Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

Status
Not open for further replies.
retroGRAD3 said:
These are helpful in trying to understand the EP position. However, I am still not sure they are completely airtight from an interpretation and argument standpoint. I can tell you personally that I think the Psalms are far better than most Hymns (although there are some good hymns). Because of that fact, I am basically EP, but it is more of a preference thing rather than out of conviction. I would also state, I really wish the OPC would throw out the songbook. Maybe not every OPC has one of these.
Click to expand...
I find from the length and breadth and depth and sweep of Scripture that God wants his church to sing the word of God, and that the Psalms are his songbook for the church. It’s not an easy position to hold in these times, especially since there are so few churches that sing Psalms at all. Keep studying and pondering, and sing them at home, or better yet gather some Christian friends together if y’all don’t sing them at church. Ask your pastor if you can begin doing that. Pray.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Which specific assertion am I "all over the place" on? Genuinely curious.
Click to expand...
You’re throwing out random things “we can’t sing” if EP is true, as if that’s a proper apologetic for what God requires in service to Him. Worship is unto and for Him. We benefit, sure, but it is not about what we “get” or “cannot do.” It’s about what He has required of us.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
I find from the length and breadth and depth and sweep of Scripture that God wants his church to sing the word of God, and that the Psalms are his songbook for the church. It’s not an easy position to hold in these times, especially since there are so few churches that sing Psalms at all. Keep studying and pondering, and sing them at home, or better yet gather some Christian friends together if y’all don’t sing them at church. Ask your pastor if you can begin doing that. Pray.
Click to expand...
Currently the Psalms is what we mainly sing as a family at home, with the occasional hymn. As for the church, unfortunately we barely ever sing Psalms and a songbook is also used. I can tell you from a quality standpoint, when I am singing the Psalms there is a qualitative difference (for obvious reasons) than when singing the majority of Hymns. I find that most hymns are essentially personally testimonies rather than direct praise or petition to God. For the songbook, I have actually started abstaining from singing these at church. They just come off as way to emotional and devoid of any actual substance. :2cents:
 
panta dokimazete said:
Seriously, where is "Jesus rose from the grave and appeared to many" explicitly revealed in the Psalms? Answer - it is only in "types and shadows". We have a New Testament that reveals all this clearly and explicitly, therefore we should sing songs proclaiming the truth of the New Testament works and deeds of Jesus, as the Psalms command.
Click to expand...

Just because some are blind to it, does not mean it is not there. That is how I sing the psalm and so does our congregation. You are commanded to sing with the understanding (1 Corinthians 14:15). The New Testament supplies the understanding. So, sing Psalm 16 with understanding. If you refuse to do it, that is your problem, not the Psalter's.

At this point, I will bow out of the thread. I think your thread is a monument to how precious few these days understand the Old Testament and when revival comes it will come through the rediscovery of the Psalms, which were sung at the height of the Church's power.

As Calvin cited Augustine:

“Moreover, that which St. Augustine has said is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God except that which he has received from him. Therefore, when we have looked thoroughly, and searched here and there, we shall not find better songs nor more fitting for the purpose, than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit spoke and made through him. And moreover, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts in our mouths these, as if he himself were singing in us to exalt his glory.”
 
retroGRAD3 said:
I don't think you understood at all what I was asking.


I must have wrote something very confusing. I know we are commanded in scripture to Sing, Pray, and Preach. What I am asking is why for the singing part, is it ONLY Psalms, but then for praying and preaching we are able to create our own and not use the examples in scripture as with the Psalms? You said that when we create hymns that is adding to the word of God. Why isn't praying our own prayers adding to the word of God? Why aren't our own sermons adding to the word of God? We already have perfect examples of these in scripture (from our Lord himself). This is a serious question of mine when considering EP, so please do not strawman man and act like I am saying we shouldn't pray and preach. That is not what I said. If what I am saying in unclear then I will attempt to clarify more.
Click to expand...
I did understand the question, and I know it was a genuine one. It must have been my answer that was not clear. I mean that we know from precept and example in scripture that prayers and sermons are not restricted to just the words of scripture (in the case of sermons that would be an absurdity anyway). Rev kodos above understood my point a d gave a couple of examples of the scriptures I had in mind, but there are many more.

