk at this time, or the seriousness of obeying God and following His prescription? A man, a gentile man, was stoned for working on the sabbath. What was that?

>Laws that our Lord literally suffered and died to free us from

But He did not die to save us from holiness.

>can you say with a straight face that your Presbyterian church is a perfect, flawless, immaculate recreation of Old Testament temple style worship according to the Bible, minus the obvious, like animal sacrifices?

Do you think it's supposed to be?

>Could it even be a literal mirror image of a 1st century church?

It should be. See, God didn't just wind us up and let us go, He organized the church according to His will.

>>9376

>Why would he not inspire us to sing a "new song" as well, as the Psalms themselves tell us to?

Do you realize what you're saying? Shall we start binding hymnals after Revelation?

>Also, when the Psalms instruct us to worship with instruments, are we to take Psalm 33 as literally instructing us to only utilize the specific 10 string harp from Old Testament times exclusively, or risk engaging in "strange fire"?

We are not to use instruments at all, they were a part of the sacrificial worship of the old covenant.

>In light of such things, Solae Scriptura, in regards to worship, makes more sense as a guide, rather than a Talmudic regulatory manual

Now, the time has come to exegete the key text.

<And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

Now, what was Nadab and Abihu's sin? That they offered worship according to their own construction, rather than divine regulation. Thus their fire is called strange, for "he commanded them not". Now this sin was so serious, that God did not even wait for them to be punished by the people, but immediately slew them, not only slew them but burned them alive. We can imagine that Aaron was reasonably nearby to them, his sons, his pride and joy, his genetic legacy, the surety of the continuance of life and the cheating of death, whom he had known since they were but babes and raised them to be men. I wonder if he heard their screams. Evidently, God felt indebted to Aaron, to give a reason and make explanation, of why his sons who had received such an honor had to die so horribly and so soon, because He specially sent Moses, just for Aaron, to explain. And He explains, that He shall be glorified before the people, which considering the context can mean absolutely nothing but that they had so sullied His glory by worshipping according to their own will, that their worship was rejected for its unworthiness and they were given an appropriate punishment. "And Aaron held his peace."

>Which is more in tune with the spirit of Reform, in contrast to the neo Pharisaism of the Counter-Reformation.

So far is Rome from worshipping according to divine institution, that they practice and have practiced all manner of willworship, with a litany of liturgical traditions which are all repugnant to scripture, and have held worship derived from scripture in contempt. It was the reformers who insisted our worship must be set by God, men like Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin, and John Knox, and all the Puritans. No sir, the voice of the counter-reformers here is not I.

>>9389

>The death of the whole entails the death of all parts.

Under that logic, that would entail the Psalms of the Old Testament as well.

>We should restrict worship art to none whatsoever. How we have forgotten the second commandment, that we put up images of corruptible man and birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things in God's house. Lord have mercy.

>We are not to use instruments at all, they were a part of the sacrificial worship of the old covenant.

Ohhhhhh….I see. Even though that commandment against graven images ordained by God, is given literally shortly before specific instructions were given on building the temple, including images of cherubim, animals, etc., thus making that commandment exegetically related specifically to utilizing art for idolatry, not art itself.

As for your point on instruments…. so it's Biblically mandated to follow the 150 Psalms…. but disobeying their instructions to use instruments is also Biblically mandated… according to you?

I'm not going to waste my time with the rest, because I can already tell from just these responses from you, that not only are we not going to see eye to eye, but you are clearly treating Scripture as a pick and choose buffet, or even a "perforated Bible" as satirized in the Babylon Bee, in order to suit your interpretation of Scripture:

https://babylonbee.com/news/new-bible-perforated-pages-announced/

That or you're a troll taking me for a ride, which I'm getting off of now, thank you very much.

>>9404

>you are clearly treating Scripture as a pick and choose buffet

No I just understand (evidently unlike you) that not all worship in ancient Israel was part of sacrificial temple worship. There's a clear pattern here you're just choosing not to see it in favor making arguments that are logically fallacious and factually incorrect.

>That or you're a troll

And the fact you saw fit to make such a conclusion about such a thorough response which actually exegeted the key text demonstrates that all this post really was is capitulation.

Prots have some good hymns - Blessed Assurance, I’l Fly Away, etc. Last time I was in a Baptist church it was 1/2 hymns and 1/2 garbage like in the OP. Definitely a step in the wrong direction.