Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

[Logan]

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

I think your view is pretty much the standard IP view.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Doesn't this mean that all EP churches would be uniform in corporate worship to a T?

It depends on what you mean by the T. If you mean that EP churches are to be uniform in singing only Psalms then yes, they’d all practice that in uniformity.

Well, there is no repeated NT command for the writing of prayers in worship either;

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

Writing prayers isn’t really a reformed thing; but there is a command to continue to pray publicly. And there is a command to preach.

The difference is that singing is corporate participation involving the congregation doing the vocalization; it’s a corporate confession, a teaching and admonishing of one another. God has ordained that words are to be put into the mouth of the congregation and so the words need to be inspired; to protect the congregation from confessing and teaching one another error. When someone prays aloud, the congregation is not put in that position; they’re listeners, not speakers and teachers; they’re able to withhold the amen if the prayer doesn’t align with God’s word; they’re able to compare what’s being preached to God’s word; one can quietly disagree, or be free to ask questions, or be a good Berean and study the Scriptures to see if it’s so. It’s a protection of the consciences of those in the congregation that in participating in this element of worship (singing) they can know that they’re singing the truth.

 

[No Other Name]

It depends on what you mean by the T.

I am curious. Are you of the camp that believes non EP are in serious doctrinal error?

You said: "the principle that we are to do in worship only what God has commanded" which if you really do ONLY that which God commanded and NOTHING else, then your services would be uniform yes? In elements and modes and means?

But when you say: "we may not do anything just because he hasn't explicity forbidden it" you do realize non EP believers would agree with this yes? You do realize that non-inspired hymns are not added simply because God did not forbid it but because it has been verified by a body of believers as having sound doctrine leading to additional and doctrinal expression of Biblical worship to our King.

No one anywhere in my denominational circles has ever said, "Well, I really like the tune to 'It is Well With My Soul' and I would like to add it to the worship service but I can think of no other reason to do so other than God never said in the Bible we cannot, so into the hymnal it goes!"

there is a command to continue to pray publicly

Yes, and in that command, there is no distinction that says prayers must be from inspired Scripture only but the fact that we can compose our own is derived from that lack of specificity.

And there is a command to preach

Yes, and in that command, there is no distinction that says sermons must be from inspired Scripture only but the fact we can compose our own is derived from that lack of specificity.

God has ordained that words are to be put into the mouth of the congregation and so the words need to be inspired

But where please? Why songs and no other element?

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

 

[earl40]

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.

CCM? Now I take you trust your pastor and the vetting process implicitly? I ask because there is a vast difference in the content of implicit faith in what God has inspired, and what man has created.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I am curious. Are you of the camp that believes non EP are in serious doctrinal error?

All who believe that God has commanded the singing of Psalms only will of necessity believe it’s error to sing uninspired songs in worship. And of course, what we do in worship is serious. But it’s understandable, to someone who holds to EP, why other folks don’t.

if you really do ONLY that which God commanded and NOTHING else, then your services would be uniform yes? In elements and modes and means?

Well, yes, the elements of worship would hopefully be the same. I’m not sure exactly what your point is, or what you mean by modes and means.

You do realize that non-inspired hymns are not added simply because God did not forbid it but because it has been verified by a body of believers as having sound doctrine leading to additional and doctrinal expression of Biblical worship to our King.

The RPW is that we may only do that in worship which God has commanded. Non-inspired hymns having been “verified by a body of believers as having sound doctrine” isn’t warrant to sing them in worship; God must command it. (Are you clear on the regulative principle of worship vs. the normative principle?)

But where please? Why songs and no other element?

If I missed anywhere where God commands in Scripture to only sing inspired Psalms from our Bibles, I apologize.

That’s what a lot of the conversation has been about in these threads. To show that God has commanded only the singing of Psalms in worship is gotten to through the systematic study of Scripture from many places in the Bible and is derived through good and necessary consequence.

Books and articles and sermons are helpful. I think Rev. Barnes posted some of his sermons, which I hope to listen to soon. Below is a link to another sermon from Rev. Gavin Beers, entitled “What Do We Sing,” part of his series on the Principles and Parts of Worship.

