Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

[No Other Name]

From an outside perspective, this has had some very interesting moments.

I am not EP. My church is not. We do have a Psalmody and mix it with solid theological hymns and songs as well.

I used to think that most EP adherents had no problem with extra-Biblical hymns like "Amazing Grace", "And Can it Be", "It is Well" et al but just that these songs are to be outside church like in a car going to the store. It seems a lot here cringe whenever any song goes beyond the blessed Psalmody.

I have zero issue with EP as a working format to both personal and corporate worship.

If my congregation voted to change and go full EP, I would happily stay and would find the issue not at all in the realm of requiring my family and myself looking for another church in any way.

So I find the OP's conclusion that EP is is error to be unconvincing and deeply concerning for much of the same reasons given, however I find the defenders of EP leaving implications - (sometimes outright statements) - that non-EP commits the error of "adding to Scripture" which just as unconvincing and deeply concerning as the OP's initial conclusion.

I think it is a serious charge when one believer calls another "in error" and we need to be really sure about what "error" we are charging and why it counts as such Biblically.

It is one thing to "add to Scripture" by Copeland and Hinn twisting the meaning of providential texts to include worldly prosperity in a new hermeneutic but quite another for John Newton to express praise and worship to God for His sovereign grace in a new song.

 

[Tom Hart]

It is one thing to "add to Scripture" by Copeland and Hinn twisting the meaning of providential texts to include worldly prosperity in a new hermeneutic but quite another for John Newton to express praise and worship to God for His sovereign grace in a new song.

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.

 

[No Other Name]

If God’s command is to sing psalms and psalms only,

Therein lies the rub. Our hymnal has Psalms and is sectioned as divinely inspired worship songs. The rest are devotional songs used in worship - not divinely inspired - but useful in a way that more fully expresses the NT theology and the full revelation of His grace, atonement, etc.

This is not to say that the Psalms lack any category of systematic theology itself - they do not. But the Psalms do lack a full revelation of the nature of the theology of grace etc (else divine inspiration need go no further than the life of King David).

However, I do understand people who see it the way you do and that the revelation of the NT brings out the richness in the Psalms the full expression of worship and no other songs are necessarily required.

Not only am I sympathetic to that reasoning, I would agree to the point that If a hostile government burned books in my church and I can only save one book, I save the Bible and not the hymnal - as I hope every single non-EP would do - and the Psalms are now the only hymns available and none others are needed to express full worship (this differentiates me very far away from the OP as I understand it).

My only caveat is that I would miss the sound doctrinal hymns which garnered a quasi-confessional quality that is not inappropriate to recite once a body (in this case, multiple bodies of like-minded believers) has agreed to the soundness of doctrine within.

I do not understand why other non-inspired songs of worship cannot be used alongside divinely inspired Psalms to worship as well as

how other non-inspired expressions of prayer outside divinely inspired prayers in Scripture can be proclaimed ...

or how recitations of non-inspired responsive readings may be used alongside the divinely inspired Bible verses that are referenced within ...

or how sermons not given solely by inspired Scripture -like the Sermon on the Mount, Acts 2, etc. can be proclaimed without also committing the limited definition given here as the error of "adding to Scripture".

I guess it is just that I have never been convinced that Scripture commands Psalms only in worship, and am more than happy to amiably agree to disagree in all sincere charity since it would not be a primary issue affecting anyone's salvation or earnest love and desire for God - (unlike the OP who claims EP are in serious doctrinal error. I cannot disagree enough with the OP on that point).

 

[Tom Hart]

I do not understand why other non-inspired songs of worship cannot be used alongside divinely inspired Psalms to worship

It’s quite simple, really: nothing else is commanded, meaning nothing else ought to be sung. We may not attempt to exceed the biblical mandate for worship. We will surely make a mess of it.

The boundaries that God has set are for his own glory, and they are for our own good.

how other non-inspired expressions of prayer outside divinely inspired prayers in Scripture can be proclaimed

Is prayer regulated in the same way as singing? God’s given us a psalter, but not a prayer book, and even though we can see examples of prayer in the Bible, we see no command concerning which words to pray comparable to the commands concerning which words to sing.

or how recitations of non-inspired responsive readings may be used alongside the divinely inspired Bible verses that are referenced within

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean by “recitations of non-inspired responsive readings.”

or how sermons not given solely by inspired Scripture -like the Sermon on the Mount, Acts 2, etc. can be proclaimed without also committing the limited definition given here as the error of "adding to Scripture".

