In an earlier post, I argued, in line with exclusivists, who sing only Psalms because that was what our Lord sang when He was on earth, that on that basis they should read only the OT because that was what Jesus read.
I can add to that and say that they should only perform circumcision because that was what Jesus had done to Him; they should only pray the exact words of the prayers of the OT, and not 'christianise' them with the NT, because then they become the infallible words of men; sermons preached ought to taken word for word from the OT, because the words of human composition are not the word of God; and they should only attend places of worship that are less than 'a Sabbath day's journey' from their home.
Further, they should have distinct places of worship for men and women - that's what Jesus did. Because they practice the baptism of babies, in line with the covenant, they are in line with the vast majority of Christian church worldwide; but in the case of exclusive psalmody, they are way out of step with sound worldwide Christendom. Prof. Donald's Macleod's point is valid - to be out of step with the vast majority of Christendom ought to give those who practice and defend exclusive psalmody pause for thought and consideration.
Any thoughts?
This one contains flawed reasoning. "Exclusive Psalmody" does not arise simply from Jesus' behaviour, but from the idea that we are bound by SOLA SCRIPTURA (the Scripture alone as our authority)-- meaning that whatever God REVEALS, we should do. Just as circumcision, etc. was INSPIRED, so were the other items you mentioned -- like baptism, etc. In-as-much as the "inspiration/authority" issue is more fundamental(being even the basis of Jesus' BEHAVIOR - John 8:28), it ought to be the ground of your linear reasoning. But I really don't want to debate this. It is a sad issue that separates dear brethren.
ReplyDeleteI think that when you take the sweep of biblical teaching, there is merit in what I have written. Also, I was using the reasoning of those who hold to exclusive psalmody as a basis to make them think a bit more clearly about the issue.
ReplyDeleteI know that not all who belong to exclusive psalmody churches actually believe that this is a tenable position, and Donald Macleod is a prime example of this.
I agree that everything we do in the service and worship of God must have a biblical mandate and authority, but then again as the WCF teaches, there is such a thing as that which is "either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added ..." (WCF, Chap.1). This is not only permissible, but necessary - without adding anything to what God has revealed.
I cannot find where the Bible specifically requires Christian churches to sing only Psalms, but does speak about "...be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord..." (Eph.5:18,19). Is Paul saying that we just use the "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" for "speaking to one another," and then we can sing and make melody in our hearts using what reflects God's truth and Gospel in the NT? I think this is a possible interpretation of these words.
I also think that Macleod has a point. Do you?
It was very gracious of you to take the time to enter into discussion, and I trust this will ot be the last time.
I honestly personally couldnt care less if my views were(are)out of line with the vast majority of Christendom!When i survey the majority from compromise eg Stott,Packer to the bizarre egDriscoll- i am somewhat relieved to be "narrow minded". Yes i am an exclusivist but i dont have a chip on my shoulder,and in humility realise i could be wrong. Men who i greatly admire eg Spurgeon,Jones would have a different viewpoint. I believe what i believe, but would much rather be spending more effort helping other believers, praying for the persecuted,witnessing the gospel etc. Shalom.
ReplyDelete