What Do We Sing? - The Sufficiency of the Biblical Psalter

Gavin Beers | Cornerstone Presbyterian Church

www.sermonaudio.com

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I actually meant to post this sermon; it’s part 1, and the sermon I posted above is part 2, of the sermons in this series. So both are helpful.

What Do We Sing? - Exclusive Psalmody

Gavin Beers | Cornerstone Presbyterian Church

www.sermonaudio.com

 

[Tom Hart]

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".

I am using “ought” in the sense of requirement.

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.

What do you mean by “uniformity” and “differentiation”? It might be helpful to see examples, although I think it might take us some distance from the subject of exclusive psalmody.

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.

Agreed.

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.

I think I see here some ripples of some rather significant assumptions lying under the surface.

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

I would challenge any suggestion that the worship of God is left to man’s freedom.

At some point, you’re going to have to draw a line. Ballet as worship? Dramatic performances as worship?

Surely you don’t belive that God has given no instructions for the church’s worship beyond a general command to sing.

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.

Agreed. We are to obey God’s commands, neither neglecting them, nor abandoning them for the precepts of mere men.

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

According to the Regulative Principle, all our worship must have scriptural warrant. We find that God commands that psalms be sung. We do not find that he commands that any other song be sung. Therefore, any song, if it is not one of the 150 God-breathed psalms, is not to be used as worship. If you find warrant in the Bible for any other song, please share it, and we can discuss it.

 

[beloved7]

We just sang “Man of Sorrows” #175 out of the Trinity Hymnal after partaking in the Lord’s Supper and it was a tremendous blessing for me after being spiritually nourished. I’m thankful for such faithful hymns.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

Be patient. There is a wealth of many years of discussion on these topics already. If you have a question just put it in the search.
I am not trying to avoid anything here I am just saying that I use past discussions for knowledge and reference also. There is some good stuff on the PB. We have had some good balanced scholarly people through the years. That is just my opinion.

 

[LadyCalvinist]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before so here goes. I never heard of EP until about 2003. It took a while for me to wrap my mind around it. Since then, I have read much and thought about and finally changed my mind. One thing I suggest you do is read a book or two that argues for EP and then make up your mind.

One book that I am currently reading is Michael Bushnell's Songs of Zion. He makes a number of good points such as the Psalms are written by God, therefore, they are theologically accurate. I don't know how many times I have sung hymns and praise songs and wondered about the theological accuracy of what I am singing. I heard about a pastor who looked at a hymnal and said about 1 of every 9 hymns contained heresy. When I sing the Psalms, I don't have that problem, since they were written by God, they are correct. If we sing songs that are not accurate, that are overly sentimental or contain outright heresy, then we may lead people astray or give them false ideas about God. I am personally sick of the God-is-my-boyfriend/therapist heard in too many contemporary praise songs.

Bushell writes, "What songs does God want us to sing in worship? Why did God place a hymnal in our Bibles? And what makes us think we can produce a new hymnal that Jesus Christ will love as much as the one that He clung to with his last breath?

You say that we must use the name of Jesus in our worship songs. But Jesus is Lord and many of the Psalms are addressed to the "the Lord." In effect, Jeus is there in the Psalms. These are his songs, written by and about him.

The Psalms have a depth and breadth that I do not find in hymns and contemporary music.

I hope this helps you. As I said exclusive psalmody took some time for me to accept but I do believe that it is right.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before so here goes. I never heard of EP until I came here in 2005. It took a while for me to wrap my mind around it. Since then, I have read much and thought about and finally changed my mind. One thing I suggest you do is read a book or two that argues for EP and then make up your mind.

One book that I am currently reading is Michael Bushnell's Songs of Zion. He makes a number of good points such as the Psalms are written by God, therefore, they are theologically accurate. I don't know how many times I have sung hymns and praise songs and wondered about the theological accuracy of what I am singing. I heard about a pastor who looked at a hymnal and said about 1 of every 9 hymns contained heresy. When I sing the Psalms, I don't have that problem, since they were written by God, they are correct. If we sing songs that are not accurate, that are overly sentimental or contain outright heresy, then we may lead people astray or give them false ideas about God. I am personally sick of the God-is-my-boyfriend/therapist heard in too many contemporary praise songs.

Bushell writes, "What songs does God want us to sing in worship? Why did God a hymnal in our Bibles? And what makes us think we can produce a new hymnal that Jesus Christ will love as much as the one that He clung to with his last breath?

