Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

[Puritan Sailor]

There seems to be a lot of assumption by appealing to a new audience and additional revelation of the times.

Acts 19 and Ephesians 2 give us a clear picture that the church there was predominantly Gentile converts from paganism; "you Gentiles", "far off", "strangers" etc. (Eph 2:12-20). It's a pretty safe assumption when the text tells us who they were.

I am going to ask a question based upon this; Augustine is noted as saying, "the New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed." Doesn't it seem their content should be the same?

The basic message yes, but not the full knowledge of redemption. What are we to make of Paul's statement I quoted earlier in Col. 1:25-29? He clearly teaches that there was "mystery" which was now revealed with the coming of Christ. Augustine's quote stresses that very same point. What does "concealed" mean? He explains it in other places.

In his "On the Spirit and the Letter" he says, "This grace hid itself under a veil in the Old Testament, but it has been revealed in the New Testament according to the most perfectly ordered dispensation of the ages, forasmuch as God knew how to dispose all things." (ch. 27) and "This is the righteousness of God, which was veiled in the Old Testament, and is revealed in the New; and it is called the righteousness of God, because by His bestowal of it He makes us righteous, just as we read that salvation is the Lord's, because He makes us safe." (ch.18)

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The basic message yes, but not the full knowledge of redemption. What are we to make of Paul's statement I quoted earlier in Col. 1:25-29?

What was that full message that is missing from the Psalms? Can you please define for me the mystery if you can take a moment. Yes, I am stringing you along shipmate.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

"This is the righteousness of God, which was veiled in the Old Testament,

That is a lot of assumption too. I don't see the righteousness of God being veiled.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

But this is not the same argument, is it? I have now seen this quite often in the EP position. The arguments for EP are not the same as those for "inspired words only." Scott Clark, for example, believes that one may only sing inspired words in worship, but that we are not limited to the Psalms. I believe that was Murray's position as well. When an IP proponent mentions that the words "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refer to words other than the 150 psalms, the EP'er responds with "but it's still inspired, right?" But that response is not to the point. Arguing against EP is not the same as arguing against the position I dub "Biblical Words Only" (BWO). I have seen these distinct issues conflated by countless EP advocates. If the OT saints sang the song of Moses, and the new heavens and new earth people sing the song of Moses, but the church cannot, that seems too narrow. But that is not in itself an argument for uninspired hymns as it is an argument against EP. Just as the IP position would have to argue in two distinct steps (1. we are not limited to the 150 Psalms; and 2. we are not limited to ipsissima verba of Scripture), so also the EP position has two steps: 1. We are limited to ipsissima verba, and 2. We are limited to the 150 Psalms. Arguments for either step in either position are NOT arguments for both.

This is not correct. The view that those advocating EP have to prove what we are limited to is the Normative Principle - we don't believe that here. EP advocates need to prove that we are commanded to sing Psalms, and assert that there is no command to sing anything else. The discussion around the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is not one that requires us to prove that this means the Book of Psalms, at least not if we believe the RPW. Rather, the burden of proof is on those who believe we must sing something other than the Psalms to show that we have a command for that, and since the Ephesians and Colossians verses are the most often cited, it is natural that EP proponents would point out why those verses do not constitute such a command.

 

[MChase]

This is not correct. The view that those advocating EP have to prove what we are limited to is the Normative Principle - we don't believe that here. EP advocates need to prove that we are commanded to sing Psalms, and assert that there is no command to sing anything else. The discussion around the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is not one that requires us to prove that this means the Book of Psalms, at least not if we believe the RPW. Rather, the burden of proof is on those who believe we must sing something other than the Psalms to show that we have a command for that, and since the Ephesians and Colossians verses are the most often cited, it is natural that EP proponents would point out why those verses do not constitute such a command.

Exactly. Nailed it head on. I don't have to prove the limits of song content, the hymn singer must prove beyond doubt that human compositions must be introduced in worship.

This is why this often comes down to a discussion on if hymn singers argue from the regulative principle. It is one thing to hold to it and defend it, it is another to argue from it.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Just a quick response to several points:

First I understand why someone would argue that "hymns and spiritual songs" doesn't mean psalms. But then you'd have to positively show what they do mean, and to me, the definition of "whatever we want to write that is edifying" seems a bit loose for the regulative principle (and again I'd have to ask, why are you wanting to worship with manmade hymns, which by consequence means you are replacing what could have been psalms? Even if you believe you can, why do you want to?).