The Sermon on the Mount was delivered by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 was certainly based on Scripture: Joel, Psalm 16 and Psalm 110.

I guess it is just that I have never been convinced that Scripture commands Psalms only in worship

Consider several possible views:

1. Only psalms are commanded.
This one’s plain enough. It is, after all, the point of the thread.

2. Psalms are commanded, with man-made hymns optional.
Isn’t there something off about this? How can any element of worship be “optional”? That would mean that God has left us to decide, in some part at least, how to worship him. I would have to demand biblical warrant for that.

3. Psalms and man-made hymns are commanded.
Some do say this, based on the terms “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” But it’s a misunderstanding of their meanings. (Most historians agree that neither Fanny Crosby nor Christ Tomlin were active in the 1st century.)

4. Man-made hymns are commanded, with psalms optional.
Maybe no one says this, but it’s the practice of a lot of those who admit that psalms probably should be sung. They just don’t end up singing them.


So, which side do we land on? To find that we must answer the question What is God’s command? Does he command that we sing the psalms exclusively? Does he command that we sing anything else? If that’s the case, then we must sing it.

unlike the OP who claims EP are in serious doctrinal error. I cannot disagree enough with the OP on that point.

Thanks for turning this thread into a sincere discussion. I really thought it was a lost cause!

 

[JH]

Is prayer regulated in the same way as singing? God’s given us a psalter, but not a prayer book, and even though we can see examples of prayer in the Bible, we see no command concerning which words to pray comparable to the commands concerning which words to sing.

This is precisely what Gill argued in his argument for Psalmody in worship. That though there is overlap, that they are two distinct elements. Amongst the common appeal to hymns and instruments being circumstances (which is historically defined as something without which, we cannot have worship), the other is to appeal to the early church and Anglicans singing much of their liturgy. I need to go through Gills treatment again, because he dives into that practice quiet heavily, showing them to be two distinct elements; wherein the Spirit is promised to bring forth utterance in us, when we know not what to pray for as we ought, but there is no such promise for prophecy to write new worship songs in the NT.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

This is precisely what Gill argued in his argument for Psalmody in worship. That though there is overlap, that they are two distinct elements. Amongst the common appeal to hymns and instruments being circumstances (which is historically defined as something without which, we cannot have worship), the other is to appeal to the early church and Anglicans singing much of their liturgy. I need to go through Gills treatment again, because he dives into that practice quiet heavily, showing them to be two distinct elements; wherein the Spirit is promised to bring forth utterance in us, when we know not what to pray for as we ought, but there is no such promise for prophecy to write new worship songs in the NT.

Sorry for jumping in, but do you have elements and circumstances backwards?

I admit I might have missed the plot but I thought circumstances would be things like electric lights, a roof on the building, a pulpit to preach from, etc. and that elements would be "prayer", "the sermon", "singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" etc..

 

[JH]

Sorry for jumping in, but do you have elements and circumstances backwards?

I admit I might have missed the plot but I thought circumstances would be things like electric lights, a roof on the building, a pulpit to preach from, etc. and that elements would be "prayer", "the sermon", "singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" etc..

No need to apologize. I'm kind of confused by the question though. If you're talking about the definition of circumstance in worship, that definition is appealed to by Gillespie up to McCurley; that is, something that is necessary (a time to meet, a place to meet, etc.) Others can feel free to chime in if they wish.

Later edit: after further research, it turns out the definition of circumstance may have been different from what I posited above, my apologies. I found this resource helpful: https://reformedbooksonline.com/are-musical-instruments-circumstances-of-worship/

 

[No Other Name]

It’s quite simple, really: nothing else is commanded, meaning nothing else ought to be sung

On this I agree. Nothing else ought to be sung. I would never in my life go to an EP church and claim doctrinal error in leaving out "Amazing Grace". But the very next sentence, "ought" becomes what is permissible or not:

We may not attempt to exceed the biblical mandate for worship.