You say that we must use the name of Jesus in our worship songs. But Jeus is Lord and many of the Psalms are addressed to the "the Lord." In effect, Jeus is there in the Psalms. These are his songs, written by and about him.

The Psalms have a depth and breadth that I do not find hymns and contemporary music.

I hope this helps you. As I said exclusive psalmody took some time for me to accept but I do believe that it is right.

This brings to mind a point I don’t think has been talked about, which is the fact that in the Psalms we’re praising God just as he has ordained that he be praised, but in addition we’re praying and speaking prophetic utterances concerning all things he has ordained to come to pass, and he has ordained that his church pray and speak these things. This is an assertion of course, but I assert that we don’t have time for uninspired song in our worship. These prophecies, praises, and inspired prayers for judgment, reformation, mercy, revival, and so on urgently need uttering in the assembly.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

If it may be of interest and helpful to some on this topic, here is an excerpt on exclusive psalmody (and acapella worship) from our church's membership class through the Westminster Confession supplementing chapter 21 regarding religious worship: https://puritanchurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Acapella-Psalmody-Booklet.pdf

A few other excerpts from our class directly on chapter 21 (and not in the link above) may also be relevant and of interest:

“it will be observed that the Confession does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the use of modern hymns in the worship of God [see section 5], but rather only the psalms of the Old Testament.” G.I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study Classes, 167.

David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error, 152: “ ... the singing of psalms was commanded under the Old Testament, and that not as a type of any substance to come, nor for any ceremonial cause. Neither is it abrogated under the New Testament, but confirmed (Psa. 30:4; 149:I)."

For a comprehensive and conclusive historical argument that the Westminster Assembly very clearly only sanctioned the Psalms of David to be sung in public worship, see, Matthew Winzer’s, “Westminster and Worship Examined: A Review of Nick Needham’s essay on the Westminster Confession of Faith’s teaching concerning the regulative principle, the singing of psalms, and the use of musical instruments in the public worship of God.”, in The Confessional Presbyterian 4 (2008) : 253-266, in which he concludes: “The evidence is now complete. First, the Church of Scotland practiced exclusive psalm-singing. Secondly, the Westminster Assembly labored to bring the Church of England into uniformity with Scotland’s practice by making provision for singing from the Old Testament book of Psalms. Thirdly, contemporary critics of the Assembly chided the Directory for Public Worship for excluding man-made hymns and restricting the matter of worship-song to the Psalms of David. Finally, individual members of the Westminster Assembly espoused the exclusive use of the Psalms of David” (264). Winzer’s article is available free online in pdf form at www.cpjournal.com.

 

[JH]

David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error, 152: “ ... the singing of psalms was commanded under the Old Testament, and that not as a type of any substance to come, nor for any ceremonial cause. Neither is it abrogated under the New Testament, but confirmed (Psa. 30:4; 149:I).

To also add (I have formerly read, but forgot to share), Dickson also acknowledged the Psalms spoken of in chapter 21 of the WCF to be that "which is a part of Scripture", and no generic term for songs.

"Because by singing of psalms we glorify God, we make his praise glorious: we edify others with whom we sing as well as we edify ourselves. So the end to be proposed in singing, is teaching and admonishing one another, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, Col. 3.16. Lastly, We cheer and refresh ourselves by making melody in our hearts to the Lord, Eph. 5.19. Which ariseth, first, from our conscientious going about it as a piece of the worship to God, and in so doing we are accepted in that. Secondly, From its being a part of Scripture, appointed for his praise, whether it agree with our case or not. That being the end wherefore it was designed to be sung, is a sufficient warrant for our joining in the singing thereof."

To add significance, Dickson was (to my knowledge) a member of the Westminster Assembly, and is one of the earliest expositions we have on the Westminster Confession. If that doesn't give clarity on what the Westminster divines meant by Psalms, I don't know what does.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

To add significance, Dickson was (to my knowledge) a member of the Westminster Assembly, and is one of the earliest expositions we have on the Westminster Confession. If that doesn't give clarity on what the Westminster divines meant by Psalms, I don't know what does.

