Love ya brother. Be Encouraged.
Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms
- Thread starter panta dokimazete
- Start date
- Status
Apologies. Been a bit preoccupied. I’ll try to reply soon, but it looks like I’ve just come down with the Chinese virus.
Oh No Brother, Keep us posted.
Praying for y’all!
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Returning to to the original basis for this thread, I will attempt to reply to the main arguments.
I will preface my statements but saying that I do not have an issue that you have used strong language in defence of your position. In the past (and I suppose in the present) Psalm singers have also asserted themselves rather frankly and rightly so. The issue of worship is one that the church must get correctly because it is a matter of God's honour and reputation. As such it is never a matter of mere preference (as some think). I would rather there be heat (with love) about this subject than lukewarmness.
However in this there is some irony. In a previous version of this post you referred to the tendency of the exclusive psalmodist to be overly scrupulous and, at the risk of committing the tu quoque fallacy, I would say you have done the same here. In reference to singing about the works of the Lord, I do not believe that the texts you have based that conclusion on are to be so slavishly followed. It is true that we are to sing of "all" of the works of the Lord but no one, not even the most inclusive hymnbook in the world, does so exhaustively.
With reference to the works of God which must be, according to the author, exhaustively (or sufficiently to his reckoning) included, we have to consider a number of things. First of all, everything. Creation, fall, history of Israel etc. All of which we have in the biblical Psalms but are woefully ignored or even rejected by many hymnbooks. The Psalms include all of those things as well as do so in a way that finds a proper balance between all doctrines, human experiences and emotions, the inadequacy of man and the sufficiency of God's saving help.
Throughout the centuries many Christian authors have noted that the Psalms are not merely another book of scripture but a compendium of scripture itself. The church father Athanasius wrote: “under all the circumstances of life, we shall find that these divine songs suit ourselves and meet our own souls’ need at every turn.” Martin Luther called the Psalms “a little Bible.” And John Calvin was ‘accustomed’ “to call this book ‘An Anatomy of all the Parts of the Soul;’ for there is not an emotion of which any one can be conscious that is not here represented as in a mirror. Or rather, the Holy Spirit has here drawn to the life all the griefs, sorrows, fears, doubts, hopes, cares, perplexities, in short, all the distracting emotions with which the minds of men are wont to be agitated.”
And I would dare say that the parameters you have used to define sufficiency in matters pertaining to Christ are, in fact, artificial. Notice, after all, that scripture claims to include only what is most necessary or sufficient for our instruction without being exhaustive, even regarding Christ and matters of faith (John 20:30-31 cf. 21:25 & 2 Timothy 3:15,16).
On that basis, I would argue that what is sufficient, for song in corporate worship, is what God has given us because we have an inspired book of songs right in the heart of our Bible. This much is clear from appeals to the Psalter itself. Psalm 40:5 says "Many, O Lord, my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: of I would declare them and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered." This same notion is reflected in Psalms 131:1 & 139:6.
So it is not necessary to have a song book that incorporates everything Jesus has did or done for it to be regarded as sufficient, anymore than one that reflects everything the Bible says about God himself. The Bible is sufficient for that; the Psalms are sufficient for sung praise.
If, however, we use 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 as a plumbline of the most basic components of the gospel, I would say that the Psalms have it in spades. I will not insult your intelligence (or that of others) by listing where the Psalms adequately show us the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Perhaps it will not be to your satisfaction but I think there is ample and abundant statements found in the Psalms to fulfil that purpose.
Let one example suffice. According to Paul, Psalm 110 establishes: i) Christ's appointment by God (Hebrews 5:5-6), including its abiding (Hebrew 7:16-17) and immutable nature (Hebrews 7:21) ii) his salvific work (Hebrews 5:9-10) iii) resulting in his securing of eternal life for his people (Hebrews 6:20), which is to say, in short, that he saves to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:25). It is particularly remarkable that Paul not only sees this in one Psalm but in one verse, in the oft repeated phrase (or a variation thereof): “thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec” (Psalm 110:4). Hence I find, hear and see more of Christ in this one verse than I find in many hymns, as beautiful & edifying as they may be.
This much is clear when we explore what the Psalms have to say about Christ. As is noted by others, the prophecies concerning Christ are given in the present tense, relating not to the past but the time in which we live (which is to say every age in which they have been sung) for he was slain before the foundation of the world. Moreover, they even reveal certain things about Christ's suffering that are not spoken of in the gospels themselves. Psalm 22, for example, speaks of the inner thoughts/experiences of the Lord in his pains and deprivations on the cross. This is to say nothing of the betrayal of Judas (Psalms 69 & 109) and many other matters that hymnbooks do not dare to address, and rightly so.