In the case of singing though, God gave us an inspired songbook, and commanded us to sing it, and did not command us to sing anything else in his worship. That was my point.
 
jw said:
You’re throwing out random things “we can’t sing” if EP is true, as if that’s a proper apologetic for what God requires in service to Him. Worship is unto and for Him. We benefit, sure, but it is not about what we “get” or “cannot do.” It’s about what He has required of us.
Click to expand...
He requires we sing of all the works of the Lord Jesus. This is impossible to do without the NT content. I gave examples to support my assertion.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
I did understand the question, and I know it was a genuine one. It must have been my answer that was not clear. I mean that we know from precept and example in scripture that prayers and sermons are not restricted to just the words of scripture (in the case of sermons that would be an absurdity anyway). Rev kodos above understood my point a d gave a couple of examples of the scriptures I had in mind, but there are many more.

In the case of singing though, God gave us an inspired songbook, and commanded us to sing it, and did not command us to sing anything else in his worship. That was my point.
Click to expand...
Ok that helps, thank you.
 
kodos said:
Just because some are blind to it, does not mean it is not there. That is how I sing the psalm and so does our congregation. You are commanded to sing with the understanding (1 Corinthians 14:15). The New Testament supplies the understanding. So, sing Psalm 16 with understanding. If you refuse to do it, that is your problem, not the Psalter's.

At this point, I will bow out of the thread. I think your thread is a monument to how precious few these days understand the Old Testament and when revival comes it will come through the rediscovery of the Psalms, which were sung at the height of the Church's power.

As Calvin cited Augustine:

“Moreover, that which St. Augustine has said is true, that no one is able to sing things worthy of God except that which he has received from him. Therefore, when we have looked thoroughly, and searched here and there, we shall not find better songs nor more fitting for the purpose, than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit spoke and made through him. And moreover, when we sing them, we are certain that God puts in our mouths these, as if he himself were singing in us to exalt his glory.”
Click to expand...
Jonathan Edwards - Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Review of Religion in New England, wrote:

“I am far from thinking that the book of Psalms should be thrown by in our public worship, but that it should always be used in the Christian church until the end of the world: but I know of no obligation we are under to confine ourselves to it. I can find no command or rule of God’s Word, that does any more confine us to the words of Scripture in our singing, than it does in our praying; we speak to God in both. And I can see no words, that we find in the Bible, in speaking to Him by way of praise, in metre, and with music than when we speak to Him in prose, by way of prayer and supplication. And it is really needful that we should have some other songs besides the Psalms of David. It is unreasonable to suppose that the Christian church should forever and even in times of her greatest light, in her praises of God and the Lamb, be confined only to the words of the Old Testament, wherein all the greatest and most glorious things of the gospel, that are infinitely the greatest subjects of her praise, are spoken of under a veil, and not so much as the name of our glorious Redeemer ever mentioned, but in some dark figure, or as hid under the name of some type. And as to our making use of the words of others, and not those that are conceived by ourselves, it is no more than we do in all our public prayers; the whole worshipping assembly, excepting one only, makes use of the words that are conceived by him who speaks for the rest.”
​
Thanks for your participation.
 
panta dokimazete said:
He requires we sing of all the works of the Lord Jesus. This is impossible to do without the NT content. I gave examples to support my assertion.
Click to expand...
Your assertion is rejected. We sing the Psalms with understanding, and that includes our knowledge and study from NT revelation as we sing them anew with such. You need a better foundation to prove that the singing of all of God’s wondrous works is to be in exhaustive detail, and you have not done that. And, frankly, I wouldn’t care to waste any more of my time in interacting with it.
 
panta dokimazete said:
Not sure of the point, here - you wouldn't know about this if you didn't have the NT.
Click to expand...
The point is that the Gospel was preached to them as to us. Jesus didn't need something that wasn't written yet by any New Testament writer to expound on who He fully was or what he did.

Heb_4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

What doctrine about Christ is found wanting? His person? His work?
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
The point is that the Gospel was preached to them as to us. Jesus didn't need something that wasn't written yet by any New Testament writer to expound on who He fully was or what he did.

Heb_4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

What doctrine about Christ is found wanting? His person? His work?
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that the gospel wasn't preached in "types and shadow", just that the fullness of the Gospel and testament of Jesus Christ should be included in sung worship, just as the Psalms command.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
These are helpful in trying to understand the EP position. However, I am still not sure they are completely airtight from an interpretation and argument standpoint. I can tell you personally that I think the Psalms are far better than most Hymns (although there are some good hymns). Because of that fact, I am basically EP, but it is more of a preference thing rather than out of conviction (at the moment). I would also state, I really wish the OPC would throw out the songbook. Maybe not every OPC has one of these.
Click to expand...
Before I was EP I made the below thread in 2018, I think it illustrates well a lot of the natural questions to this discussion from the perspective of one, at that time, who was not EP:

Still Chewing on EP/Acapella ONLY

PB, I have been striving over the past months to wrap my head around the EP/AO position as being required by the RPW. I am humbly chewing on this and am just looking for some answers to the questions that have arisen as I have set my mind to this topic. The majority of my strategy has been to...
www.puritanboard.com www.puritanboard.com
 
panta dokimazete said:
ha, good try at ad absurdum - do I really need to explain that we are talking in general practice and inclusive of the NT?
Should we ignore the NT as it relates to singing the works and deeds of Jesus as the Psalms command?
Click to expand...
Um, no, you just contradicted your entire argument, which was that the Psalms are insufficient because they do not detail every single act or work of Jesus. So your own solution fails your own test, which was my point right from the beginning.