Dickson was not one of the Scots commissioners to the assembly, but he did write the first exposition of the WCF as you say. That is certainly an important quote to show how one of the first lecturers on the WCF to students understood the document. I think the Latin lectures date to just after the WCF was approved to c.1650. A translation of a later date was published without attribution to Dickson. I'm not sure if the original Latin lectures exist.

 

[MChase]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this before so here goes. I never heard of EP until I came here in 2005. It took a while for me to wrap my mind around it. Since then, I have read much and thought about and finally changed my mind. One thing I suggest you do is read a book or two that argues for EP and then make up your mind.

One book that I am currently reading is Michael Bushnell's Songs of Zion. He makes a number of good points such as the Psalms are written by God, therefore, they are theologically accurate. I don't know how many times I have sung hymns and praise songs and wondered about the theological accuracy of what I am singing. I heard about a pastor who looked at a hymnal and said about 1 of every 9 hymns contained heresy. When I sing the Psalms, I don't have that problem, since they were written by God, they are correct. If we sing songs that are not accurate, that are overly sentimental or contain outright heresy, then we may lead people astray or give them false ideas about God. I am personally sick of the God-is-my-boyfriend/therapist heard in too many contemporary praise songs.

Bushell writes, "What songs does God want us to sing in worship? Why did God a hymnal in our Bibles? And what makes us think we can produce a new hymnal that Jesus Christ will love as much as the one that He clung to with his last breath?

You say that we must use the name of Jesus in our worship songs. But Jeus is Lord and many of the Psalms are addressed to the "the Lord." In effect, Jeus is there in the Psalms. These are his songs, written by and about him.

The Psalms have a depth and breadth that I do not find in hymns and contemporary music.

I hope this helps you. As I said exclusive psalmody took some time for me to accept but I do believe that it is right.

You may very well know this already, but there is a wonderful EP congregation in St. Louis. Pastor Mattull is a wonderful man and we worship with them when visiting family in the area.

Edit: I see you are in the RPCNA and not EPC.

Sovereign Grace Presbyterian Church<br />A Congregation of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)<br />

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40

www.stlpresbyterian.org

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Dickson was not one of the Scots commissioners to the assembly, but he did write the first exposition of the WCF as you say. That is certainly an important quote to show how one of the first lecturers on the WCF to students understood the document. I think the Latin lectures date to just after the WCF was approved to c.1650. A translation of a later date was published without attribution to Dickson. I'm not sure if the original Latin lectures exist.

From Mathew Vogan's Dickson Bibliography, I see he has located the Latin lectures still in MS. "Caputi confessionis fidei de Scriptura continet articulos decem assortiones 33 theses controversas,", (Glasgow University Library, MS Gen 8) [evidently the Latin lectures of Truth’s Victory, At end of text: 4 Sept. 1651 finis. Charles Mouat.] He says Glasgow presumably but we think Dickson was in Edinburgh already in 1650 so maybe these were delivered there. It is presumed the translation which the guy passed off as his own work when published, did not add material not in there; Wodrow comments on this in the prefacing to a reissue of the translation. Mathew A. Vogan, "David Dickson: A Provisional Bibliography," The Confessional Presbyterian 16 (2020): 88.

 

[No Other Name]

All who believe that God has commanded the singing of Psalms only will of necessity believe it’s error to sing uninspired songs in worship.

It is not necessarily true that any and all EP must logically conclude that non-EP is in error. But it seems that if one is EP due to RPW, it happens to be a logical consequence.

But it’s understandable, to someone who holds to EP, why other folks don’t.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am sympathetic to EP myself and have thoroughly been enjoying some recommendations here from other posters like the 1650 Psalter. The past couple of days have been a joy discovering links to the 1650 and they are very beautiful to me.

The RPW is that we may only do that in worship which God has commanded.

Yeah, I don't know that principle and I guess I am normative in principle (after looking it up, I found that "The normative principle of worship is a Christian theological principle that teaches that the normative principle teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church."

Ugh! How horrid is that last sentence to me.

I would amend the last sentence to claim that the standard for a song must be in direct line with Scripture and lead to worship of God through the lines connecting to the Bible. If the song does not lead to direct Scriptural truth - if the song does not carry an ability to be directly linked to chapter and verse with zero points of equivocation - then and only then is it a candidate. Much like any standard of doctrinal truths like confessions or adapted confessions.