In light of this, perhaps the problem is that we are far less familiar with the Psalms than we think we are. I also say this because your use of the phrase "types and shadows" is in fact a misapplication of its intent. In context it refers to the sacrificial and ceremonial practices of God's people under the law, with particular emphasis on the priestly administration in the tabernacle and temple. However, Hebrews never cites the book of Psalms to prove that this aspect of religion has passed away, even when the book exists to show us that very thing. Rather Paul uses the Psalms repeatedly in chapters 1-10 to prove the excellency of Christ. More on that here & here.
Do the Psalms, at times, use the language of types of shadows? Undoubtedly, but why? After all, some were written during the exile when the temple no longer stood. Consider that even the Psalms that they might sing in their day were not directly applicable or literally true of the present experience. But they did not exist in a vacuum. They were connected to such times by faith (Psalm 78:3ff.) even as we are. Indeed, we are brought into their olive tree, not the other way around (Romans 11:16ff.). We are to accustom ourselves to their language and experience, as the NT everywhere teaches us (Romans 12:1 & 1 Corinthians 10:1 etc.). And rightly so, because this old book is our scripture and so the Psalms are the hymnbook of the church of all ages and the language they use is the language of God and his people, not of the world.
It is also true that the Psalms speak of a circumstance that did not exist at the time when they were written: namely Gentile inclusion. Psalm 117, for example, is a call to the nations (goyim -Gentile) & people (am -ordinarily a term given for Israel) to praise God with the notion that "his merciful kindness is great toward us" (emphasis mine). In the context of Romans 15, Paul understands this Psalm to be a reference to his ministry to the uncircumcised (vs. 9ff.). No wonder for he says that these things were "written for our learning" (vs. 4) and even, as Peter notes, that the "Spirit of Christ" was in these men for the purpose that these truths would be revealed to us (1 Peter 1:11-12). There is a sense, then, in which the Psalms not only bind us to the church of the past (Hebrews 12:1) but also proleptically anticipate the church of the present and only make (full) sense to those who live in the days of their fulfilment.
With regard to your argument about "new songs" I understand that to refer to what is given by the inspired author, not to what will be written. We are, after all, to sing them not compose them. No such gift is given to the NT church (with the possible exception of inspired hymnody in the apostolic age 1 Corinthians 14:26). This much is clear from Psalm 40:3 that the new song is put into David's mouth by God. I see no warrant from this to say or write anything on behalf of God's people besides what God himself has given, anymore than a new covenant or new commandment grant me the liberty to bind others to my own conception.
Last edited:
It is great to say hey. Hey Daniel.
I have a question. isn't the reference to Corinthians 14 a comment on ordering the worship service? In reference to how Paul would have used the term psalmos it would have referred to the book of Psalms. In other words this passage is about a need to tighten up on the Worship Service. It isn't necessarily a commentary on stopping an element of worship that is out of bounds is it?
I have a question. isn't the reference to Corinthians 14 a comment on ordering the worship service? In reference to how Paul would have used the term psalmos it would have referred to the book of Psalms. In other words this passage is about a need to tighten up on the Worship Service. It isn't necessarily a commentary on stopping an element of worship that is out of bounds is it?
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
In the main I agree and in particular I think it refers to the book of Psalms but not everyone sees it that way.
I promised to reply, so here I am.
But I’ve gone through the thread since I departed it and it seems that the question has been answered. Do you have any lingering questions? I am not the best person to answer them, but I can always try, and anyway I appreciate the discussion.
I must say, your question was a good one. It certainly got me thinking.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
You are back! Healthy I hope? We prayed. Glad to see you back here.
Santos
Puritan Board Freshman
That's Jerry....
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
No it isn't. First, one can find many New Testament passages or other OT passages that can be turned into songs or hymns without alteration. (See Handel's Messiah for many examples.) Second, the argument is about whether we can sing fully about Christ's work and the resultant blessings to the NT believer without recourse to hymns and songs that utilize NT teaching. One of the NT teachings is Paul's teaching on worship in Colossians 3 where he understands worship as a category of teaching.
"Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." NASB
If Paul thought worship was a subcategory of teaching, the conclusion is that worship can be restricted to the Psalms, only if one is willing to restrict the words one uses in teaching to those of the Scriptures.
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
No. While Ps. 110 does describe the setting up of Christ's kingship, it does not link that kingship with Christ's blood, nor the believer's coming to that kingdom as Hebrews does.
Thank you. I recovered very quickly. For me it was only a very mild flu - fever, headache, and loss of appetite.
Grant Van Leuven
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks!
Grant Van Leuven
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks. Just added this to my membership class notes for tonight on WCF 21. Surprised I hadn't earlier included that with what I had from page 152, but this definitely is good to do so now. Thanks again! And sorry for late reply.
- Status