Our perhaps your understanding of the regulative principle is a "bit too tight". Tightness or looseness doesn't matter. What matters is what God commands. If he commands us to teach with songs, yes that is a broad command, but he also instructs us to do this with "wisdom". That is what restrains the dreaded fear of "looseness". God commands us to teach the word and do so wisely. If a song doesn't teach the word wisely then the church rejects it. It's not a free-for-all. The same accountability we would require for preachers is the same we should require for songs.

The claim has been repeated that the gentiles at Ephesus and Colossae would not have known about the titles in the psalms. I don't see why that would be the case. Seems the first thing they would do is to search out copies and familiarize themselves with it, and it would have been the Greek translation.

That is not quite the point. Some may well have been familiar with LXX headings, though that would be difficult to prove. The point I made earlier is that Paul is instructing converted Gentiles what to sing. And he did not tell them the clearest possible designation available to him, "the Book of Psalms". Even Gentile converts would have understood that. Instead, he commanded a method for teaching by songs.

Second, even supposing the new song in Revelation is a song no one has ever composed before, the regulative principle would lead us to say we are commanded to sing that, but...we don't know it so it's a moot point. And it seems an extrapolation to say "well, because there will be a new song (inspired) then we can create our own new songs in the meantime (uninspired). That's the normative principle creeping in.

So once again, the EP position seems to me to be the logical default of both Scripture and the Regulative Principle derived from it, and it would be up to those who want to depart to prove exactly how they are commanded to depart (not "allowed", that's normative principle, but "commanded"). "We are commanded to write whatever we want that teaches and admonishes" would be a broad command.

EP is not the default position of the RPW. EP is based on a specific interpretation that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" means "the Book of Psalms only". No one has argued that we are "allowed" to sing other songs. The IP position is arguing that we are commanded to teach the word with songs. No one is advocating the normative principle of worship. The disagreement is over what is commanded.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Was every word Jesus said in his human nature "inspired"? Is that how Scripture uses that concept of inspiration? When he said "mom, I'm hungry" or "Disciples, pardon me, I need to go to the restroom" was that inspired? The concept of inspiration is limited to God's intentional communication of revelation, especially in writing Scripture (2 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 1:21). When we sing praise to God, it is not an act of revelation, but of human response to God. There is no reason to think that Jesus' words in worship are required to be "inspired" by the Spirit. This is a category confusion. Jesus said many things in his human nature that were not inspired.

I believe every word Christ said in his human nature, when he taught and spoke of God and heavenly and spiritual things, was heavenly... of heaven... of the Spirit. (Maybe better choices of words?) He said, "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak" (John 12:49). "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works"(John 14:10)

I think @Puritan Sailor you also asked "You keep falling back to this idea that we can only sing "inspired" songs. Where is such a command found in Scripture?"

I would answer that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture...” WCF 1.6 and the doctrine of what we are to sing is discovered thus. from the practice of the church we find in the OT and the new (yes including all the uses of "psalms" and "hymns" in the NT, as has been discussed much, so at least we surely know each others views) and verified from the positive commands to "sing psalms" found within the psalter and without, and in the lack anywhere in the Bible of a command from God to sing or compose man-written songs.

Of course, you'll argue that's not the case but these arguments and answers have been expressed now, in this thread alone, many times over. According to the RPW, there must be a positive command from God to write and sing uninspired song in worship, as has been expressed very well by many. You guys will say you've put forth good arguments as having found that in Scripture, but I and others have found them lacking, so to go on with it seems a bit futile. And I have to pick up grandkids shortly! Many blessings to good and dear brothers and sisters on the other side of our disagreement. May the Lord shed light.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Great point Patrick: "When we sing praise to God, it is not an act of revelation, but of human response to God."

As a dad, I delight in my children's spontaneous responses to my fatherly love, for what it's worth.

I've forced myself to read through this whole OP; good thing I have some extra time on my hands this week!

I think Patrick's earlier and recent posts and Iain's recent historical note are my take-aways; as well as Lane's recent distinction between EP and BWO.