Non-inspired hymns having been “verified by a body of believers as having sound doctrine” isn’t warrant to sing them in worship; God must command it. (Are you clear on the regulative principle of worship vs. the normative principle?)

No, I am utterly unaware of the RPW. If I read Valley of Vision or Pilgrim's Progress or WCF and pause - having been moved - and worship God in the expression of the words written by the author, am I in error? Or sin?

To show that God has commanded only the singing of Psalms in worship is gotten to through the systematic study of Scripture from many places in the Bible and is derived through good and necessary consequence.

Yeah, that much I gleaned. That is actually why I was surprised when a lot of EP here believe the other side are "in serious doctrinal error".

I can see disagreeing over what is required of elements of worship, sure, but to charge one of "adding to Scripture" as if adding "And Can It Be" to a hymnal is jarring to me since no one believes worship songs not included in the Bible are inspired in much the same way as no other man-made prayer, sermon, responsive reading, etc. are inspired either.

I can see EP charging me of being "guilty" of not following the RPW, ok, or not inferring the command to sing Psalms only as they do. I would only tip my hat and say I wish you well in all you do and look forward to singing songs with you in Heaven - Psalms only or not haha.

But to charge us of the sin of "adding to Scripture" is where the deep concern arises - I imagine this was felt when the OP wrote his posts for all of you dear EP brothers and sisters.

These prophecies, praises, and inspired prayers for judgment, reformation, mercy, revival, and so on urgently need uttering in the assembly.

You do realize we sing Psalms yes? We have many teachings and studies and reflections on the Psalms.

You do realize no one in my denomination is anti-Psalm, yes?

That one can do as you say here and still worship God with "How Great Thou Art" and also Psalms that moved the non-divinely inspired pens to write it like Ps. 145; 43; 104 et al without diminishing the Psalms in any way? I am almost curious if you see us as having a low view of Scripture (may God forbid).

Books and articles and sermons are helpful.

I am happy to look through many resources.

I will say I prayed and a thought struck me that I need to check if I am motivated to stay non EP like my denomination, my church, my pastor, my family, friends and other loved ones.

I can see the case for EP but I do not see the criteria for a Biblical command met. Am I purposefully not seeing because it would be easier not to?

A good question there, I admit.

Thank you and God be with you in everything.

 

[Grant]

Just would like to add a personal and practical note to this thread, especially to any who are new to Psalm singing:

I consider myself still new to holding to EP/AO, though I have been practicing this for the past 4 years or so. Admittedly, like any new position, I have not asked my family (wife and kids) to practice the same in Public Worship. However, we do practice this in our family worship. Currently I am the only one who remains silent during hymns in public worship. This is not due to lack of family submission ,but rather due to an abundance of caution on what I feel to be a weighty matter: Pleasing Worship to God. In other words, making sure this is a position I hold with a clear conscience before asking my family to remain silent in public services as well (A serious matter either way one falls).

That all said, we use the The Book of Psalms for Worship (Blue). If you are struggling to find meaning, to see Christ and His Words, or to have the right mindset in the words you are singing, I HIGHLY recommend you download the 1650 Psalter app in order to utilize the Commentary Portion by John Brown of Haddington.

Why? For our family worship, I will read the snippet of commentary on the Psalm before we sing it. We have found this helpful to do prior to singing the Psalm. This has/does help us think of the context and the purpose of the Psalm. Further, this helps us to have a focused mindset for the Psalm while singing. After reading this portion, we then sing the Psalm from the Blue book.

I think if you use this, you will quickly see Christ and his name and glory in every Psalm.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I am utterly unaware of the RPW.

Brad, holding to the RPW is a criteria for membership on the Puritanboard. However, you’re certainly not the only person who has joined not holding to it, but not realizing it, due to the fact that you didn’t know it is part of the Reformed faith.

There are folks, and obviously members here, and whole denominations who do hold to the RPW, and who are not EP. I think it’s inconsistent but that’s our humanness for you.

I recommend you take up a study on that principle so that you’re clear on it vs. the normative principle, such that you’re able to articulate it, and make biblical arguments for and against worship practices using it. The principle itself is derived from the sweep of the whole Bible- God forbids in worship what he hasn’t commanded. (We’re talking about the elements of worship here, not circumstances.)

