Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

[PuritanCovenanter]

But I think you would agree that the NT is much more clear about how that mystery is explained and fulfilled, correct?

I believe the Old is in the New Revealed and that the Psalms sufficiently show that as we sing them. The issue for me Pat is your assumption concerning history and that the application of the times and people are relevant in your understanding. That is a problem. So is your dichotomizing the Old and New. These things stem from hermeneutical issues as well as how we receive and process the doctrines. The RPW that is being discussed here has a very slippery understanding and I believe this is one of the major problems next to images in the Church. It is the Second Commandment that we derive our stem for worship from.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I believe the Old is in the New Revealed and that the Psalms sufficiently show that as we sing them. The issue for me Pat is your assumption concerning history and that the application of the times and people are relevant in your understanding. That is a problem. So is your dichotomizing the Old and New. These things stem from hermeneutical issues as well as how we receive and process the doctrines. The RPW that is being discussed here has a very slippery understanding and I believe this is one of the major problems next to images in the Church. It is the Second Commandment that we derive our stem for worship from.

Brother, how do you understand Paul's statement then in Col. 1:25-29?

And would suggest you stop quoting Augustine as somehow supporting your position. Your taking him out of context, and using his words to say the opposite of what he meant by them, as I showed you above.

 

[JH]

And would suggest you stop quoting Augustine as somehow supporting your position. Your taking him out of context, and using his words to say the opposite of what he meant by them, as I showed you above.

What post did he misrepresent Augustine in?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

What post did he misrepresent Augustine in?

Augustine was clear that concealed meant hidden, and that the NT had to reveal it. The point there is that it took a NT to reveal what was in the OT, and that the OT itself (including the Psalms) was incomplete. Randy is arguing (unless I'm misunderstanding you Randy if so please correct me) that the Psalms are sufficient on their own to articulate NT realities, thus no more need for other songs.

But I've already addressed this issue much earlier in the thread. The issue of EP is not about the sufficiency or usefulness of the Psalms, but about what Paul actually meant, when he commanded "teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs".

 

[MChase]

What post did he misrepresent Augustine in?

Here is what Augie said: "...no one is able to sing things worthy of God except that which he has received from Him."

 

[JH]

Augustine was clear that concealed meant hidden, and that the NT had to reveal it. The point there is that it took a NT to reveal what was in the OT, and that the OT itself (including the Psalms) was incomplete. Randy is arguing (unless I'm misunderstanding you Randy if so please correct me) that the Psalms are sufficient on their own to articulate NT realities, thus no more need for other songs.

But I've already addressed this issue much earlier in the thread. The issue of EP is not about the sufficiency or usefulness of the Psalms, but about what Paul actually meant, when he commanded "teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs".

Gotcha, I scrolled up and read. Thanks for the prompt response.

While I have you, would you mind sharing your thoughts on these quotes from Augustine, in his contrasting songs of human composition, and divine songs?

“'The Donatists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches, while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition, which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet of the battlefield. But when brethren are assembled in the church, why should not the time be devoted to singing of sacred songs, excepting of course while reading or preaching is going on, or while the presiding minister prays aloud, or the united prayer of the congregation is led by the deacon's voice? At the other intervals not thus occupied, I do not see what could be a more excellent, useful and holy exercise for a Christian congregation“
— Augustine, “Epistle to Januarius,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 1:315.

It also appears to me in the above quote, that Augustine viewed singing as a distinct element from reading, prayer, etc.

Again Augustine, but Calvin appealing to him.
"“Now what Saint Augustine says is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God unless he has received them from Him. Wherefore, when we have looked thoroughly everywhere and searched high and low, we shall find no better songs nor more appropriate to the purpose than the Psalms of David which the Holy Spirit made and spoke through him. And furthermore, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts the words in our mouths, as if He Himself were singing in us to exalt His glory."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Randy is arguing (unless I'm misunderstanding you Randy if so please correct me) that the Psalms are sufficient on their own to articulate NT realities, thus no more need for other songs.

I believe we sing the Psalms with understanding now. They are sufficient to sing because God prescribed them. They contain the truths of the full Covenant of Grace. I want to know what isn't revealed in the Psalms about Christ? What addition can you make? There are a lot of Messianic Psalm references.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

But I've already addressed this issue much earlier in the thread. The issue of EP is not about the sufficiency or usefulness of the Psalms, but about what Paul actually meant, when he commanded "teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs".