One smaller additional question for EPers: Regardless of the definition of "new" in Revelation, there are definitely instances of God's people praising God with content that is not the Psalms. My question: What do you do with that? Was Hannah sinning in 1 Samuel 2? And if not, why not?

Appreciate the discourse.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

My question: What do you do with that? Was Hannah sinning in 1 Samuel 2? And if not, why not?

Appreciate the discourse

No, Hannah was prophesying. And the Bible doesn't say it was a song.

 

[MChase]

Great point Patrick: "When we sing praise to God, it is not an act of revelation, but of human response to God."

As a dad, I delight in my children's spontaneous responses to my fatherly love, for what it's worth.

I've forced myself to read through this whole OP; good thing I have some extra time on my hands this week!

I think Patrick's earlier and recent posts and Iain's recent historical note are my take-aways; as well as Lane's recent distinction between EP and BWO.

One smaller additional question for EPers: Regardless of the definition of "new" in Revelation, there are definitely instances of God's people praising God with content that is not the Psalms. My question: What do you do with that? Was Hannah sinning in 1 Samuel 2? And if not, why not?

Appreciate the discourse.

Singing is not an act of revelation in any way? Then why are we to ask to be taught the ways of Jehovah? Ps. 86.11

God has given us a way to respond spontaneously and extemporaneously. Prayer.

To give a brief defense over and against inspired praise. We don’t see these things as outlined for perpetual use in public worship. We don’t baptize off the side of the road in a small body of water like Philip did. So not every example is warrant, but approved examples for public worship. Much more can be said.

 

[JTB.SDG]

What was that full message that is missing from the Psalms? Can you please define for me the mystery if you can take a moment. Yes, I am stringing you along shipmate.

Daniel, respectfully, you would really deny the distinctions almost all reformers and puritans made concerning the clarity/fullness in administration of the NT vs OT? One covenant of grace, one in substance; but different in administration, you affirm that, correct? That's all we're saying here.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

What was that full message that is missing from the Psalms? Can you please define for me the mystery if you can take a moment. Yes, I am stringing you along shipmate.

I don't have time for a fuller explanation right now. I would simply refer you to Paul's concept of mystery and revelation mentioned often in the epistles, and see how he uses it to describe the revelation that finally came in Christ "in the fullness of time" etc. The Psalms testify to some aspects of Christ, but the fullness is found in the NT. That's not a controversial understanding of the OT and NT.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Singing is not an act of revelation in any way?

I sure hope not. For all the pressure EP folks talk about in picking non-inspired hymns. Talk about pressure!!!

 

[MChase]

I sure hope not. For all the pressure you guys talk about in picking non-inspired hymns. Talk about pressure!!!

Surely God is revealing himself to us in the psalms. The question of the exclusivity it is altogether beside the point in this matter.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

That is a lot of assumption too. I don't see the righteousness of God being veiled.

He's just building on Paul's own language, distinguishing the gospel from the law (Rom 1:16-17), or the NT from the OT. Yes, the gospel message was present in the OT, but it's more fully revealed in the NT.

 

[JTB.SDG]

No, Hannah was prophesying. And the Bible doesn't say it was a song.

The other songs in Scripture besides the Psalms? The song of Moses, etc?

 

[MChase]

God reveals himself in all Scripture. And I respond to that revelation.

Which is why it’s strange to claim that singing the psalms is in no way God revealing himself to us.

 

[MChase]

This seems to be a rabbit trail. Does God reveal himself to us through the preached Word?

Of course, but I never claimed he didn’t in song. You did.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The other songs in Scripture besides the Psalms?

There are other songs outside the Psalms that were uttered by prophets under inspiration. The Psalms are a collection of the inspired songs God wanted in the church's song book. So a prophetic song of Moses is in there. The prophets who uttered songs under inspiration in other parts of the Bible weren't sinning of course.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Of course, but I never claimed he didn’t in song. You did.

I think I took what you said in the wrong way; as if we have the weight of revelation on our lips. I don't think this point helps or hurts either of us.

 

[MChase]

I think I took what you said in the wrong way; as if we have the weight of revelation on our lips. I don't think this point helps or hurts either of us.

I don’t think we’re on a different page either. But I don’t know how you can hold that we are to teach one another in song and God doesn’t teach us in song simultaneously. I think the argument that song isn’t revelatory needs refining. That's all my point was.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Why not? Why do they not sin if they aren't singing the Psalms as we do? And why cannot we sing their inspired songs?