It’s a fairly big topic, search the PB for RPW and you’ll come up with some good threads. Maybe others have resources.

 

[Grant]

No, I am utterly unaware of the RPW. If I read Valley of Vision or Pilgrim's Progress or WCF and pause - having been moved - and worship God in the expression of the words written by the author, am I in error? Or sin?

Maybe I can help. I think this would be better described as an act of love and devotion vs. “worship” proper. All Worship is an act/expression of love & devotion. BUT not all acts/expressions of devotion are Worship Proper.

I can feed the hungry or even read commentaries devotionally, but this is not an act of Worship proper. But these can be acts of love/devotion to our Lord.

 

[beloved7]

Though this is widely known, I do feel that in light of recent posts today this should be said; there are many who firmly hold to the regulative principle and are not EP. We point to numerous occasions in Scripture where saints offer praise to God in song which is outside of the psalms.

In addition we also believe that Scripture commands us to sing hymns as well as psalms. Yes I know that brethren in the EP camp have an answer for that too, but we are not convinced.

Anyhow, I just wanted to point out that holding to the RPW and being IP are not mutually exclusive. Some will argue otherwise of course but the jury is still out on that, and will be most likely til the Second Coming. Just like with baptism.

 

[No Other Name]

Thank you all for your replies.

such that you’re able to articulate it, and make biblical arguments for and against worship practices using it.

But I do have Biblical principles for and against worship practices. I just had no general awareness to labels "regulative" vs. "normative". Before this discussion as far as I knew "normative" meant norms established by the Bible (but that is not true. The definition I found was horrid to me and prone to abuse of Biblical worship).

A cursory reading of materials shows: I - at first - supposed my principles were normative minus the openness to new modes not prescribed by Scripture but now it seems that I am regulative in nature.

Please understand I have used PB for Bible study and make generous use of the search bar and can - and do - go largely unaware of specifics of some "hot topics" here; not as a rule - but simply as happenstance.

I am torn and need moderator help here. I was on topic with the OP. I really was.

He was mistaken when he claimed EP is in serious doctrinal error. He was gravely mistaken when he claimed the full theology of Biblical Christianity could not be expressed in EP.

And my only goal was to point to EP was it would be the same mistake for them as it was for the OP to say non EP are in "serious doctrinal error" by "adding to Scripture". That charge seems - to me - baseless and just as mistaken.

So if my reply here is considered "off-topic", it is only because EP are not replying to my overall point but what came out from my posts as my obvious lack of knowledge of terminology (not the Bible but terms) to educate me and edify me.

Again I appreciate this and am enjoying this discussion very much.

I just do not want to be accused of being the one to bring this thread off-topic.

I think if you use this, you will quickly see Christ and his name and glory in every Psalm.

I wanted to quote this brother and say again that I believe the OP was absolutely wrong when he says Christ cannot be fully expressed in the Psalms. My only point was it requires full knowledge of the NT to be able to see the full expression of Christ in the Psalms.

All Worship is an act/expression of love & devotion. BUT not all acts/expressions of devotion are Worship Proper.

I fear I am mostly misunderstood.

From Principles of Worship in my church:

Worship is response to God in all of life, in our love, adoration, thanksgiving, praise and service. These acts perpetrated by us declare God's worth to us.

Psa. 96
"Sing to the Lord a new song;
Sing to the Lord, all the earth.
2 Sing to the Lord, bless His name;
Proclaim the good news of His salvation from day to day.
3 Tell of His glory among the nations,
His wonderful deeds among all the peoples.
4 For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised;
He is to be feared above all gods.
5 For all the gods of the peoples are idols,
But the Lord made the heavens.
6 Splendor and majesty are before Him,
Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.
7 Ascribe to the Lord, you families of the peoples,
Ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.
8 Ascribe to the Lord the glory of His name;
Bring an offering and come into His courtyards.
9 Worship the Lord in holy attire;
Tremble before Him, all the earth.
10 Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples fairly.”
11 May the heavens be joyful, and may the earth rejoice;
May the sea roar, and all it contains;
12 May the field be jubilant, and all that is in it.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy
13 Before the Lord, for He is coming,
For He is coming to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness,
And the peoples in His faithfulness"
NASB
cf. Rom. 16:25-27; Rev. 7:9-10

So to any and all EP who hold that non EP are "in serious doctrinal error adding to Scripture":

if I "ascribe to the Lord His glory and strength" et al - using words from WCF or Valley or whatever, if I declare worship to Him with free expression of my own composition in private or in a corporate setting on a Sunday morning, am I in error? Have I sinned by "adding to Scripture", even if I would never in any way, shape or form claim divine inspiration?

