Church music...

[Japheth]

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,".

First, I never stated you called 'me' a heretic. If you will, look again at your post I quoted and responded to and you will see just how off base you are.

Second, you still didn't address the rest of my post.

Third, I will deal later with latest post and your misunderstanding and contradiction even of yourself.

Thanks again :thumbs:
Allan V.

 

[Japheth]

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…..

 

[Allan]

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....

That is fine. No harm no foul.

Regardless I never called anyone a heretic.. I said a belief was heresy..

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

By the way the heretic Arius was the first Non Inspired Hymn writer in the church to promote his heresies and that was 300 years after the beginning of the church.. from post #52

and again just recently here:

Isaac Watts was the first to produce a Hymn book that replaced the psalms and he was a heretic.. from post #61

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

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...
Those are fundamental central doctrines.. Outside of that there is no salvation.

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) :

Holy Father, thou knowest how firmly I believe, with all my soul, whatsoever thou hast plainly written and revealed in thy word. I believe thee to be the only true God, the supreme of beings, self sufficient for thine own existence, and for all thy infinite affairs and transactions among thy creatures. I believe thy Son Jesus Christ to be all-sufficient for the glorious work of mediation between God and man, to which thou hast appointed him. I believe he is a man, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. I believe he is one with God ; he is God manifest in the flesh ; and that the man Jesus is so closely and inseparably united with the true and eternal Godhead, as to become one Person, even as a human soul and body make one man. I believe that this illustrious Person is hereby possessed of Divine dignity sufficient to make full atonement for the sins of men by his sufferings and death, even though sin be accounted an infinite evil; and that he hath all-sufficient power to raise himself from the dead, to ascend to heaven, and fulfill the blessed works for which thou has exalted him, and to govern and judge the world in thine own appointed time.

I believe also thy blessed Spirit hath almighty power and influence to do all thy will, to instruct men effectually in Divine truths, to change the hearts of fallen mankind from sin to holiness, to carry on thy work of illumination, sanctification, and consolation on the hearts of all thy children, and to bring them safe to the heavenly world. I yield myself up joyfully and thankfully to this method of thy salvation, as it is revealed in thy Gospel. But I acknowledge my darkness still. I want to have this wonderful doctrine of the all-sufficiency of thy Son and thy Spirit, for these Divine works, made a little plainer. May not thy humble creature be permitted to know what share they can have in thy Deity? Is it a vain, sinful curiosity to desire to have this article in such a light, as may not diminish the eternal glory of the unity of the true God, nor of the supremacy of Thee, the Father of all?

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.

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....

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have the full weight of history behind me here...

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).

Need I quote John Gill,

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

John Calvin

same...

How about early Church fathers, Augustine

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.

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

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.

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..

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 believe thy Son Jesus Christ to be all-sufficient for the glorious work of mediation between God and man, to which thou hast appointed him. I believe he is a man, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. I believe he is one with God ; he is God manifest in the flesh ; and that the man Jesus is so closely and inseparably united with the true and eternal Godhead, as to become one Person, even as a human soul and body make one man

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

 

[Allan]

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.

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

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

Arius was one of many people to write hymns to introduce his Unitarian heretical doctrines followed by the Gnostics.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Not until Isaac Watts did the Psalms start to be replaced.

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.

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.

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

He called the Psalms unfit for Christians and rejected them as scripture.

Cite your sourse please.

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Allan]

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.

 

[Timsings]

. . . 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,".

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

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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?

 

[Japheth]

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

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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

 

[Japheth]

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...

 

[Japheth]

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".

 

[Japheth]

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.

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

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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.

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.

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."

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.

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 32:6-7 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.

 

[Japheth]

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.

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.

 

[annsni]

Can I just ask ... do you sing the Psalms in the words that they were written in? Translating them is adding to to the Word of God. Are you using the music that it was written with? If not, that's adding to the Word of God.

I will sing worship to my Lord with my own words, with words that He has written and with words that His people have written. I will sing a song with NO words - just with the awe, honor and reverence that is in my heart.

I do not agree that this is wrong.

 

[Japheth]

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..

Can I just ask ... do you sing the Psalms in the words that they were written in? Translating them is adding to to the Word of God. Are you using the music that it was written with? If not, that's adding to the Word of God.

I will sing worship to my Lord with my own words, with words that He has written and with words that His people have written. I will sing a song with NO words - just with the awe, honor and reverence that is in my heart.

I do not agree that this is wrong.

 

[Allan]

Allan,

With regards to Heresy....

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.

Isaac Watts was not a full blown Arian but he did deny Trinitarian theology and could be considered Semi-Arian.

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.

He still thought that Christ was a Savior thought not God.

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.

Some of his writing and writes that Christ is Michael and is a gloried angel... So Isaac Watts is clearly a Heretic...

