A good reminder from Carl Trueman (emphasis mine):
[pk_box width=”600″]As Paul reflects in 1 Tim. 1 upon how God has dealt with him, his language becomes exuberant and he speaks of God’s grace ‘overflowing’ towards him. Then, able to contain himself no more, he bursts into a doxology. This is hardly surprising. The description of God’s actions should naturally call forth worship; and here Paul offers a paradigm of a worshipful response in which he ascribes to God glory and honour, i.e., that to which God’s person and actions entitle him. Paul’s praise is doctrinal in origin and doctrinal in content. To state what should be obvious, praise and worship that is neither is simply not praise and worship as the Bible would understand it.
Yet there is surely more here: the relationship between doctrine and worship in the structure of Paul’s letters allows us to infer that doctrine which does not lead to praise is not really true in the richest sense of the word. Teaching of doctrine and appropriate response to the same are inextricably tied together such that the former should really terminate in the latter.
… The other aspect of this doctrine-worship connection is that, if doctrine which does not culminate in praise is not true doctrine, then praise which is not a response to true doctrine is not true praise. Praise and worship – the ascription to God of the honour and glory which is his – is a response to knowing who he is and what he has done. It is provoked and shaped by the description of God which the teacher gives. Anything else which calls itself worship, whether traditional or contemporary, whether exhilarating or soothing, is not worship. It is merely an aesthetic experience which helps to achieve a certain psychological or emotional state.[/pk_box]
Read the whole post here.