Church music...

So I had my names crossed I did not look close enough when I thought that you were Timsings... I made a simple mistake on who the post was directed at.... Regardless I never called anyone a heretic.. I said a belief was heresy.. ANY body who denies Scripture Alone, Christ Alone, Faith Alone, Grace Alone, and Glory to God Alone is a heretic whether you like it or not... A rose by any other name is still a rose. Those are fundamental central doctrines.. Outside of that there is no salvation.

If you want to call me extreme that is fine I am Okay with that. In fact I have even more extreme views that you can ever imagine.... Aleast I have the full support of the history of the church behind me and all those giants of the faith who have come before me. I will not bow to moral relativism....

So again I apologize for mixing the names... I was in a rush in the morn....

As for you other question.. I did not think I need to reply since I had already answered what Psalmos, humnos, and odais pheumatikais were previous in this thread..... They ARE subcategories of the book of Tehillem, or the Book of Praises, Aka. Book of Psalms.. They are triadic expressions that was very common in the hebrew culture.

As for contradictions and misunderstandings, I like that is where you fall... I have the full weight of history behind me here... Need I quote John Gill, John Calvin, How about early Church fathers, Augustine, Tertullian, Chrysostom, etc.. How about the Westminster fathers of the presbyterian church or the London fathers of the Baptist church. Need I quote the Puritans?

They are all in agreement with me with Psalmody, with what Psalms, Hymns and Songs mean, with what the New Song is, etc.....

Need I say more....

Isaac Watts was the first to produce a Hymn book that replaced the psalms and he was a heretic that was semi Arian denying that Christ was fully God.. Isaac Watts lived in the 1800s... That is pretty late on the scene.... Those that sing Non inspired hymns and or CCM have no warrant from scripture and have no warrant from the history of the church and is a modern invention of the church and is what our confession states "imaginations and devices of men, and the suggestions of Satan,".

 

Here is some historical support for you if you do not believe me....

In the first 300 years of the church there is not evidence of one hymn that was ever written.

It was not until the later half of the 300s that heretics decided the best way to extol their false doctrines was to insert them into song for the masses to sing. Arius was one of the first people to write hymns to introduce his Unitarian heretical doctrines followed by the Gnostics. This led the early church to respond to the heretics by condemning the heretics and outlawing their hymns… In the council of Laodicea in A.D. 360 the international synod of all presbyters of the church wrote forbidding the use of man made hymns in the churches and that the 150 Psalms of scripture are to be used alone for the worship of God. They finished with the Canons of Laodicea in 381.

Synod of Laodicea 381

Canon 59
No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments.

The Synod of Chalcedon, 451 reaffirmed the Synod of Laodicea with regards to Canon 59. It was even greatly clarified in the Synod of Braga, 561. The Synod of Toledo, 7 century reiterated the same prescription. So apparently it was a grave matter to the early church. Why did so many councils mentioned it if it was not important?

Chrysostom, the church father of the fourth century, in his sixth homily on Repentance, extolled the Psalms to be the only song to be sung in church. He also had a Homily on Colossians 3:16-17 to with he knew no difference between psalms, hymns and songs and that they were all from the Psalter..

During the period of the Dark ages from the fifth to the sixteenth century, Psalm singing was preserved in the monasteries while the Psalms and congregational singing vanished in Catholic churches.. The Waldensians continued to preserve congregational psalm singing among its churches along with other churches that remained in hiding….

Wycliffe and Huss, the morning stars of the reformation, re-introduced into the Catholic church the singing of Psalms, but fell into disuse again after their death.

During the reformation period, Psalm singing took hold and spread like wildfire throughout all of Europe: France, Switzerland, Germany, England, Netherlands, Scotland.

Besides the sole Reformer named Martin Luther, all other Reformers believed in the sole use of the Psalms for singing and all prepared psalters for their churches. Calvin prepared the Genevan Psalter, John Knox prepared the the Anglo Genevan Psalter. Thomas Cranmer prepared the Anglican psalter and was finished by Hopkin and later the Scottish prepared the Scottish Psalter. Even luther prepared a psalter for the Lutheran church.