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.

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...

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

PREFACE.
I come therefore to explain my own design, which is this, To
accommodate the book of Psalms to Christian worship. And in order
to do this, it is necessary to divest David and Asaph, &c. of every
other character but that of a psalmist and a saint, and to make
them always speak the common sense, and language of a Christian.

Attempting the work with this view, I have entirely omitted several
whole psalms, and large pieces of many others; and have chosen out
of all of them, such parts only as might easily and naturally be
accommodated to the various occasions of the Christian life, or
at least might afford us some beautiful allusion to Christian
affairs. These I have copied and explained in the general style
of the gospel; nor have I confined my expressions to any particular
party or opinion; that in words prepared for public worship, and
for the lips of multitudes, there might not be a syllable offensive
to sincere Christians, whose judgments may differ in the lesser
matters of religion.

Where the Psalmist uses sharp invectives against his personal
enemies, I have endeavoured to turn the edge of them against our
spiritual adversaries, sin, Satan, and temptation. Where the
flights of his faith and love are sublime, I have often sunk the
expressions within the reach of an ordinary Christian: where the
words imply some peculiar wants or distresses, joys, or blessings,
I have used words of greater latitude and comprehension, suited
to the general circumstances of men.

Where the original runs in the form of prophecy concerning Christ
and his salvation, I have given an historical turn to the sense:
there is no necessity that we should always sing in the obscure
and doubtful style of prediction, when the things foretold are
brought into open light by a full accomplishment. Where the writers
of the New Testament have cited or alluded to any part the Psalms,
I have often indulged the liberty of paraphrase, according to the
words of Christ, or his Apostles. And surely this may be esteemed
the word of God still, though borrowed from several parts of the
Holy Scripture. Where the Psalmist describes religion by the fear
of God, I have often joined faith and love to it. Where he
speaks of the pardon of sin, through the mercies of God, I have
added the merits of a Saviour. Where he talks of sacrificing goats
or bullocks, I rather chuse to mention the sacrifice of Christ,
the Lamb of God. When he attends the ark with shouting into Zion,
I sing the ascension of my Saviour into heaven, or his presence
in his church on earth. Where he promises abundance of wealth,
honour, and long life, I have changed some of these typical
blessings for grace, glory, and life eternal, which are brought
to light by the gospel, and promised in the New Testament. And I
am fully satisfied, that more honor is done to our blessed Saviour,
by speaking his name, his graces, and actions, in his own language,
according to the brighter discoveries he hath now made, than by
going back again to the Jewish forms of worship, and the language
of types and figures.

Of chusing or finding the Psalm.

By consulting the Index at the end, any one may find hymns very
proper for many occasions of the Christian life and worship; though
no copy of David's Psalter can provide for all, as I have shewn in
the Preface to the large edition.
Or, if he remembers the first line of any Psalm, the Table of the
first lines will direct where to find it.


Of singing in course.

If any shall think it best to sing the Psalms in order in churches
or families, it may be done with profit, provided those Psalms be
omitted that refer to special occurrences of nations, churches,
or single Christians.

Of dividing the Psalms.

If the Psalm be too long for the time or custom of singing, there
are pauses in many of them at which you may properly rest; or you
may leave out those verses which are inclued with crotchets [ ],
without disturbing the sense: or, in some places you may begin to
sing at the pause.

Preface to Hymns and Spiritual Songs (London: J. Humphreys, for John Lawrence, 1707), pp. iii-xiv.

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".

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.

Just so you know, I know.

In addition heresy is also The belief in Baptismal Regeneration is heresy,

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

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.

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?

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

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)

and he wrote only a few hymns

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

 

[Allan]

Preface to Hymns and Spiritual Songs

While we sing the Praises of our God in his Church, we are employed in that part of Worship which of all others is the nearest a-kin to Heaven: and ‘tis pity that this of all others should be performed the worst upon Earth. The Gospel brings us nearer to the heavenly State than all the former Dispensations of God amongst Men: And in these very last Days of the Gospel we are brought almost within sight of the Kingdom of our Lord; yet we are very much unacquainted with the Songs of the New Jerusalem, and unpracticed in the Work of Praise. To see the dull Indifference, the negligent and the thoughtless Air that sits upon the Faces of a whole Assembly, while the Psalm is on their Lips, might tempt even a charitable Observer to suspect the Fervency of inward Religion; and ‘tis much to be feared that the Minds of most of the Worshippers are absent or unconcerned. Perhaps the Modes of Preaching in the best Churches still want some Degrees of Reformation, nor are the Methods of Prayer so perfect as to stand in need of no Correction or Improvement: But of all our Religious Solemnities Psalmodie is the most unhappily managed. That very Action which should elevate us to the most delightful and divine Sensations, does not only flat our Devotion, but too often awakens our Regret, and touches all the Springs of Uneasiness within us.