No we shouldn't ignore the NT, we should have it in our minds to enrich our understanding as we sing the Psalms.
 
panta dokimazete said:
are spoken of under a veil,
Click to expand...
That vail still exists today. And it isn't due to relationship of the Canon. It is due to the fact that unbelief and turning to God are the same in both Covenants.

2Co 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
2Co 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
2Co 2:16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


2Co_3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co_3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co_3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co_3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
Um, no, you just contradicted your entire argument, which was that the Psalms are insufficient because they do not detail every single act or work of Jesus. So your own solution fails your own test, which was my point right from the beginning.

No we shouldn't ignore the NT, we should have it in our minds to enrich our understanding as we sing the Psalms.
Click to expand...
I have never said that the Psalms are insufficient, I argue that they are not complete without the NT, therefore the content of the NT should be included in new songs of worship, as the Psalms command.
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
That vail still exists today. And it isn't due to relationship of the Canon. It is due to the fact that unbelief and turning to God are the same in both Covenants.

2Co 2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
2Co 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
2Co 2:16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


2Co_3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co_3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co_3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co_3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
Click to expand...
EP is a doctrine that places a veil over the revealed works and deeds of Jesus in sung worship.
 
RamistThomist said:
I am not exclusive psalmody, but what you just said is what insufficient means.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
Will the Psalms suffice as a source of the Gospel (the good news of the works and deeds of Jesus as it relates to redemption/salvation)? Yes.
Are they the complete and finished revelation of said Gospel? No. That is self-evident.
 
You are more and more solidifying your application of Scripture as dispensational and not biblical and reformed.

You are putting everything in the pot of the NT, and dismissing how the OT and NT are one. You are continually dividing them. You are acting as if those singing the Psalms have no understanding at all of the NT. This is false and therefore this is all a false assertion. Your argument fails because it is dispensational in nature.
 
Premise: EP is wrong and insufficient.
Conclusion: EP is wrong and insufficient.

You've begged the question from the very beginning. There's no use in discussion at that point.

Let us note though that your position is that the Holy Spirit has left the church with an insufficient psalter and expects us to make up that deficiency ourselves, and if we restrict ourselves only to what the Holy Spirit has provided, we are sinning. I find that absurd.

We are commanded to sing the psalms (Col 3:16, Eph 5:19). If they are insufficient, then why did the Spirit command to sing them at all? Wouldn't it make at least portions of the worship service deficient, according to your definition?

Do man-made hymns fulfill your pre-supposed requirement to speak of all aspects of Christ's life? I don't recall ever hearing a hymn speaking about Jesus falling asleep or changing water to wine. Are you applying your own metric consistently?
 
Romans922 said:
You are more and more solidifying your application of Scripture as dispensational and not biblical and reformed.

You are putting everything in the pot of the NT, and dismissing how the OT and NT are one. You are continually dividing them. You are acting as if those singing the Psalms have no understanding at all of the NT. This is false and therefore this is all a false assertion. Your argument fails because it is dispensational in nature.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, I actually propose that EP is breaking the fullness of the OT-NT by disobeying the command of the Psalms for new songs telling of the works and deeds of Jesus as revealed in the NT.
 
Logan said:
Premise: EP is wrong and insufficient.
Conclusion: EP is wrong and insufficient.

You've begged the question from the very beginning. There's no use in discussion at that point.

Let us note though that your position is that the Holy Spirit has left the church with an insufficient psalter and expects us to make up that deficiency ourselves, and if we restrict ourselves only to what the Holy Spirit has provided, we are sinning. I find that absurd.

We are commanded to sing the psalms (Col 3:16, Eph 5:19). If they are insufficient, then why did the Spirit command to sing them at all? Wouldn't it make at least portions of the worship service deficient, according to your definition?

Do man-made hymns fulfill your pre-supposed requirement to speak of all aspects of Christ's life? I don't recall ever hearing a hymn speaking about Jesus falling asleep or changing water to wine. Are you applying your own metric consistently?
Click to expand...
wow - y'all are really, really trying to paint me into the "Scripture is insufficient" box. Read my earlier response to a similar attempt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top