John Calvin preached against man made hymns.

The Synod of Dordt in 1618-19 included Article 69 of the Church Order in which only the 150 Psalms of David could be sung in the churches.

Even the Baptist held to Exclusive Psalmody as seen from the writings of John Gill..

The American branch of the Puritans after their arrival prepared the first book ever published in America, the The Bay Psalter.

Not until Isaac Watts did the Psalms start to be replaced. Watts knew how to slowly boil the frog… He first published the imitation of the psalms in the Christian language. After that took off and contention grew in many church he published His Hymnal. He called the Psalms unfit for Christians and rejected them as scripture. His own theology deems him a heretic because he was Unitarian and not Trinitarian.
Not until the mid 1800s did the psalms almost completely fell from the wayside with the introduction of the Revivalist worship styles of Charles Finney. Under Finney music was a way to drive the emotions and get people to make decisions without caring if they really had a heart change.

Which brings us to our current state of today where even the hymns (19th century CCM) have been replaced with CCM of today…..

 

That is fine. No harm no foul.

Not true. You never called anyone on the BB a heretic but you did say it did you not? Like here:

and again just recently here:

Isaac Watts did not believe in an open cannon. Nor did he deny the abosolute deity of Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

He did not deny any of these, so you must have another criteria not yet set forth, we will wait I didn't deal with Arius because Isaacs views are different from that of Arius, in that Isaac did believe Christ and the Holy Spirit were in fact Deity just not in the Trinitian sense; We see his declaration of Christ's and the Holy Spirit as deity in his work 'A Faithful Inquiry after the Ancient and Original Doctrine of the Trinity' (1745) :

Watts failing was in his absoluteness of logic through which he disected the scriptures and that conflicted with the understanding of the trinity because it is not a logically feasabile aspect to the human mind. But as shown above he never denied Christ's deity, nor any of the Solas.

You might want to cut back on the caffine a little :laugh:

Unfortunately no you don't and since in the next post of yours you set forth some things I will deal with them there. However it IS noted that not all reformers and or puritans have nor do agree with you. People like Luther, Toplady, and others such as Egil Grislis 1535, Elisabeth Cruciger (1500?-1535), Richard Baxter (Puritan) 1640 or so, Benard Clairvaux 1091-1153 and many others who created many 'new' hymns to be sung.

You will have to do better than that. The triadic expression does not validate your argument of them all being literally the psalms only. The triadic expression speaks to the fact they are interrelated and their relational aspect here is our declaration of praise, and thanksgiving in various forms. I believe our songs are to be 'words that communicate the teaching (didascalia) of Scripture (the didascalia position). A link to a very solid refute (IMO) by those of the Reformed view is at found at 'Monergism' and read there which is much in line with my position as seen there in.
You can see it here:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1974Ezra3Part1.htm
and part 2 here:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1975Ezra3Part2.html
You don't have to read it but it expresses my view.

No, you have choicely selected aspects of it, and those who do not fall into your view are apparently deemed heretics (spefically regarding our conversation of songs).

Good man, though theologically wrong on many aspects and right on many to.

same...

what time in his life? When he was of the view free-will, or the later no-will and infant baptism.
All I'm saying is that regardless of who you bring up they don't mean diddly nor does the churches historical view specifically. They give good credence to look at it more seriously but that doesn't mean they were right just because they did it that way. If you look back at the history of the Church during Catholisism and even the Reformation if one disagreed with them they were either run out of town/country or killed. The works of those who were not in line with their thoughts were destroyed, discarded or declared heresies by that ruling body. So to say the church was in agreement about.. in truth only those in line with their view gave agreement because the rest were removed. But as children of God we are to study the word of God and we are accountable unto God for the truths which He determines to reveal to us. We take all information into account and set it before the Word but that does not mandate the information is true even if it was done that way for a 1000 years, otherwise by that logic Catholisism is true by virture of majority and history.

Wrong they are NOT all in agreement with you for they themselves have debated the thing to death themselves.