This is not a good idea to crossthread but I found your assumptions over there short also. Especially in light of references posted against your point and based upon the use and doctrine of the Directory of Worship concerning "Psalms". But that is the past thread.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Brother, how do you understand Paul's statement then in Col. 1:25-29?

And would suggest you stop quoting Augustine as somehow supporting your position. Your taking him out of context, and using his words to say the opposite of what he meant by them, as I showed you above.

Thanks for this Patrick, I will think upon this a bit. But that isn't a reply to the rest of my post unless I am really slow thinking today. I wasn't impressed in the other thread. But that might be my fault.

The rest of my problem was this and it is kind of related maybe. The issue for me Pat is your assumption concerning history and that the application of the times and people are relevant in your understanding. That is a problem. So is your dichotomizing the Old and New. These things stem from hermeneutical issues as well as how we receive and process the doctrines. The RPW that is being discussed here has a very slippery understanding and I believe this is one of the major problems next to images in the Church. It is the Second Commandment that we derive our stem for worship from.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Gotcha, I scrolled up and read. Thanks for the prompt response.

While I have you, would you mind sharing your thoughts on these quotes from Augustine, in his contrasting songs of human composition, and divine songs?

“'The Donatists reproach us with our grave chanting of the divine songs of the prophets in our churches, while they inflame their passions in their revels by the singing of psalms of human composition, which rouse them like the stirring notes of the trumpet of the battlefield. But when brethren are assembled in the church, why should not the time be devoted to singing of sacred songs, excepting of course while reading or preaching is going on, or while the presiding minister prays aloud, or the united prayer of the congregation is led by the deacon's voice? At the other intervals not thus occupied, I do not see what could be a more excellent, useful and holy exercise for a Christian congregation“
— Augustine, “Epistle to Januarius,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 1:315.

It also appears to me in the above quote, that Augustine viewed singing as a distinct element from reading, prayer, etc.

Again Augustine, but Calvin appealing to him.
"“Now what Saint Augustine says is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God unless he has received them from Him. Wherefore, when we have looked thoroughly everywhere and searched high and low, we shall find no better songs nor more appropriate to the purpose than the Psalms of David which the Holy Spirit made and spoke through him. And furthermore, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts the words in our mouths, as if He Himself were singing in us to exalt His glory."

Sorry, I don't have time to delve further into Augustine. And it would detract from the thread anyway.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Thanks for this Patrick, I will think upon this a bit. But that isn't a reply to the rest of my post unless I am really slow thinking today. I wasn't impressed in the other thread. But that might be my fault.

The rest of my problem was this and it is kind of related maybe. The issue for me Pat is your assumption concerning history and that the application of the times and people are relevant in your understanding. That is a problem. So is your dichotomizing the Old and New. These things stem from hermeneutical issues as well as how we receive and process the doctrines. The RPW that is being discussed here has a very slippery understanding and I believe this is one of the major problems next to images in the Church. It is the Second Commandment that we derive our stem for worship from.

The reason I referred you to Paul is that I'm not saying anything different than what he said in the way he defines "the word". It's not dichotomizing to acknowledge the significant distinctions between the OT and NT. Our Confession does that very clearly as well. But I'm reluctant to got tit for tat over what the Psalms say or don't say about Jesus, because it's not relevant to the EP or IP argument. What Paul actually commanded is. Thanks for the dialogue brother. I'll have to bow out for the rest of the day.

 

[JH]

Sorry, I don't have time to delve further into Augustine. And it would detract from the thread anyway.

That's understandable. To clarify, I only desired to share such quotes, because I certainly would conclude (due to them) that Augustine was far closer to an EP position rather than the contrary, regardless of who was interpreting Augustine correctly.

Blessings to you and yours

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

But I'm reluctant to got tit for tat over what the Psalms say or don't say about Jesus, because it's not relevant to the EP or IP argument.

Then I am not understanding what your argument is concerning the need for the newly revealed.

 

[Santos]

It’s not wrong to write a new song or compose devotional poetry. Amazing Grace is a good poem, and it can be sung to remind us of spiritual truths. Such poems and songs do not add to the Bible. At least, they ought not to be used in such a way.