I have been long convinced, that one great Occasion of this Evil arises from the Matter and Words to which we confine all our Songs. Some of them are almost opposite to the Spirit of the Gospel: Many of them foreign to the State of the New Testament, and widely different from the present Circumstances of Christians. Hence it comes to pass, than when spiritual Affections are excited within us, and our Souls are raised a little above this Earth in the beginning of a Psalm, we are checked on a sudden in our Ascent toward Heaven by some Expressions that are more suited to the Days of Carnal Ordinances, and fit only to be sung in the Worldly Sanctuary. When we are just entering into an Evangelic Frame by some of the Glories of the Gospel presented in the brightest Figures of Judaism, yet the very next Line perhaps which the Clerk parcels out unto us, hath something in it so extremely Jewish and cloudy, that darkens our Sight of God the Saviour: Thus by keeping too close to David in the House of God, the Vail of Moses is thrown over our Hearts. While we are kindling into Divine Love by the Meditations of the loving Kindness of God, and the Multitude of his tender Mercies, within a few Verses some dreadful Curse against Men is proposed to our Lips; That God would add Iniquity unto their Iniquity, not let them come into his Righteousness, but blot them out of the Book of the Living (Psalms 69, 16, 27, 28). which is so contrary to the New Commandment, of loving our Enemies. Some Sentences of the Psalmist that are expressive of the Temper of our own Hearts and the Circumstances of our Lives may compose our Spirits to Seriousness, and allure us to a sweet Retirement within ourselves; but we meet with a following Line which so peculiarly belongs but to one Action or Hour of the Life of David or Asaph, that breaks off our Song in the midst; our Consciences are affrighted lest we should speak a Falsehood unto God: Thus the Powers of our Souls are shocked on a sudden, and our Spirits ruffled before we have time to reflect that this may be sung only as a History of ancient Saints: And perhaps in some Instances that Salvo is hardly sufficient neither.

Many Ministers and many private Christians have long groaned under this Inconvenience, and have wished rather than attempted a Reformation: At their importunate and repeated Requests I have for some Years past devoted many Hours of leisure to this Service. Far be it from my Thoughts to lay aside the Psalms of David in public Worship; few can pretend so great a Value for them as my self: It is the most artful, most devotional and Divine Collection of Poesy; and nothing can be supposed more proper to raise a pious Soul to Heaven than some parts of that Book; never was a piece of Experimental Divinity so nobly written, and so justly reverenced and admired: But it must be acknowledged still, that there are a thousand Lines in it which were not made for a Saint in our Day, to assume as his own; There are also many deficiencies of Light and Glory which our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have supplied in the Writings of the New Testament; and with this Advantage I have composed these spiritual Songs which are now presented to the World. Nor is the Attempt vain-glorious or presuming; for in respect of clear Evangelic Knowledge, The least in the Kingdom of Heav’n is greater than all the Jewish Prophets (Matt. 11:11).

Now let me give a short Account of the following Composures.
The greatest Part of them are suited to the General State of the Gospel, and the most common Affairs of Christians: I hope there will be very few found but what may properly be used in a religious Assembly, and not one of them but may well be adapted to some Seasons, either of private or of public Worship. The most frequent Tempers and Changes of our Spirit, and Conditions of our Life are here copied, and the Breathings of our Piety expressed according to the variety of our Passions; our Love, our Fear, our Hope, our Desire, our Sorrow, our Wonder and our Joy, all refined into Devotion, and acting under the Influence and Conduct of the Blessed Spirit; all conversing with god the Father by the new and living Way of Access to the Throne, even the Person and the Mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ. To him also, even to the Lamb that was slain and now lives, I have addressed many a Song; for thus doth the Holy Scripture instruct and teach us to Worship in the various short Patterns of Christian Psalmodie described Points of Christianity, that we might all obey the Direction of the Word of God, and sing his Praises with Understanding (Psalm 47:7). The Contentions and distinguishing Words of Sects and Parties are secluded, that whole Assemblies might assist at the Harmony, and different Churches join in the same Worship without Offence.

The whole Book is confined to three Sorts of Metre, and fitted to the most common Tunes. I have seldom permitted a Stop in the middle of a Line, and seldom left the end of a Line without one, to comport a little with the unhappy Mixture of Reading and Singing, which cannot presently be reformed. The Metaphors are generally sunk to the Level of vulgar Capacities. I have aimed at ease of Numbers and Smoothness of Sound, and endeavoured to make the Sense plain and obvious; if the Verse appears so gentle and flowing as to incure the Censure of Feebleness, I may honestly affirm, that sometimes it cost me labour to make it so: Some of the Beauties of Poesy are neglected, and some willfully defaced: I have thrown out the Lines that were too sonorous, and given an Allay to the Verse, lest a more exalted Turn of Thought or Language should darken or disturb the Devotion of the plainest Souls. But hence it comes to pass, that I have been forced to lay aside many Hymns after they were finished, and utterly exclude them from this Volume, because of the Bolder Figures of Speech that crowded themselves into the Verse, and a more unconfined Variety of Number which I could not easily restrain. Perhaps these may ever long appear as an Additional Part to the Poems already Published under the Title of Horae Lyricae.