By The Way: Most of Watts hymns are paraphrases of the Psalms in “modern” English in case you over looked that point.

Incorrect sir. It would be best to first research a little first. I quoted above in his own words and do so now with regard toward his understanding of Christ:

I will agree that there is considerable evidence that Watts held Arian or Unitarian 'opinions'. At the very least Watts’ views on the Trinity are highly suspect because he never out right denied the deity of Christ but did question the view of it.
Here is a link to a Presby site which deals with much of the truth of the matter concerning Watts need for logic and the scriptures to meet and end results:
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/unitarianism.htm

 

And by your same test of evidence
In the first 300 years of the Church the is no evidence hymns were not written.

This is pure supposition and slander based upon nothing but a one sided bias born form exclusivism.

What you fail to address is:
First, he was ONE of the first people... So by your own admission, who else was there?
Second, though I do not agree with Unitarian position, it should be noted that this view was already known in the early church long before Arius much like John Calvin. The early church was 'somewhat' divided on this issue and thus the reason for debate which took place.

That Council also named 26 books of the New Testemant and left out the Book of Revelation Anyway,
The Synod of Laodicea did forbid the use of any composed by private individuals, namely all unauthorized Church hymns. This is important because it means that the Catholic Church is the one to sanction these songs before they can be sung. Luft remarks that "by this it was not intended to forbid the use of all but the Bible psalms and hymns, for it is known that even after this Synod many hymns composed by individual Christians, for instance, Prudentius, Clement, Ambrose, came into use in the Church. Only those not sanctioned were to be banished."

"Psalmody thus came to be increasingly the monoply of trained singers, and the 15th canon of the Council of Laodicea, 360 AD, proscribed that 'no others shall sing in the church save only the canonical singers...who go up into the ambo and sing with a book." (Int Std Bible Ency, Psalms, p. 2494a)

Again, this is refering to psalms and as I noted above many hymns by Prudentius, Clement, Ambrose, et.. WERE sung and accepted in the Church.

Again this is refering to psalms and does not address hymns nor spiritual songs and as stated earlier there WERE MANY other hymns added in just not other psalms because those are specifically scripture and to add a new psalm was to add to the scriptures.

Again and argument of no import. It does not address the hymns they also sang NOT specifically the psalms of which there were still many.

Of course it did, it had to since is was part of their Religious observance of that time. If the Reformation was growing then so would the psalm singing but not the exclusivity of the psalms only.

Again not completely true. Just for an example - what about Toplady.

Again and again you are speaking of psalms but that does not include hymns and spiritual songs not even in all the Reformers minds. SOME yes, but not all.

So, do you believe John Calvins and his works are inspired? It was his view and he was incorrect on many things. Even John Calvin would be excommunicated from many Calvinistic churches today.

John Gill did not speak for the whole, half of Baptists or even part of the baptists.

Again not true as stated earlier during the Council of Laodicea many created hymns that where church approved. Hundreds of years before Isaac. Much of the Reformation stifled and killed it but praise God he did not allow man to kill that which He ordained.

Pure character assination based entirely upon supposition and speculation from a biased opinion.

Cite your sourse please.

Your right, God never uses music or psalms to get people see the truth and make a decision. First it is Arius fault, then Isaac, Now Finney.. it seems that it has been apart of Christindom a long time.

While I and not partial to some of it, much is bible based, Christ centered, giving God all glory. And in that, Praise God.

 

Japheth, while I appreciate your devotion to exclusiveness, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I hope you enjoy the day in which God has granted you today.

See ya later.

 

Yes, Allan, I was the one referred to as having heretical views, but I'm not sure what the difference is between having heretical views and being a heretic. Although I expect it will be explained to us sometime today.

On to the current business. First, Isaac Watts was not the first "to produce a Hymn book that replaced the psalms . . . ." His immediate predecessor was Tate & Brady (1696). Before that there was Sternhold & Hopkins (1562).

Second, Isaac Watts' dates are 1674-1748, so he never saw the 1800s.