The central issue is God’s command concerning worship. To sing songs other than those that God has given is to add to - or neglect - God’s command. If God’s command is to sing psalms and psalms only, then singing anything else, because it dishonours that command, would indeed be akin to adding to Scripture.

What would you say if your pastor delivered a sermon based on a book other than the Bible? It might be a really good book, a solid Christian book. But you can’t set it up in the place that God has given to his own word. (Years ago, I sat in church and heard to a sermon that was merely a summary of Randy Alcorn’s Heaven. It felt pretty weird.)

The mistake that so many make is to find a devotional poem or song and then decide to make use of it as worship because… why not? That is simply the wrong place to start. “Why not?” does not regulate the church’s worship. God does.

A song may not be errant in itself - though many hymns and other so-called worship songs do contain theological error (you don’t get that with the psalms, by the way). Very commonly, the error lies in how the thing is used. (Sort of like guns, I suppose!)

If you have an old lady in your congregation who likes to write devotional poems, there’s no need to discourage her! Just don’t get everyone singing them and calling it worship.

But God does not command us to sings psalms and psalms Only.

You said:
What would you say if your pastor delivered a sermon based on a book other than the Bible? It might be a really good book, a solid Christian book. But you can’t set it up in the place that God has given to his own word. (Years ago, I sat in church and heard to a sermon that was merely a summary of Randy Alcorn’s Heaven. It felt pretty weird.)

Preaching from a different book is not really an apples to apples comparison considering the hymns in question are based on Scripture and not, as you said, Randy Alcorn's 'Heaven'- Cause that would be pretty weird.

 

[Tom Hart]

But God does not command us to sings psalms and psalms Only.

What do you mean? Of course he does.

He does not command anything but psalms. Therefore, psalms only may be sung. Anything else would exceed the command.

(This point has been brought in at perhaps a dozen times in this thread alone.)

Preaching from a different book is not really an apples to apples comparison considering the hymns in question are based on Scripture and not, as you said, Randy Alcorn's 'Heaven'- Cause that would be pretty weird.

Alcorn’s book is based on the Bible - it is a theological book - but it’s not the Bible. Man-made hymns might be based on the Bible, but they’re not the Bible.

That is as far as the comparison can be taken, really. Singing and preaching are not regulated the same way in Scripture.

 

[Tom Hart]

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 kind of thing has been said over and over in this thread.

If, when Paul says “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” he is referring to uninspired songs, then we have a command to sing uninspired songs.

If.

Are proponents of IP prepared to say that Paul is definitely speaking of uninspired songs?

 

[JTB.SDG]

What do you mean? Of course he does.

He does not command anything but psalms.

Tom,

(and for any other EP advocates)

I'm interested to know what you would do with God commanding the sons of Israel to sing the song of Moses?

In Deuteronomy 31:19, 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."

 

[Tom Hart]

Tom,

(and for any other EP advocates)

I'm interested to know what you would do with God commanding the sons of Israel to sing the song of Moses?

In Deuteronomy 31:19, 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."

It’s a plain command to the children of Israel to sing the song of Moses.

Briefly, I do not believe that we in the New Testament church are commanded to sing that. That song was written before the vast majority of the psalter. The psalms were given and compiled later, and those are the songs that the NT church is commanded to sing.

To tie it in more closely with the subject of the current thread, the Song of Moses gives nothing approaching license to pen and sing as worship songs of our own composition.

I recommend Michael Lefebvre’s Singing the Songs of Jesus. For its small size, it is quite in-depth.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I recommend Michael Lefebvre’s Singing the Songs of Jesus. For its small size, it is quite in-depth.

I second this since he is a friend.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Tom,

(and for any other EP advocates)

I'm interested to know what you would do with God commanding the sons of Israel to sing the song of Moses?

In Deuteronomy 31:19, 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."

My take is there isn’t anything we need to do with the song more than with other parts of Scripture: read it, study it, meditate on it, learn from it, be edified by it. It was a song sung by the people of God for that time, but since it wasn’t included in our inspired book of praises, it’s no longer to be sung by the church.

