I Think Schwertley Is Correct In summary, Shaw's argument seems to be: Since we cannot know if the Bible allows for uninspired songs to be sung in worship, we can conclude that we should sing them based on the need for songs that are more clearly understood than the Psalms.
In summary, Schwertley argument is: We have warrant from the Scriptures that we are to sing psalms (and possibly the few other inspired songs in the Bible), but we do not have any warrant in Scripture (by command, example, or necessary deduction), that we may sing uninspired compositions in worship.
I believe Schwertley had a far superior argument. He argued that we can concluded from Scripture that we should sing psalms. Schwertley says, if we don't know from Scripture if we can sing uninspired compositions, then we don't have a warrant from Scripture to sing them. In his opening statement, Shaw admits that we should sing psalms, but then argues that since it is āpossibleā that Paul was referring to āsongs in generalā and not just āinspired songsā, we must not be restricted to inspired songs. IOW, since we don't know if we can sing uninspired compositions, we should sing them!
A must hear! This discussion was very informative. The PCA has BIG problems. My respect for Richard Phillips has doubled. May I add one further issue that may even be more severe than theistic evolution - failure to teach our children their need of conversion. This will kill any denomination. A generation of unconverted church members. May the LORD show us mercy, for Christ' sake.
Great passion for souls. Consciousness of man's depravity, total dependence on the grace of God in salvation and Christian life, church discipline. Very moving the account of Fuller's speaking with his daughter about Christ and salvation. A man with a heart for lost souls.
Great Sermon! This message was originally delivered at Trinity Ministerial Academy in NJ on Oct. 18th, 1994 (two days before the birth of my daughter). Pastor Hughes was preaching at a Pastors Conference and my pastor and a few of the men at our church decided to drive from Long Island to NJ that afternoon, with no previous planning. We jumped in the church van and got there in time to hear this glorious gospel message. I wept then and I still weep today every time I listen to it. This past week I made several copies of this sermon and gave it to several brothers. They all wept with sadness and joy. The Lord has been pleased to use this message for the good of many of His children. May He receive all the praise!!
A challenging message. We were part of Erroll's congregation many years ago and it's good to note that at the time of the delivery of this message he had lost none of the old fire. What need we have today of genuine revival.
Great Sermon! Christians can believe in evolution if they want. But thats not what the majority of the scientific establishment mean when they say evolution. They mean a theory that has no purpose and that does not include God.
Interesting! Will this lecture be available online, by podcast, or SermonAudio for those unable to attend? It should be made available somehow because there are many who cannot possibly attend.
Will this exchange be limited or will the subject of slavery also be included in this "exchange" lecture? The views of Hodge, Thornwell (Who wrote The Church and Slavery), and Dabney all recognized the historic view contrary to most reformed pastors and churches today, especially New Calvinists (e.g. Piper) who make the historic view a virtual heresy, contrary to these better theologians.
And didn't Charles Hodge actually call R.L. Dabney "America's greatest theologian"? It seems like the defenders of orthodoxy were largely in the South.
Great man of God. Very good and helpful introduction to the life and ministry of a Baptist preacher about who I knew almost nothing. God gave great man to His church is past times - and we have what to learn from them and what to immitate in tehm.