Third, despite your support from the whole weight of scripture and the history of the church, who are you to question anyone's inspiration? God decides who receives inspiration without regard to scripture or the church. I refer you to 1 Corinthians 1.18-31. I don't agree with a lot that Paul says or with many of the ways in which he is interpreted, but he is on the money in this passage. You can go through the Bible and find plenty of examples where God chose unlikely people to carry out God's will. I would cite Moses, Amos, Jonah, and David, as examples. Also, regarding particularly Amos and Jesus, their presence challenged the leaders of the religious establishments of their day. Both were called before those leaders. Amos was told to go home, and Jesus was crucified. The question before us today is whether we now stand in the place of the religious establishment to such an extent that we have difficulty seeing what God is doing in the world today.

Tim Reynolds

 

I like to think the songs that I wrote and posted in this thread were inspired by my love for God.

They do line up with Scripture, so how can Japheth say they are not of God?

 

I thought I should before responding any further clarify a few issues for those who are reading this debate without commenting. So many might be thinking what in the world is this squabble over? So what? or what difference does it make? Isn't this all over semantics? Does it really matter?

This is NO small matter. It is of the utmost importance for the church.. It is a very MORAL issue. Worship and what we do in worship is one of the most important matters in all of scripture. Even John Calvin declared it MORE important then the issue of Justification by faith alone? Which was a major battle cry during the Protestant Reformation. Why? Why did John Calvin declare that worship was the most important doctrine? It is because God alone has the pejorative and right to determine how he is to be worshipped and how man before and after the fall can approach a just and holy God. All other worship aside from what God has prescribed is idolaltry and brings false worship to God thereby breaking the second commandment. Hence it is sinful for man to bring false worship to God and thus breaks the moral law of God..

Worship is giving due adoration, devotion, and homage to God who is Lord and Sovereign over the entire universe. Neither can we tender worship to God without a mediator Christ, nor can our worship be glorifying apart from what He commands us to bring unto Him because of the fall of man and the spiritual death of man.

Our Confession of Faith states the regulative principle well in the first paragraph under “Worship and the Sabbath Day”

“The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”


God has not granted us to be creative in worship. He is HOLY so we must be regarded as Holy. God declared “By those who come nigh (near) Me I will be treated as holy." (Lev. 10).

Grounded in the moral law itself and revealed in the first and second commandments (ex 20:2-6) is a fundamental indication that God is concerned not only with the whom of corporate worship, but also the how of corporate worship. Because God indicates that he is jealous about the whom and the how of worship, we are to be exceedingly careful about the whom and the how of worship. God teaches us that we may neither think about him nor worship him according to our own human categories and designs, but must rather know him and glorify him on his own terms and by his own revelation. We must be careful. Since all worship that we tender up to God without his command is false worship it becomes idolatry.

Nadab and Abihu thought they were being creative and they invented a new way to offer fire before the Lord. But God consumed them with Fire before the Altar... What strange story we are told in Lev. 10. They offered fire before the Lord and God consumed them.. Why? What was their fault.. They did not do it the way God prescribed it. He did not forbidden other ways of offering fire. Instead God told them to offer in this way. So because they did not do what the Lord had commanded they offered Him "Strange Fire". It was Strange because the Lord had not commanded it. What a little thing it is to our minds. How a fire should be offered. But God is zealous for His Worship. Whether we sing Psalms or Man Made Hymns is of the most importance for the church. For Man Made Hymns are nothing more then "Strange Fire" before the Lord. And He will consume the false worship. He is still that Burning fire that burnt on Mount Sinai, only it burns brighter and Hotter for the fire that burns for Mount Zion.

Why?

Hebrews 12:29 “For our God is a consuming fire.” He is still that consuming fire that consumed Nadab and Abihu. He is still greatly Jealous for His Worship. We must worship only the true God and we must worship the true God only in the ways he commands us. This is the moral law of God rooted in the very nature of God. To do otherwise would be to worship a false God or to worship by idolatry the true God.