This would logically lead to strict uniformity among all EP church services, yes? Yet even within the liturgy of EP, as I understand, there is differentiation in the included items and order of the worship service.

The rest of your post really hinges on your response to the above.

If I missed anywhere where God commands in Scripture to only sing inspired Psalms from our shared canon, I apologize. I am not dodging the verse in question, merely unaware of where in this topic the argument was formalized.

 

[No Other Name]

2. Psalms are commanded, with man-made hymns optional.
Isn’t there something off about this? How can any element of worship be “optional”? That would mean that God has left us to decide, in some part at least, how to worship him. I would have to demand biblical warrant for that.

Yep, this is me right here.

I am not sure what you mean by an element of worship being "optional"? It is not optional to not sing praises to our Lord. It is commanded by Scripture. The mode - as I understand my Bible - is optional. One church may use an organ. One church may use a piano primarily. Or guitars primarily. It would not be a doctrinal issue outside of a church that neglects song altogether. The church not singing would be the church in error.

Biblical warrant for freedom to express ourselves in worship?

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor. 3:17

Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial 1 Cor. 6:12

[Of course with the fruits of the Spirit manifested in observable actions: sober joy, peace, self-control, forbearance, gentleness lest anyone confuse me with a charismatic. God forbid! Haha].

If prayers in the Valley of Vision are worshipful, are they in error because they are worshipping God with words not from Psalm 1 - 150?

If I agree with these words, am I ok? Or is it until whatever point I worship God with these Valley of Vision expressions and then suddenly I am not ok but have fallen into error - if not possibly sin?

I always thought the error would be to claim inspiration (of which - thankfully - none of our Puritan fathers make that error)?

The elimination of rules and regulations regarding specifics is a driving theme in the Epistles. We are not to create legalism outside of direct commands from God in His Holy Word.

The burden of proof - as it were - really lies in the EP camp as to Scripture commanding Psalms 1 - 150 only in worship.

I honestly thought before this thread that EP was a style choice. I am kind of unnerved to find that a lot are like the OP - seeing the other side of this issue as in doctrinal error.

 

[beloved7]

As a non EP guy, I think the Trinity Hymnal is perfect; both psalms and hymns. Regardless of how one feels about this issue, I think it’s important that we all sing psalms as they should not be neglected as is the custom of some.

 

[Logan]

I honestly thought before this thread that EP was a style choice. I am kind of unnerved to find that a lot are like the OP - seeing the other side of this issue as in doctrinal error.

Hmm, but the very position of EP isn't that it's done purely to be pragmatic or simply because of personal preference---it's that it's commanded and nothing else (thus the "exclusive" part).

 

[Romans922]

Hmm, but the very position of EP isn't that it's done purely to be pragmatic or simply because of personal preference---it's that it's commanded and nothing else (thus the "exclusive" part).

Agreed. Here are some sermons that either allude or directly deal with God's command concerning Psalmody and Instruments. Hope it helps David - @beloved7

 

[beloved7]

Agreed. Here are some sermons that either allude or directly deal with God's command concerning Psalmody and Instruments. Hope it helps David - @beloved7

I think you may have meant to tag Anti Babylon, but thank you. I’m rather convinced of my position. Though I do cherish the psalms and love singing them. I’m grateful to belong to a church that reads through them every weekly prayer meeting and sings them often.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Hmm, but the very position of EP isn't that it's done purely to be pragmatic or simply because of personal preference---it's that it's commanded and nothing else (thus the "exclusive" part).

This is a large part of the issue in talking things through, I think- the principle that we are to do in worship only what God has commanded, and we may not do anything just because he hasn't explicity forbidden it. The command to compose uninspired songs for worship would have to be found in God's word. He inspired prophets to compose the songs collected in the book of Psalms, from Moses to David to Heman, Asaph, etc. There is no repeated NT command for the writing of further songs for worship.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

This is a large part of the issue in talking things through, I think- the principle that we are to do in worship only what God has commanded, and we may not do anything just because he hasn't explicity forbidden it. The command to compose uninspired songs for worship would have to be found in God's word. He inspired prophets to compose the songs collected in the book of Psalms, from Moses to David to Heman, Asaph, etc. There is no repeated NT command for the writing of further songs for worship.