The last marching orders (positive command and example in Scripture) the church received for the content of song in worship was when the temple service was instituted, and God gave to David, Gad, and others the pattern for that worship with all the regulations for the instruments and song. Without doubt, the Psalms made up the songbook for the public worship of God.
2 Chronicles 29:25 (KJV)
“And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for [so was] the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.”

 

[iainduguid]

It’s a plain command to the children of Israel to sing the song of Moses.

Briefly, I do not believe that we in the New Testament church are commanded to sing that. That song was written before the vast majority of the psalter. The psalms were given and compiled later, and those are the songs that the NT church is commanded to sing.

To tie it in more closely with the subject of the current thread, the Song of Moses gives nothing approaching license to pen and sing as worship songs of our own composition.

I recommend Michael Lefebvre’s Singing the Songs of Jesus. For its small size, it is quite in-depth.

Just so I understand your position: are you acknowledging that the OT saints were not EP (personally I think that has to be the case, at least for most of the OT)? Clearly, the heavenly saints are not EP (Rev. 5:9). It is only the NT saints who are required to be EP? Which would be weird because the command to "sing a new song" contextually always refers to an explicit response to a new work of God. It would be strange if we had to wait until heaven to sing a new song that explicitly names the new work of God in the incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. Of course, all of those doctrines are implicit in the psalms; when I've preached in EP churches, often someone makes the connection for the hearers so that, for example, they know that when they sing Psalm 72, they are to understand that really they are singing "Jesus shall reign where'er the sun doth his successive journeys run..." They just aren't allowed to sing those actual words.

 

[iainduguid]

My take is there isn’t anything we need to do with the song more than with other parts of Scripture: read it, study it, meditate on it, learn from it, be edified by it. It was a song sung by the people of God for that time, but since it wasn’t included in our inspired book of praises, it’s no longer to be sung by the church.

The last marching orders (positive command and example in Scripture) the church received for the content of song in worship was when the temple service was instituted, and God gave to David, Gad, and others the pattern for that worship with all the regulations for the instruments and song. Without doubt, the Psalms made up the songbook for the public worship of God.
2 Chronicles 29:25 (KJV)
“And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for [so was] the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.”

Jeri, I demonstrated in my earlier post that there could not have been at this time a complete, closed canonical psalmbook, which is I think a necessary condition for exclusive psalmody. Otherwise, how do you know what is excluded?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Jeri, I demonstrated in my earlier post that there could not have been at this time a complete, closed canonical psalmbook, which is I think a necessary condition for exclusive psalmody. Otherwise, how do you know what is excluded?

Rev. Duguid, I copied your earlier post and am pasting it:

“These assertions smuggle in an ahistorical assumption, namely that the Psalter, as a canonical collection, existed at this point. The assumption is required, since without a canonical collection of psalms, you couldn't know which psalms you could sing and which other songs you shouldn't. Yet the present canonical psalter clearly post-dates the exile (see Ps 137). So what collection of Davidic and Asaphic psalms were they singing? Did it grow gradually or chunk by chunk? Where were the psalms utilized before they were collected? How did they know, prior to the completion of the whole collection, which ones were inspired? We have nothing in the Old Testament as far as I know that shows that the words of David and Asaph referenced here was a closed collection. If anything the reverse is true, since there are Davidic psalms in every part of the psalter, which suggests some Davidic psalms were preserved (and sung?) outside the process of collecting songs into a psalter, before they were included in the final form. I know these are complex historical questions, but it demonstrates the difficulty of asserting that the Old Testament saints believed in EP.”

I just don’t see the difficulty. Prophets wrote the songs that the church was to sing, and those God intended for it were added to the psalter; all was overseen by the Spirit of God. All through the ages of the church, the Bible that the people of God had was the Bible they had. First they only had the Pentateuch, and so on. God oversaw it just as he oversaw the receiving and recognition of the biblical canon in the early centuries after Christ.

I’m not seeing how it’s a concern to know exactly who sang what when. I think the biblical data is clear that God used the prophetic office to provide the church with song, however it developed.

I think what all EP’s would say is that the people of God sang the songs he gave them to sing. In other words, it was supernaturally overseen so that the church had the songs God intended for it to have at all times, and oversaw its ending up in the form it’s in.

Does this make sense?