Well, they were saying or singing what the Holy Spirit inspired them to say or sing, but God didn't choose to put their words in the Psalter. They weren't given to the church; they were given to the prophet for use at that time. We don't sing them because God did not put them in the bound book of the psalter that we're commanded to sing from! (Sounds like an assertion without backing but that's what this whole thread has been about. I posted two sermons from Rev. Gavin Beers that will answer most or all your questions somewhere in the thread. Andrew Barnes posted some of his.)

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I thought some might find this interesting. Are we ashamed of the 'Jewishness' of the Psalter?

Ashamed of the Tents of Shem? The Semitic Roots of Christian Worship by J.G. Vos

 

[JTB.SDG]

Well, they were saying or singing what the Holy Spirit inspired them to say or sing, but God didn't choose to put their words in the Psalter. They weren't given to the church;

Jeri, the song of Moses actually was given to the church, even though it wasn't included in the Psalter.

In Deuteronomy 31:19 concerning the song of Moses, the Lord says: "Now therefore, write this song for yourselves, and teach it to the sons of Israel; put it on their lips. . ." 31:22: "So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it to the sons of Israel."

Your two comments aren't one and the same; there's a distinction: The Lord indeed did not decide to put this into the Psalter. But it was given to the church.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I don't have time for a fuller explanation right now. I would simply refer you to Paul's concept of mystery and revelation mentioned often in the epistles, and see how he uses it to describe the revelation that finally came in Christ "in the fullness of time" etc. The Psalms testify to some aspects of Christ, but the fullness is found in the NT. That's not a controversial understanding of the OT and NT.

Got a different take on that from Dr. Prutow Pat. Tell me what you think.

Paul's mystery is not found in the Psalms?

The Mystery of the Gentiles being grafted into the Church is not in found in the book of Psalms?​

Professor Scott Sanborn argues against exclusive Psalmody by stating that the mystery of Gentile inclusion does not appear within the Psalter. Ephesians 3:4-6 is the text in question.

By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel (italics added).

Sanborn states, “[T]he psalms did not reveal this mystery.”(43) More emphatically, “No Old Testament revelation (including the Psalter) revealed this mystery.”(44) Again, “The wisdom of Christ … is God’s mystery, a mystery that was not revealed to the Old Testament prophets, including the Psalmists.”(45) Why this protest? If the Psalms do not reveal this mystery, they are not sufficient for New Testament worship. Then “it follows that the church is required to sing more than the Psalter in public worship.”(46) Not only so, “to restrict the church’s song to Old Testament revelation in the Psalter is at odds with the Regulative Principle of worship.”(47) Earlier in his article, Sanborn says, “By calling us to sing out of this mystery, Paul is surely calling us to sing more than the Psalter.”(48)

Psalm 117, among many others, readily answers this objection. “Praise the Lord, all nations; / Laud Him, all peoples! / For His lovingkindness is great toward us, / And the truth of the Lord is everlasting. / Praise the Lord!” Psalm 117, the shortest in the Psalter, is part of the so-called Egyptian Hallel. It is sung at the Jewish Passover in remembrance of Israel’s salvation and deliverance from Egypt. Of course, Passover points to Christ. “For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7).

Rooted in deliverance and pointing to Christ, this Psalm calls “all nations” and “all people” to offer praise and worship to the Lord of glory. Specifically, all Gentile nations and peoples ought to “praise the Lord.” The implication is that all nations, Jew and Gentile, will be gathered in one body to worship and serve Jesus Christ. Calvin comments on this Psalm, “It would therefore serve no purpose for the prophet to address the heathen nations, unless they were to be gathered together in the unity of the faith with the children of Abraham.”(49) Matthew Henry refers to Ephesians 3:6 in his comments on the Psalm. “[T]he gospel of Christ is ordered to be preached to all nations, and by him the partition-wall is taken down, and those that were afar off are made nigh. This was the mystery which was hidden in prophecy for many ages, but was at length revealed in the accomplishment, That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, Eph. iii. 3, 6.”(50)

Yes, Psalm 117, among others, sets forth “the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit (Eph. 3:4-5, italics added). Note the comparison that Paul makes. The mystery was revealed in the Old Testament, but has now been more fully revealed. What is this mystery? “That the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3:6).