We are commanded in the NT to "teach and admonish" with songs. That is a command to expound the "the Word of Christ" with songs, thus a command to compose songs (just as it means for expounding Christ through preaching, Col 1:28).

 

[Romans922]

@Anti-Babylon

I forgot to post sorry the actual series: https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?subsetitem=Worship+And+Music&subsetcat=series&keyword=cpc-kc&SourceOnly=true&includekeywords=&ExactVerse=

 

[EvanVK]

We are commanded in the NT to "teach and admonish" with songs. That is a command to expound the "the Word of Christ" with songs, thus a command to compose songs (just as it means for expounding Christ through preaching, Col 1:28).

We’ll to be fair most EP advocates would disagree with your first premise. Col 3:15-17 is speaking about very specific songs. Namely the psalms hymns and songs spiritual of the inspired psalter. But there are plenty of threads where that has been argued already I suppose.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

We’ll to be fair most EP advocates would disagree with your first premise. Col 3:15-17 is speaking about very specific songs. Namely the psalms hymns and songs spiritual of the inspired psalter. But there are plenty of threads where that has been argued already I suppose.

Yes. Obviously, I disagree with that interpretation. Paul knew how to say "Book of Psalms" or even "The Psalms" and chose NOT to say it, twice. (Eph. and Col.)

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Yes. Obviously, I disagree with that interpretation. Paul knew how to say "Book of Psalms" or even "The Psalms" and chose NOT to say it, twice. (Eph. and Col.)

I don’t think the passages can be used to prove uninspired hymnody. Jesus and the disciples sang a ‘hymn’ (they hymned, Gk. hymneo, Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26. I haven’t seen a commentator who doesn’t believe this wasn’t one of the Hallel Psalms. The praises Paul and Silas sang in prison were hymneo (Acts 16:25). Lastly, Christ proclaimed that he will “declare thy [the Father’s] name to unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise (hymneo) unto thee” (Hebrews 2:12), and assuredly Christ will sing his own words and not the words of men. The Septuagint, in the headings, labels a good number of the Psalms hymns. In the Eph and Col passages, Paul qualifies two of the three things we’re to sing as inspired (Psalms and spiritual songs). The evidence seems strongly in favor of ‘hymn’ there referring to inspired song, as it seems to (or certainly does) in the rest of the NT.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Even the Confession does not say "Book of Psalms only", is just says "singing of psalms" (21.5.), which is the only reference to song in the whole standards. Yes, many (not all) divines held EP, but even they did not enshrine the "only" when they had the opportunity. It's a little difficult to call it an "EP document" in light of a single reference.

My intent is only to object not create a tangent. A single reference is not correct; the directory for worship uses singing or sing 13 times and psalm(s) 18 times by my count. One can gather from Westminster Standards and the assembly's work, what their intent was, which was to create and authorize only the singing of psalms in a psalter of which they produced the draft to meet that requirement of the directory and submitted to parliament. We don't have explicit evidence that the assembly was guided by a fully developed EP theory, at least I don't say that (others may) but we have enough to say that the standards are at the very least, from a practical or authorization standpoint, exclusive psalmodist. One of the contenders for the vague theory conceded as much to me many years ago. See here or volume 3 of The Confessional Presbyterian journal from 2007, p. 211-213, 303. I dispute the contention made that the assembly left wiggle room to interpret psalm to mean hymns too; or that intent is not clear. I know I am toe to toe with some real scholars but folks can see the case at the link.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Very Cool. Thanks Chris, BTW, I gave my CPJs away to a young Pastor. He is a good kid. Thanks for the link.
https://www.semperreformanda.com/th...t-of-the-westminster-standards-by-c-coldwell/

 

[retroGRAD3]

As a non EP guy, I think the Trinity Hymnal is perfect; both psalms and hymns. Regardless of how one feels about this issue, I think it’s important that we all sing psalms as they should not be neglected as is the custom of some.

I would say the Trinity psalter hynnal is a superior book in every way. I think the tunes they choose for the psalms in the hymnal are not very good.