In the words of Pastor Al Martin, “Resist, resist unto blood any attempts to change the worship of God.”

For more on the Regulative Principle of Worship in Scripture, See:

Gen 4:3-8
Ex 20:2-6
Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32
Lev. 10
1 Sam 15:22
2 Sam. 6
Jeremiah 19:5; 32:35
Matt:15 1-14
John 4:20-26
Col. 2:16-19
1 Cor. 14

For a commentary on Lev. 10 by Nadab and Abihu:

Gospel Worship by Puritan author Jeremiah Burroughs

 

It must be quite depressing not to be able to enjoy such wonderful hymns as "It Is Well With My Soul" or "Amazing Grace".

 

Allan,

With regards to Heresy.... I never said that the 5 doctrines of the reformation were the SOLE use for the word heresy. They are central and foundational doctrines but they are not alone. In addition to the 5 doctrines of the reformation comes the matter of who God is and who Christ is. Christological issues are also central.. Trinitarian Theology is central. All of these matters is what defines who we worship. Arius denied the Trinity and WAS a heretic and he was condemned for his belief. Isaac Watts was not a full blown Arian but he did deny Trinitarian theology and could be considered Semi-Arian. He still thought that Christ was a Savior thought not God. Some of his writing and writes that Christ is Michael and is a gloried angel... So Isaac Watts is clearly a Heretic... Isaac Watts in his Preface to this Hymnal declared the Psalms unfit for Christian Worship and he wrote in other writings that he questioned whether they are inspired... But in regards to heresy here is a central list but not complete on what is defined as Heresy: Unorthodox views in Trinitarian Theology, Christological Theology, Scripture Alone, Christ Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, To God Alone be the Glory, The Depravity of Man and the Doctrine of Original Sin.

In addition heresy is also The belief in Baptismal Regeneration is heresy, Denying the Judgment of All living things and the denying of the separation of people into Heaven and Hell is heresy.

I am not going to answer all your faulty views of history. It would take me to long today... But let me answer a few....

You posted a link to poythress from 'Monergism'. That work as been totally refuted... I recommend you read the book "The Songs of Zion" by Michael Bushell.

As for your list of names.. Yes Luther wrote hymns and I already admitted that. But he was a lone Reformer.... Augustus Montague Toplady was NOT a Reformer, he was a later era Post Puritan Anglican who lived 1740 – 1778 and he wrote only a few hymns and I am not sure Egil Grislis is but when I went to look him up on the net he was labeled as into Mysticism. Elisabeth Cruciger was part of the Lutheran Church which would explain it and with regard to Clairvaux he wrote O Sacred Head, Now Wounded which WAS NOT A HYMN but a Poem which was LATER made into a Hymn and was never sung before the 1600s.

"Taken from Wiki, "The hymn is based on a long medieval Latin poem, Salve mundi salutare, with stanzas addressing the various parts of Christ's body hanging on the Cross. The last part of the poem, from which the hymn is taken, is addressed to Christ's head, and begins "Salve caput cruentatum." The poem is often attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), but it first appears in the 14th century. The last part of the poem was translated into German by the prolific Lutheran hymnist Paul Gerhardt (1607-1676). The German hymn begins, "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden.""

Like many of the Hymns today they were written in ages past but NOT set to music.. They were Poems to be read by the Laity and not in the church...

 

Timsings,

I never called you a heretic and I never said you believed that heresy.... I was calling the belief for what it is, Heresy.... I do not know you well enough yet to say you believe that or such... There is a difference.....

Isaac Watts year in my post was suppose to be 1700s, you know a slip of the finger, 7 is beside 8 so I hit the wrong key... And Spell checker do not check dates.... :laugh:

By the way, Sternhold & Hopkins (1562) was not a hymnal but a Psalter.... So was Tate and Brady a Psalter....

