Should Psalms be used to support doctrine?

[meluckycharms]

I first want to say that I believe Psalms to be divine scripture. It seems as though that all the books in the Bible is God communicating to humanity either through prophets, apostles, or Jesus. However, Psalms is different. It is the only book where the communication is solely from humanity towards God. Psalms are basically a collection of Hymns and prayers from humans that are directed to God and a valuable because it helps us to better understand how we can better communicate and worship God.

I have found numerous examples where people reference Psalms to justify their theological positions. However, because of the unique genre and purpose of Psalms, is it acceptable to do so? If so, how do we then reconcile Psalms like psalm 137:9?

Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Psalm 137:9 NIV


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

I think the Psalms are wonderful but when they're taken out of context they can be dangerous...just like that example you gave in the OP Context is key!

 

[psalms 91]

As with all scripture everything in context matched with other scripture. There are many things in Psalms including prophecy of the Messiah so yes we need to examine and use Psalms but only in the correct context

 

[Andrew]

Jesus quoted psalms on the cross "My God why hast thou forsaken me"... it also holds a lot of foreshadowing on Jesus death.
I love me some psalms

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[meluckycharms]

I think the Psalms are wonderful but when they're taken out of context they can be dangerous...just like that example you gave in the OP Context is key!

I agree. While in seminary, I was taught in my hermeneutics class that psalms are used to help us communicate with God. However, many have used palms to support doctrines. In regards to Psalm 137, I was instructed that it was an imprecatory psalm. Like psalms of lament, imprecatory psalms are an outpouring of anger, frustration, or sorrow directed to God (but not at God) to call for divine action or intervention. Contextually, we can learn from Psalms like 137 that is is perfectly acceptable to tell God how frustrated or angry we are. It is not wrong or sinful to tell God how much we wished He would destroy our enemies or take away our sufferings as long as we let God handle it. The problem comes when people mistakenly believe that the Psalms are God's words or commands to us. Otherwise, why then would it be wrong to "bash babies against stones" and use psalms to support doctrines like OSAS, and Calvinist predestination?

 

[Lamb]

Jesus quoted psalms on the cross "My God why hast thou forsaken me"... it also holds a lot of foreshadowing on Jesus death.
I love me some psalms

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

YES!! That's a great one!

We chant the Psalms on Sunday

 

[Lamb]

I agree. While in seminary, I was taught in my hermeneutics class that psalms are used to help us communicate with God. However, many have used palms to support doctrines. In regards to Psalm 137, I was instructed that it was an imprecatory psalm. Like psalms of lament, imprecatory psalms are an outpouring of anger, frustration, or sorrow directed to God (but not at God) to call for divine action or intervention. Contextually, we can learn from Psalms like 137 that is is perfectly acceptable to tell God how frustrated or angry we are. It is not wrong or sinful to tell God how much we wished He would destroy our enemies or take away our sufferings as long as we let God handle it. The problem comes when people mistakenly believe that the Psalms are God's words or commands to us. Otherwise, why then would it be wrong to "bash babies against stones" and use psalms to support doctrines like OSAS, and Calvinist predestination?

I don't think that the psalms are without doctrine. There are 5 types of Psalms (prophecy, instruction, comfort, prayer and thanks).

In the churches I've attended we generally chant the psalms because they were meant to be sung. There is a pattern taken from the Jewish synagogue of singing, listening, singing, listening and that is what the Christian liturgy inherited from early times.

 

[meluckycharms]

I don't think that the psalms are without doctrine. There are 5 types of Psalms (prophecy, instruction, comfort, prayer and thanks).

In the churches I've attended we generally chant the psalms because they were meant to be sung. There is a pattern taken from the Jewish synagogue of singing, listening, singing, listening and that is what the Christian liturgy inherited from early times.

There is no question that there are doctrinal truths found in the Psalms. However, I don't think we should establish doctrine from the Psalms. In other words, the psalmest wrote about doctrinal truths as set forth by the prophets, however, they did not establish new doctrine based on new revelation from God. Was the Prophetic Psalms actually a product of prophecy? Or was the psalmest praising God for the hope we received from already existing prophesy?

 

[MennoSota]

God inspired the writers of His word to quote the Psalms in establishing doctrinal truths. We are guided by the scripture itself to know when a Psalm can be used for doctrine and when it cannot.
Frankly, the way the Bible gets butchered in the CH, I find this thread quite humorous.

