The United Presbyterian Psalter of 1912 is available for free download here. This is a copy from Harvard Divinity School and was the first reprint of 1913. This edition has a very nice introduction that gives some background of its making. It also has responsive readings in the back so that you can play 'high church' during family worship.
07 March, 2008
The Psalter
The United Presbyterian Psalter of 1912 is available for free download here. This is a copy from Harvard Divinity School and was the first reprint of 1913. This edition has a very nice introduction that gives some background of its making. It also has responsive readings in the back so that you can play 'high church' during family worship.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
So what is wrong with responsive reading?
I have no problem with it. The only arguments that I have heard against it is:
1. It feels high church
2. I just don't like it
3. The Larger Catechism is against it
Q156: Is the word of God to be read by all?
A156: Although all are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.
I would not necessarily say that the larger catechism is against it, because that answer does not offer sufficient proof of exactly what they are talking, they could be talking about individuals who read alone.
We practice three different forms of reading the pastor or an elder reading, responsive, and reading in unison. If what you say is true about the Larger Catechism (what q/a 156 are talking about) then according to the Larger Catechism the later two are wrong.
Nathan, I am not saying I am against it. I am saying these are arguments that people use.
Reiterate: I have no problem with it. I believe each session should use their own wisdom in deciding what is best in this area of worship.
I kind of like responsive reading myself. Keeps the whole congregation involved. Thanks for the link, I always like free stuff.
Mr. Eshelman,
You came across as equivocating in that last answer. Do you or do not subscribe to the WLC including question 156?
The folks over at the Warfield List have been discussing it. Chris Coldwell was helpful more than once.
I'm sure/hoping you were only kidding about playing "high church" in family worship, as doing that except to demonstrate the bankruptcy of non-reformed worship, might implant the desire for such things in the minds and hearts of impressionable persons.
I just looked at the first few pages, but it looks like Psalm 3 and 4 have been expunged from the digital book. Looks like those pages were covered up. I guess the Harvard Divinity School considers Psalm 3 hate speech?
I thought the proper term was "robotic reading."
Post a Comment