 

[JTB.SDG]

It’s a plain command to the children of Israel to sing the song of Moses.

Briefly, I do not believe that we in the New Testament church are commanded to sing that. That song was written before the vast majority of the psalter. The psalms were given and compiled later, and those are the songs that the NT church is commanded to sing.

To tie it in more closely with the subject of the current thread, the Song of Moses gives nothing approaching license to pen and sing as worship songs of our own composition.

Thanks for the response Tom. As has been pointed out in this thread, there's a difference though between those who hold we should only sing inspired songs and proponents of EP (at least from what I understand). I'm not seeking to cross the bridge to songs of our own composition. I'm just seeking to challenge the notion that I've seen put in writing over and over in this thread by proponents of EP; namely, there is no explicit command in Scripture for God's people to sing in worship anything other than the Psalms. It seems to me that's the crux of the argument for EP, unless I'm mistaken. Well, I just gave you one; I think.

Here is an explicit command for yes, "the children of Israel", but can you not also call them "God's people", to sing this non-Psalter song.

Sorry, isn't that exactly what EPers needed? An explicit command from God's Word that commanded God's people to sing something other than the Psalms?

But now it feels like the response has become: Well, that one doesn't count because it was given in the OT?

I didn't hear from the outset EPers say: We need an explicit command from the NT Scriptures to sing songs other than the Psalms. Just from the Scriptures.

I thought, as I've seen through this thread, that EP proponents were striving to stress the unity of the OT and NT? And challenging those who were seeking to draw any distinctions? But now that there is at least one example of what was claimed didn't exist in the OT, it is dismissed because it's not a part of NT revelation? Sorry guys, this doesn't hold water to me. It feels like your argument is shifting/changing based on the evidence. I'm trying to jab lovingly.

 

[iainduguid]

Rev. Duguid, I copied your earlier post and am pasting it:

“These assertions smuggle in an ahistorical assumption, namely that the Psalter, as a canonical collection, existed at this point. The assumption is required, since without a canonical collection of psalms, you couldn't know which psalms you could sing and which other songs you shouldn't. Yet the present canonical psalter clearly post-dates the exile (see Ps 137). So what collection of Davidic and Asaphic psalms were they singing? Did it grow gradually or chunk by chunk? Where were the psalms utilized before they were collected? How did they know, prior to the completion of the whole collection, which ones were inspired? We have nothing in the Old Testament as far as I know that shows that the words of David and Asaph referenced here was a closed collection. If anything the reverse is true, since there are Davidic psalms in every part of the psalter, which suggests some Davidic psalms were preserved (and sung?) outside the process of collecting songs into a psalter, before they were included in the final form. I know these are complex historical questions, but it demonstrates the difficulty of asserting that the Old Testament saints believed in EP.”

I just don’t see the difficulty. Prophets wrote the songs that the church was to sing, and those God intended for it were added to the psalter; all was overseen by the Spirit of God. All through the ages of the church, the Bible that the people of God had was the Bible they had. First they only had the Pentateuch, and so on. God oversaw it just as he oversaw the receiving and recognition of the biblical canon in the early centuries after Christ.

I’m not seeing how it’s a concern to know exactly who sang what when. I think the biblical data is clear that God used the prophetic office to provide the church with song, however it developed.

I think what all EP’s would say is that the people of God sang the songs he gave them to sing. In other words, it was supernaturally overseen so that the church had the songs God intended for it to have at all times, and oversaw its ending up in the form it’s in.

Does this make sense?

Well, it doesn't answer my question about the process. How can you have exclusive psalmody without a fixed psalm book? Where and how were these other songs created and preserved that were later incorporated into that psalm book? Why were some of the psalms of David not part of the original psalm book, but then later included in Book 5? Was it sinful to sing these psalms before they became part of the psalm book, but then later not sinful to sing them once they had been included? There are a lot of difficult questions here that I just don't see EP people wrestling with. Everybody acts as if the psalter descended from heaven on tablets of gold at the time of David, so that the OT saints sang those 150 psalms from then on, which is simply not true. That's why I think it is clear that for most of the OT period, EP was not the pattern.