 

[earl40]

Just a quick question for those who are not EP. Do you not tier of evaluating every song you sing in worship that is not inspired? I know from personal experience that I did, because as I grew in faith and realized that my opinion changed, on many songs over the years.

 

[beloved7]

Just a quick question for those who are not EP. Do you not tier of evaluating every song you sing in worship that is not inspired? I know from personal experience that I did, because as I grew in faith and realized that my opinion changed, on many songs over the years.

No because part of the labors that our Pastor does for us in addition to his sermons is selecting the hymns and/or psalms. They always go together with what we are reading. Also we only sing out of the Trinity Hymnal Baptist Edition or Baptist Hymnal, both in which have already been properly vetted.

If you’re talking about CCM, that’s a whole other subject and yes I find myself constantly having my discerning cap on but that’s outside of corporate worship. My wife enjoys CCM so it still has a place in our home. I’m grateful that while actually in church however I’m able to put my guard down.

 

[No Other Name]

Hmm, but the very position of EP isn't that it's done purely to be pragmatic or simply because of personal preference---it's that it's commanded and nothing else (thus the "exclusive" part).

I honestly had thought it was a choice to be exclusive in corporate and personal worship. It seems the OP is not the only one who sees the other side of this issue as being ensconced in doctrinal error.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I honestly had thought it was a choice to be exclusive in corporate and personal worship. It seems the OP is not the only one who sees the other side of this issue as being ensconced in doctrinal error.

That is what is great about America. We can be neighbors.

 

[No Other Name]

Just a quick question for those who are not EP. Do you not tier of evaluating every song you sing in worship that is not inspired? I know from personal experience that I did, because as I grew in faith and realized that my opinion changed, on many songs over the years.

I am uncertain what you are asking?

Hymnals are divided by categories like systematic theology textbooks: grace, atonement, etc.

In mine, the Psalms are separated apart as inspired, infallible Scripture.

 

[No Other Name]

That is what is great about America. We can be neighbors.

Well certainly, we have to. I feel like I am alone on the lack of doctrinal error being existant on either side here.

 

[No Other Name]

I would say the Trinity psalter hynnal is a superior book in every way. I think the tunes they choose for the psalms in the hymnal are not very good.

Straight facts dropped by an EP right here. There are a lot of odd tunes put to the Psalms out there.

 

[No Other Name]

the principle that we are to do in worship only what God has commanded, and we may not do anything just because he hasn't explicity forbidden it.

Thank you for your thoughtful replies to the issue. Doesn't this mean that all EP churches would be uniform in corporate worship to a T? Again, my earlier question to Mr. Tom Hart is unanswered. No one here would ever dream of disobeying God's explicit commands. We are in fact to sing praises unto His name. The modes of such songs are not clearly delineated (as I will show below).

There is no repeated NT command for the writing of further songs for worship.

Well, there is no repeated NT command for the writing of prayers in worship either; yet the Puritans could not get enough of it (much to my personal delight).

There is no repeated NT command for the writing of further sermons. What is more telling - as I see it - is there is no explicit warning specifically to singing songs that are not Psalm 1 - 150.

Again, Paul's theme in the Epistles is one of freedom from legality and liberty in Christ (while maintaining strict evidence for sound doctrine. That is always a top priority).

(I admit I am on a spiritual high reading Glorious Freedom by Richard Sibbes).

The evidence seems strongly in favor of ‘hymn’ there referring to inspired song, as it seems to (or certainly does) in the rest of the NT.

I looked it up. I found no evidence linking all these uses of the Greek to divine inspiration. Let me share the Strong's concordance link I referred myself to:

https://biblehub.com/greek/5214.htm

I will listen to the sermons given me by Pastor Andrew Barnes @Romans922 (thank you, brother).

Please know I am in no way, shape or form stating nor even implying that EP believers are legalistic Pharisees or even anywhere near doctrinal error - just like if Jewish Christians chose to worship Christ our Lord and Savior keeping as near they could the Mosaic Law. If I remember, Paul kept the Law himself - as well as his flesh could - while preaching the truth of freedom from the Law in Christ's redemptive act on Calvary.

I have nothing but sincere charity in my heart for you all.