I understand your first statement very well

Smeagol: "All Worship is an act/expression of love & devotion."

Agreed. Very well, but I do not understand how it follows that

Smeagol: "not all acts/expressions of devotion [that declare God's worth as defined by the Bible and expressed by us according to Scripture] are not 'Worship Proper'". Brackets added for clarification on a hopefully shared definition of worship.

Citation or evidence needed for the last quote, please. Thank you.

Finally, I love your screen name by the way. May God bless you. I am no less a poor Smeagol ever fighting an inner Gollum than you in this life, brother.

God bless you all.

 

[Logan]

Brad,

Your posts and humble wrestling over this issue are much appreciated. Would be happy to discuss or answer questions.

The Regulative Principle is that God is to be worshiped only as he has revealed in his word. Of necessity that means that there are some things that are not allowed. For example, our hymn-singing brothers who also adhere to the regulative principle would say that puppet shows and interpretive dancing are not prescribed acts of worship and are therefore forbidden (the normative principle would say that they aren't explicitly forbidden so it's conceivable they would be allowed).

We do this not because it's something we made up, but because God is jealous for his worship. In Leviticus 10:1 are outright killed. Why? Because they offered strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not. It wasn't that God had forbidden he, he hadn't commanded it and they innovated.

In 2 Chronicles 29 (which is well-worth reading), when Hezekiah is re-establishing the temple worship, he was careful not to add anything, but only did what as "according to the commandment of David...the commandment of the Lord by his Prophets", even down to the exact instruments to be used (they didn't add in new or different instruments).

So when it comes to psalm singing, since we are convinced that God has commanded psalms and nothing else, we of necessity must believe that all else is sin. To do otherwise would be inconsistent.

I realize there is disagreement that only psalms have been commanded, but both EP and IP holding to the regulative principle do agree that nothing beyond what has been commanded is allowed.

Where the disagreement comes in is what has been commanded. EP looks at Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 and says "what would a person of that day understand by 'psalms, hymns' and spiritual songs'?" The Christian of the day would have been using the Greek Old Testament, which in its inspired titles called individual psalms a "hymn of David", a "psalm of Asaph", a "Song of Ascents", etc.:

Psalm: 2-8, 10-14, 18-24, 28-30, 37-40, 42, 43, 45-50, 61-67, 72, 74-76, 78-84, 86, 87, 91, 93, 97-100, 107-109, 138-140, 142
Hymn: 5, 53, 54, 60, 66, 75
Song: 3, 17, 29, 38, 44, 47, 64-67, 74, 75, 82, 86-87, 90-92, 94-95, 107, 119-133

I believe Psalm 75 uses all three terms in its title in the Greek translation Christians of the day would have used. Heidelblog has a decent article on this.

The EP position would then say well, I know that the psalms can all be referred to by those three words, it seems like the Christians of the day would immediately have thought of "a psalm of David", "a hymn of David", "a song of ascents", etc. and there is nothing in the text to indicate they would mean something different, therefore God has commanded to sing psalms. Has he commanded to sing anything else? No? Then we will sing psalms.

IP might also point out that perhaps Paul could have been more explicit if he really intended just the 150 psalms. The IP position would also say we are to sing nothing but what God has commanded, but will look at the three terms as three different categories of songs. The problem (I think) with that is that it often ends up being anachronistic. We today call a "hymn" something we made up but is there any indication that the Christians of the day would have understood the word the same way? Did Paul actually have things like "Amazing Grace" in mind? Actually, as Jeri pointed out earlier, in the Gospels it says that Jesus and his disciple sang a hymn, which is almost certainly one of the hallel psalms, since that was the usual practice at Passover, so even the term "hymn" would have been understood as at least some of the time referring to the Psalms.

All that to say that yes, those holding to the Regulative Principle will of necessity see some types of worship as sin. The EP holds a stricter view so of necessity will see less strict views as sin.