Sanborn’s protestations are ill-founded. He appears to miss the comparison Paul makes. Paul does not say that the mystery of gentile inclusion was not revealed in the Old Testament. Rather, he pointedly indicates that this mystery was not fully revealed in the Old Testament. Note Paul’s comparison once again: “You can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Eph. 3:4-5). “As” is a conjunction or particle “denoting comparison.”(51) Again, the mystery is, “That the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel”(Eph.3:6).

That this mystery is revealed in the Old Testament is clear. Again, Psalm 117, for example, calls the Gentiles to join in the worship of the Lord of glory. This call is rooted in the promise given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 22:18). The seed is Christ (Gal. 3:16). The promise is the gospel: “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU’” (Gal. 3:8). The Father’s eternal promise to the Son stands behind all of the temporal promises: “Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance” (Ps. 2:8). The Psalms are full of the gospel of Christ. They are full of the mystery of Gentile inclusion. Believers can sing the Psalms concerning this mystery. Additional newer songs are not required. The Psalter is sufficient for New Testament Praise.

1. Scott F. Sanborn, “Inclusive Psalmody: Why ‘Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs’ Refer to More than the Old Testament Psalter,” Kerux 23:3 (December 2008): 20.
2. Ibid., 34.
3. Ibid., 36
4. Ibid., 49, italics added.
5. Ibid., 49.
6. Ibid., 18.
7. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 4:375.
8. Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 3: 679.
9. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 221.

Used by permission from Dr. Dennis Prutow

http://dennyprutow.com/public-worship-101/



Prutow, Dennis. Public Worship 101: An Introduction to the Biblical Theology of Worship, the Elements of Worship, Exclusive Psalmody, and A Cappella Psalmody. Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Jeri, the song of Moses actually was given to the church, even though it wasn't included in the Psalter.

In Deuteronomy 31:19 concerning the song of Moses, the Lord says: "Now therefore, write this song for yourselves, and teach it to the sons of Israel; put it on their lips. . ." 31:22: "So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it to the sons of Israel."

Your two comments aren't one and the same; there's a distinction: The Lord indeed did not decide to put this into the Psalter. But it was given to the church.

You are right! Great catch, I appreciate the correction. There is also the song that Moses and the children of Israel sang in Exodus 15.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

He's just building on Paul's own language, distinguishing the gospel from the law (Rom 1:16-17), or the NT from the OT. Yes, the gospel message was present in the OT, but it's more fully revealed in the NT.

I find this interesting Pat and it will lead us to a discussion of distinction of Law and Gospel or the supposed dividing line between the New and Old. You know what I think about that don't you? If the New is in the Old concealed then the Old in the New is revealed. Both contain the full reality of Law and Grace and forgiveness of sin. The New Covenant is fulfilment of what is in the old revealing the reality of the Old and taking away the veil for the whole world to see. He who is hung from a tree is cursed. That bolt of lighting shined around the world as it thundered.

 

[greenbaggins]

This is not correct. The view that those advocating EP have to prove what we are limited to is the Normative Principle - we don't believe that here. EP advocates need to prove that we are commanded to sing Psalms, and assert that there is no command to sing anything else. The discussion around the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is not one that requires us to prove that this means the Book of Psalms, at least not if we believe the RPW. Rather, the burden of proof is on those who believe we must sing something other than the Psalms to show that we have a command for that, and since the Ephesians and Colossians verses are the most often cited, it is natural that EP proponents would point out why those verses do not constitute such a command.

No, this is incorrect. The sufficiency of Scripture is not limited to the ipsissima verba, but includes the whole counsel of God in ALL the Scripture. Otherwise, for example, the Trinity itself could not be argued within the context of Scripture's sufficiency. The precise point at issue (at least for me) is is not whether the meaning of what we sing is biblical. It must be. Rather, the point is whether ipsissima verba is required, or, at least, the default. As I mentioned before, saying ipsissima verba is not required in prayer or preaching but is required in singing requires an argument, not an assumption that the RPW covers that. The EP'er can say all he wants to about the distinct nature of every element of worship, but that doesn't answer the question, either. Elements have some things common to them, and some things not common. What is the criteria by which we determine what is common to elements and what is distinct? Just saying RPW doesn't answer that at all. If "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refers to more than is in the Psalter, then we have a direct command to sing something more than the Psalms.