"Having been thus exposed to the successful Psalm singing of Geneva, the returning exiles brought back with them a strong inclination toward the singing of the Psalms. An Anglo-Genevan Psalter eventually appeared around 1556-1561. It would be easy to conclude that this was the main impetus for the creation of an English Psalter. However, a tradition of metrical psalmody had already been established before 1550 when Thomas Sternhold, a servant in the courts of King Henry VIII and Edward VI, published 19 Psalm versions which he sang to popular ballade tunes for his own private devotions. He, of course, dedicated these to King Edward. After Sternhold's death in 1549, his friend John Hopkins added another 60 or so Psalms to the Psalter and published it in 1551 and this gave it its popular name, The Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter. A complete version gradually evolved over the next 10 years which contained many versions of Psalms from the Anglo-Genevan Psalter. A Complete English Psalter was published in 1562 and was ultimately the result of work by many people, although Sternhold and Hopkins were the chief contributors.

A later, more poetic version of the Psalms was published in 1696 by Tate and Brady. These two English Psalters are collectively known as “The Old Version” and “The New Version.”"

Oh, and I can judge any body's inspiration by the authority of Scripture.... "Judge righteous judgment", "judge prophets" and if found to be false he was to be stoned to death, etc.... But the Prophets of inspiration as ceased and the canon is closed by the word of God.. "If anybody adds to this words or takes away from these word let the curses which are written here be placed upon him".

 

Not at all, I sing the pure words of God which is far superior in quality then Amazing Grace, etc... How about Psalm 32 sung to Vox Dilecti, C.M.D.:


1. 1 What blessedness for him whose guilt
Has all forgiven been!
When his transgressions pardoned are
And covered is his sin.
2 O blessed the man 'gainst whom the LORD
Counts no iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is not
Deceit or treachery.

2. 3 When I kept silent, my bones aged;
My groaning filled each day.
4 Your hand oppressed me day and night;
My moisture dried away.
5 Then I to You admitted sin,
Hid not my guiltiness;
I said, "I will before the LORD
Transgressions now confess."

3. Then You did all my sin forgive
And take my guilt away.
6 For this when You are near at hand
Let all the godly pray.
The rising floods will harm him not.
7 You are my hiding place.
And You will comfort me with songs
Of victory and grace.

 

Psalms 32:1-2 <<A Psalm of David, Maschil.>> Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Psalms 32:3-5 When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah. I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

Psalms 32:6-7 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him. Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah.

Looks like you are not singing the actual Psalm 32, but a rewrite of the verses by that which you call fallible man.

 

I did not write out the entire Psalm only the first couple of stanzas.....

But you are also not reading the literal since was written in hebrew which is different then the english language.... What I typed was a Translation of the hebrew psalm 32.... The grammar and word order is different in hebrew and so is word translations..... What I typed out was from the RPCNA's "Book of Psalm for Singing" which is always being revised for the best translation out of hebrew into english.. Otherwise I if you think it must be wooden literal then I hope your bible is not in english but in hebrew and greek.... We must read with understanding and we must sing with understanding.

There is a HUGE difference between a translation and a paraphrase i.e. Isaac Watts.

 

Ann,

Translating is not adding to the Word of God.. We are in fact commanded to put the scriptures into the common languages... We are to read with understanding and we are to sing with understand... Pastor Bacon states "(1.) Let those who think we have no good metrical translation of the Psalms, improve some of the versions in use, or make a better. It is surely easier to make a good translation of God’s Psalms, than to compose songs better than those which He has made. (2.) It is better to sing, in divine worship, an imperfect translation of those songs which God has composed, than to sing the best songs which men can make. (3.) We have a good metrical translation of the Psalms. There are, in the Scottish version of the Psalms, it is true, some blemishes. It contains some uncouth forms of expression, and some words which are now obsolete; and its versification in many instances is far from being smooth. But, for the most part, both the phraseology and the versification are very good; and it must be allowed by those who have examined it, that its fidelity to the original Hebrew is not much, if at all, inferior to that of the prose translation of the Psalms, in our English Bible."