 

[Andrew]

Our church did a sermon on not hanging up your harps based on psalms it was really good. Inspired me to go home and play a song inspired by that psalm "by the rivers of babylon... Where we sat down... And there we wept... When we remembered zion... How the wicked carried us away in captivity... Required from us a song... How shall we sing the Lords song in a strange land?"
Again... I love mr some psalms! [emoji7]

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[NewCreation435]

I first want to say that I believe Psalms to be divine scripture. It seems as though that all the books in the Bible is God communicating to humanity either through prophets, apostles, or Jesus. However, Psalms is different. It is the only book where the communication is solely from humanity towards God. Psalms are basically a collection of Hymns and prayers from humans that are directed to God and a valuable because it helps us to better understand how we can better communicate and worship God.

I have found numerous examples where people reference Psalms to justify their theological positions. However, because of the unique genre and purpose of Psalms, is it acceptable to do so? If so, how do we then reconcile Psalms like psalm 137:9?

Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
Psalm 137:9 NIV


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I have mixed feelings about this. The Psalms were for the most part songs and material used for corporate worship as far as i know. There is some good doctrine in it though. The verse that you are talking about has to do with the enemies of God who had attacked God's people and abused them such as the Babylonians and the Assyrians. It was a corporate song for victory on the battlefield more than anything

 

[meluckycharms]

God inspired the writers of His word to quote the Psalms in establishing doctrinal truths. We are guided by the scripture itself to know when a Psalm can be used for doctrine and when it cannot.
Frankly, the way the Bible gets butchered in the CH, I find this thread quite humorous.

How do you reconcile Psalm 137:9?

 

[Imalive]

How do you reconcile Psalm 137:9?

Hey Boney M forgot a sentence. :=D:

 

[tango]

Ps 103:3 is also pulled out of context. As with any other part of Scripture the problem isn't the text, it's the butchering of context. Job 22:28 suffers similarly from being plucked out of context and taken to mean more or less the exact opposite of what it actually means.

 

[Josiah]

I'd be careful with the Psalms....

I think such MIGHT be used to help AFFIRM a teaching, but not as the basis of such.




.

 

[Imalive]

Yes, God should use Psalms91 to support doctrin.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

The whole debate about what is original sin seems to hinge on taking this Psalm verse literally:

Psalms 51:5: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”​

I would argue that David is being hyperbolic in this statement. Yes, we all are born with a sin nature because the whole creation is fallen, but the term "original sin" really should not be use as it is confusing. Better to say, "the original sin." Some seem to interpret original sin to say we are guilty of Adam's sin.

 

[Pedrito]

===================================================================================

Sometimes simply asking the right question clarifies things markedly. For instance, we may ask which Holy Scriptures are being referred to in the following:

1. Acts 17:11: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

2. 2 Timothy 3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

3. Hebrews 4:12: For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Naturally, they all refer to the Inspired Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament” to us). Yet look at their stated power! (And not one of them specifically excludes the psalms.)

===================================================================================

Yet the psalms are definitely illustrative of the difference between God’s covenant with the nation Israel, and His relationship with the Church.

God’s covenant with Israel was based on reward for obedience, help in time of trouble, etc.

God’s relationship with the Church is based on reward for sacrifice. (That is referred to in the psalms.) Unfortunately, much of that concept has been lost, as personal comfort and organisational importance have become relatively transcendent.

===================================================================================

One of the great advantages of the “Old Testament,” based on the statements about it above, is that it can unequivocally identify pagan doctrines and practices that have polluted the purity of the “Simple, Original, Apostolic Gospel”.

===================================================================================

 

[Fritz Kobus]

In light of the the New Testament enjoining us to love our enemies

Should We Pray the Imprecatory Psalms? (<-- click for article)​

 

[Pedrito]

===================================================================================

Should We Pray the Imprecatory Psalms?

Once again I suggest that simply asking the right questions can clarify things markedly, and cut through mountains of waffle.

Consider the following:

===================================================================================

1. Has Physical Israel lost all of its rights and promises and privileges and future, because those benefits have all been given to the Church (as some religious groups teach)? “Replacement Theology” I believe is the appropriate term.

If that is so, then I would suggest that any prayers offered in support of physical Israel as a whole, would be flogging a dead horse.

(And I don’t remember ever receiving a logical explanation regarding how Israel’s land inheritance is to be divided )

2. What if Israel hasn’t lost all of its rights, etc.? What if God does have a future planned for Israel as a nation after all?

Well. I guess it would depend on whether or not God has issued specific prophecies about specific timings and specific mechanisms He will employ to restore and elevate that nation.

If specific prophecies do exist, then I would suggest as before, that any prayers offered in support of physical Israel as a whole, would be flogging a dead horse.

3. If God has said that physical Israel will be supported and ultimately be restored, but by mechanisms and timing to be determined on the fly, it would then be a situation of open slather to imprecate Israel’s enemies to whatever degree seemed worthwhile.

===================================================================================