Besides all this, your argument does not address my point in the paragraph you quoted at all. My point is about the distinct nature of the BWO argument and the EP argument. They are not the same. They differ on the limits of what is to be sung.

You say, "The discussion around the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is not one that requires us to prove that this means the Book of Psalms, at least not if we believe the RPW. " This is a non sequitur. If Colossians 3:16 refers to both inspired and uninspired praises to God, then we have a command from God to sing such. That actually ends the debate in favor of IP.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Got a different take on that from Dr. Prutow Pat. Tell me what you think.

Paul's mystery is not found in the Psalms?

I don't disagree with Prutow. The OT does mention the mystery of the Gentiles being included. But I think you would agree that the NT is much more clear about how that mystery is explained and fulfilled, correct?

 

[MChase]

No, this is incorrect. The sufficiency of Scripture is not limited to the ipsissima verba, but includes the whole counsel of God in ALL the Scripture. Otherwise, for example, the Trinity itself could not be argued within the context of Scripture's sufficiency. The precise point at issue (at least for me) is is not whether the meaning of what we sing is biblical. It must be. Rather, the point is whether ipsissima verba is required, or, at least, the default. As I mentioned before, saying ipsissima verba is not required in prayer or preaching but is required in singing requires an argument, not an assumption that the RPW covers that. The EP'er can say all he wants to about the distinct nature of every element of worship, but that doesn't answer the question, either. Elements have some things common to them, and some things not common. What is the criteria by which we determine what is common to elements and what is distinct? Just saying RPW doesn't answer that at all. If "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refers to more than is in the Psalter, then we have a direct command to sing something more than the Psalms.

Besides all this, your argument does not address my point in the paragraph you quoted at all. My point is about the distinct nature of the BWO argument and the EP argument. They are not the same. They differ on the limits of what is to be sung.

You say, "The discussion around the psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is not one that requires us to prove that this means the Book of Psalms, at least not if we believe the RPW. " This is a non sequitur. If Colossians 3:16 refers to both inspired and uninspired praises to God, then we have a command from God to sing such. That actually ends the debate in favor of IP.

This is the point that is directly in debate, and I believe at the heart of the regulative principle and where we disagree.

The various positions from strict to lose are as follows:

1) No Singing
2) Sing only Psalms
3) Sing Scripture Songs
4) Sing anything inspired
5) Sing uninspired praise that is biblical
6) Sing whatever you want

Now, 1 and 6 are out of bounds if the New Testament is read with any degree of seriousness. The problem is that hymn singers often start from the bottom of the list and ask questions like "why can't I do..." or "show me where I am limited to...". That is not an argument from the regulative principle. So to ask questions like "why are we to assume that praise needs to be inspired" is to concede the point that the regulative principle really doesn't matter. It is to start from a position of "what is allowed" instead of "what are we told to do". We all agree that the psalms are to be sung, it must be proven that uninspired praises are to be sung. So ipsissima verba is the default precisely because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can use the exact words of the psalter.

The burden of proof for all of us is to show how we progress down this ladder of praise as it were.

Someone who believes in singing the psalms must show where we are commanded or have approved example to sing psalms.
Someone who believes in singing all inspired songs needs to do likewise.. and so on.

Then we get to 5) which is at the heart of the debate and hymn singers bring up Col. 3 and Eph. 5 as proof that other things besides the psalms should be sung. Granted at face value it looks like there is a case to be made. But when the evidence is examined further and it is shown that there is no conclusive evidence that non-psalms are being referenced, much less uninspired praise, a different case has to be made. So to stand upon Col. 3 and demand that a EP man prove exclusive psalmody is to concede the debate. We don't need to prove exclusive psalmody, the hymn singer must prove beyond doubt that Paul must have meant an uninspired praise.

As for the elements having continuity and discontinuity, I think all would agree. Stating that doesn't further the debate in any meaningful way. There is continuity between preaching and reading the word, but the content of reading and preaching are distinct. Reading must be the exact words of scripture. You cannot hold up Isaac Watts nor our Confession and say "Thus saith the LORD". The reason that the exact words of scripture are not required in preaching and praying is because we have explicit commands to the contrary. So yes, every element must be considered separately in certain regards.