I have divided the whole into three Books.
In the first I have borrowed the Sense, and much of the Form of the Song from some particular Portions of Scripture, and have paraphrased most of the Doxologies in the New Testament that contain any thing in them peculiarly Evangelical, and many parts of the Old Testament also that have a reference to the Times of the Messiah. In these I expect to be often censured for a too religious Observance of the Words of Scripture, whereby the Verse is weakened and debased according to the Judgment of the Critics: But as my whole Design was to aid the Devotion of Christians, so more Especially this part was written for the meanest of them, and I am satisfied I shall hereby attain two Ends, (viz.) Assist the Worship of all serious Minds to whom the Expressions of Scripture are ever dear and delightful; and gratify the Taste and Inclination of those who think nothing must be sung unto God but the Translations of his own Word. Yet you will always find in this Paraphrase dark Expressions enlightened, and the Levitical Ceremonies, and Hebrew Forms of Speech changed into the Worship of the Gospel, and explained in the Language of our Time and Nation; and what would not bear such an Alteration is omitted and laid aside. After this manner should I rejoice to see a good part of the Book of Psalms fitted for the use of our Churches, and David converted into a Christian. In the first, second and third Psalms especially, I have attempted a Specimen of what I desire and hope some more capable Genius will undertake.

Second half in next post

 

[Allan]

The Second Part consists of Hymns whose Form is of mere humane Composure, but I hope the Sense and Materials will always appear Divine. I might have brought some Text or other, and applied it to the Margin of every Verse if this method had been as Useful as it was easy. If there be Poems in the Book that are capable of giving Delight to Persons of a more refined Taste and polite Education, they must be sought for only in this Part; but except they lay aside the humour of Criticism, and enter into a devout Frame, every Ode here already despairs of pleasing. I confess my self to have been too often tempted away from the more Spiritual Designs I proposed, by some gay and flowery Expressions that gratified the Fancy; the bright Images too often prevailed above the Fire of Divine Affection; and the Light exceeded the Heat: Yet I hope, in many of them the Reader will find that Devotion dictated the Song, and the Head and Hand were nothing but Interpreters and Secretaries to the Heart: Nor is the Magnificence or Boldness of the Figures comparable to that Divine License, which is found in the Eighteenth, and Sixty eighth Psalms, several Chapters of Job, and other Poetical Parts of Scripture: And in this respect, I may hope to escape the reproof of those who pay a Sacred Reverence to the Holy Bible.

I have prepared the Third Part only for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper, that in imitation of our Blessed Saviour we might sing a Hymn after we have partaken of the Bread and Wine. Here you will find some Paraphrases of Scripture, and some other Compositions. There are almost an hundred Hymns in the two former Parts that may very properly be used in this Ordinance, and sometimes perhaps appear more suitable than any of these last: But there are Expressions used in all these, which confine them only to the Table of the Lord, and therefore I have distinguished and set them by themselves.

Since there are some Christians who are not yet persuaded that it is lawful to sing any thing in Divine Worship, but a mere Version of some part of the Word of God, I have subjoined a Discourse for the satisfaction of their Consciences; wherein I endeavour to prove, that the Duty of Singing under the Gospel is not confined to the Jewish Psalms, or any other Scriptural Songs; but that Hymns of human Composure suited to the clearer Revelations of the New Testament, are encouraged by the Word of God, and almost necessary for Christians Churches, that desire to worship Christ in the Beauty of Holiness, and praise him for the Wonders of redeeming Grace. I earnestly entreat such Persons to read this Discourse over without prejudice or prepossession, and seriously to inquire whether it be not possible for them to have tied themselves up too much to Legal Forms, and whether they find no ground to release their Consciences from those Bands, and worship their Redeemer according to the more glorious Liberty of the Gospel.

If the Lord who inhabits the Praises of Israel, shall refuse to smile upon this Attempt for the Reformation of Psalmodie amongst the Churches, yet I humbly hope that his Blessed Spirit will make these Composures useful to private Christians; and if they may but attain the honour of being esteemed pious Meditations to assist the devout and the retired Soul in the Exercises of Love, Faith and Joy, ‘twill be a valuable Compensation of my Labours; my heart shall rejoice at the Notice of it, and my God shall receive the Glory.

Again nothing here either.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

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..

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.