 

[MChase]

Well, it doesn't answer my question about the process. How can you have exclusive psalmody without a fixed psalm book? Where and how were these other songs created and preserved that were later incorporated into that psalm book? Why were some of the psalms of David not part of the original psalm book, but then later included in Book 5? Was it sinful to sing these psalms before they became part of the psalm book, but then later not sinful to sing them once they had been included? There are a lot of difficult questions here that I just don't see EP people wrestling with. Everybody acts as if the psalter descended from heaven on tablets of gold at the time of David, so that the OT saints sang those 150 psalms from then on, which is simply not true. That's why I think it is clear that for most of the OT period, EP was not the pattern.

With respect, this is a complete strawman. How do you have the sufficiency of scripture without a closed canon? Paul sure thought whatever scripture was extant was sufficient for the time being.

I don’t know of any exclusive psalmist who thinks the Old Testament, the Psalter, or the New Testament descended straight out of heaven. You can do better than that.

How you have inspired praise without a complete canon is that you sing what you know is God breathed. Again, all of these arguments assume a normative principle and seek to try to lay the burden of proof on us psalm singers. Show me where an OT saint sang uninspired praise and I’ll happily acquiesce.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Well, it doesn't answer my question about the process. How can you have exclusive psalmody without a fixed psalm book? Where and how were these other songs created and preserved that were later incorporated into that psalm book? Why were some of the psalms of David not part of the original psalm book, but then later included in Book 5? Was it sinful to sing these psalms before they became part of the psalm book, but then later not sinful to sing them once they had been included? There are a lot of difficult questions here that I just don't see EP people wrestling with. Everybody acts as if the psalter descended from heaven on tablets of gold at the time of David, so that the OT saints sang those 150 psalms from then on, which is simply not true. That's why I think it is clear that for most of the OT period, EP was not the pattern.

Rev. Duguid, it seems simple- God gave songs to his OT people through his prophets to sing. What would “exclusive psalmody” (our term, likely not theirs) have meant to the OT people of God— it would have meant the corporate use of any song God gave to the church through his prophets to sing. Do you see anything different from that in the Scripture? That’s what I see with Moses in Exodus and Deuteronomy; the people were simply to sing the songs God provided (and commanded) through his prophets at that time. But that doesn’t mean those songs ended up as part of the permanent collection of songs for worship.

I’m not seeing how the questions you put forth cause any trouble to holding to EP. The beginnings and middle and final form of the Psalter is something we take by faith, I would say. And the worship of the church of those times was always regulated.

My puny thoughts!!

 

[RamistThomist]

the people were simply to sing the songs God provided (and commanded) through his prophets at that time. But that doesn’t mean those songs ended up as part of the permanent collection of songs for worship.

I’m not seeing how the questions you put forth cause any trouble to holding to EP. The beginnings and middle and final form of the Psalter is something we take by faith, I would say. And the worship of the church of those times was always regulated.

What he is saying is that part of the Psalter says "And the Psalms of David were ended," yet later on other Psalms were added. Would the people in the first part of the Psalter be sinning by singing psalms that were by David but not yet part of the Psalter?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

What he is saying is that part of the Psalter says "And the Psalms of David were ended," yet later on other Psalms were added. Would the people in the first part of the Psalter be sinning by singing psalms that were by David but not yet part of the Psalter?

Oh I see. Thanks. I’m not educated enough to address the development of the psalter, But know from principle the people were never in sin in singing any of the songs given them through the prophetic ministry. They were obedient.

 

[MChase]

What he is saying is that part of the Psalter says "And the Psalms of David were ended," yet later on other Psalms were added. Would the people in the first part of the Psalter be sinning by singing psalms that were by David but not yet part of the Psalter?

This is sort of like asking if the early church would have been in sin for reading one of Paul’s non-canonical letters in public worship. Then based off of this arguing that since you cannot be definitive, it must be okay to read non canonical texts in public worship today.

I really don’t see how it is pertinent other than to distract from the main point that there is no clear unambiguous passage which supports singing uninspired hymns.

It’s been said a thousand times before and many on this thread. It’s not on us to prove the exclusive use of the psalter, especially at strange points in redemptive and canonical history. It’s not on the psalm singer to have an answer for every weird scenario and possibility. It’s on the hymn singer to prove that we must sing uninspired hymns. We don’t frame any other element of New Testament worship off of obscure possibilities.