In regards to tunes, I am going to quote Pastor Bacon again on this subject "God has not given us inspired tunes. Do those who make this argument really expect God to have inspired a section (perhaps at the end of the book of Psalms) with some sort of musical notation? God has given us inspired words and a command to sing them and singing requires tunes, of course! The regulative principle of worship specifies the principles of how to worship God. We are told to “assemble” on the Lord’s Day (Heb. 10:25) but we are not told at what time, or for how long. We are told that there must be preaching, but we are not told if the sermon should be 45 minutes or an hour and a half (as was often the case with the Puritans) or if the text should be taken from Jeremiah or John or elsewhere in the Scriptures. The tunes to which we sing the Psalms are simply necessary means by which we fulfil the scriptural injunction to sing God’s Psalms."

But I will say that though we have no tunes commanded for the Psalms, there are scriptural injunction on HOW tunes should be composed for worship Psalm singing and for Music outside of the church which are universal principles on what is Lovely and and what is Pure and what is done skillfully..

 

Just curious, but when you say a person is a heretic are you equating that with them being unsaved or that they were wrong on a particular point of theology but still saved? I would just like clarification on that please.

You say 'could be considered'. You opinion of what a person 'could be' or not be does not mean they actaully were. Watts was not even close to Arian, though he did have some wrong opinions with regard to Christ he never out right denied the deity of Christ. That is indisputable. Yes, he questioned it but never out right denied it.

Again not true because he never denied the divinity of CHrist he just didn't understand it. He, again, had different views that tried to make logical sense with regard to what scritpure stated in conjunction with other scripture and that was his greatest flaw. Somethings are to be known but can not be fully understood this side of heaven. No need to get into a full history lesson, but it is of note that Watts friends consisted of men like John Edwards, C.H. Spurgeon (who incouraged his own congregations to sing those hymns written by Watts) and men the like. It is also of note that even today the Presbitarians and Reformed alike have not discarded him but in understanding what he was doing, his health and other problems they agree that it lead to misunderstanding but never full departure of the truth as a whole.

There a was a work that set forth the opinion that 'maybe' the two are the same based upon a possible understanding of the greatness of Michael in respect to all other Angels, his personal protecting of Israel and God chosen men, et.. I don't agree with him but that premise he set forth was not his established belief but a possiblity (though wrong) based on certain characteristics of Michael and Christ.

Here is the preface to:
The Psalms of David
Imitated in the Language of The New Testament
And Applied to The Christian State and Worship
Written by Isaac Watts

Did you happen to see ANYTHING about the psalms not being inspired or ANYTHING relating to that aspect. I didn't either. Personally I also agree with him that Jesus and the Apostles 'paraphrase' quite often OT scripture which included the psalms. I will also place in the next post the preface to his writtings of 'Hymns and Spiritual songs".

Just so you know, I know.

It is not a heresy exactly, it is just not biblical in any sense of God's word.

No, it is only refuted in your mind and the few who agree. Not that majority matter but I refer to those of your theological view (Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace) I have read many of the arguments and those of exclusivity fail biblical proof.
Would you say that those of the Reformed view are walking in ungodliness for not being Exclusively Psalmists?

Very true, and it was my typo since I was meaning was the reformed view. But my question still stands with regard to him and those who follow the Doctrines of Grace (or as my Presby friends say - soveriegn grace doctrines)

But he did write hymns to be and were/are sung in churches even today. Isaac Watts (before the last 3 years of his life) was another of the Reformed theology.

Actually, she wrote more than that, but my point is in regard to those of the Reformed position do not agree with your 'exclusivity' view. Most DID believe the Psalms were to be apart of worship but not exclusive. Your view is a small branch as far as I have found. I could be wrong but I have no compelling evidence among my Reformed brethren that speaks to the contrary.

Not to music? Christ and the apostles sung a hymn after the Supper. Maybe He didn't know that at the time.
I do know of some exclusivity groups who do not even allow for musical instruments. Does your group allow for this?

 

Preface to Hymns and Spiritual Songs

Second half in next post

 

Again nothing here either.

 

So what you're saying here is that which you are singing is not translated correctly since it is always being revised. You are singing words written by fallible man... the very same thing you accuse us of.

Three of your own fingers are pointing back at yourself.