I personally was convicted to stop singing man-composed songs when I read Malachi 1:8 "And if ye offer blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts."

I was convicted that by not offering the "best" (i.e., Spirit-inspired songs) that I was really offering the lame and sick. However, like many others I mostly desire that people would at least sing some psalms. Too often IP turns into NP (no psalms), and I've had people adamantly argue with me that we shouldn't sing any. Most churches don't sing any. They don't know what a treasure-house of inspired, Spirit-filled songs they are missing.

And that is remarkable to me: we have disagreements over what "hymns and spiritual songs" means, but pretty much everybody agrees that "psalms" means the 150 psalms. Yet that's the "third" of the command that is most often neglected and the less clear "two-thirds" made supreme.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

So if my reply here is considered "off-topic", it is only because EP are not replying to my overall point but what came out from my posts as my obvious lack of knowledge of terminology (not the Bible but terms) to educate me and edify me.

Your reply is no problem with me!

I was about to post this just before Logan posted, so forgive any repitition.

We are all always learning with the aim to edify. I will say that the RPW is a biblical, guiding principle that we obviously must have and employ in order to find God's will. It is the necessity of finding a positive command from God for all of the elements of worship. Elements include preaching and singing, among obvious others. Then, there is the content of this preaching and singing. So the fact that in worship preaching and singing are commanded is obvious... first shelf stuff, if you will. But obviously, the content of our preaching and teaching is vital. So the RPW regulates the content of the elements of worship. The content of singing boils down to inspired and uninspired. Basically, in accord with the regulative principle, we look for God's positive command to sing inspired song, and we look for God's positive command to sing uninspired song, in our set times of public, family, and private worship. We don't look for where he forbids uninspired song. .. we need his positive command to to sing such.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

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).

Sorry for the late reply. But it addresses Logan's later post too.
Since the content of the "hymn" is not identified, we can only presume they sang a psalm, not prove it was a psalm. Was it likely they sang a Psalm? Sure. But even if it were true, there's still no command to sing Psalms exclusively.

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.

Again, you are assuming the point that needs to proven. While it might be unthinkable to someone who already holds to EP that Christ would sing anything else, the text itself doesn't say that. In the scenes of heaven in Isaiah and Revelation, they are not singing Psalms. And why wouldn't Christ sing the Doxology? Or the Gloria Patri? Aren't those praises just as biblically true as a Psalm? If they accurately teach and admonish the inspired Word, what possible objection would Jesus have to singing them? In Reformed theology, we understand the preaching of the Word to be “the Word” when preached accurately. Why would the same principle not be true in singing an exposition of the Word? What evidence is there that Paul meant something different when referring to “teaching and admonition” through preaching vs. singing?

The Septuagint, in the headings, labels a good number of the Psalms hymns.

The headings in the LXX still don't prove EP. For the sake of argument, let's grant that Paul is saying to teach and admonish through the instrument of songs. What other vocabulary words would he use to describe these other songs other the words "psalms", "hymns." or "spiritual songs"? The EP argument is again assuming what needs to be proven. Paul himself did not restrict these terms to the Book of Psalms. Again, Paul knew how to say "Book of Psalms" or "The Psalms". That vocabulary was standard usage in the apostle's day as evidenced throughout the NT. Paul quoted from "the Psalms" often when quoting Scripture. But he didn't use it in the specific context of instructing Gentiles how or what to sing, Gentiles who came from a background of pagan hymnody. That consideration needs to be given due weight.

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.

This is a key misinterpretation used in the EP argument. "Spiritual" does not mean "inspired". "Inspired" is a different Greek word. In context, in both Colossians and Ephesians, Paul is contrasting life in Christ vs. the earthly or fleshly life outside of Christ. These songs that expound "the word of Christ" are characteristic of our new spiritual life in Christ, and constantly drill that "Word of Christ" deeper into our hearts. Songs that praise Christ are "spiritual" because they teach and admonish the Word to God's people, and don't teach something else. They reinforce our life in the Spirit. There is no command anywhere to sing only "inspired songs". That is a category mistake, (just like the earlier misuse in this thread of the doctrine of "sufficiency"), applying the doctrine of inspiration in a way the Bible itself does not do.

Again, there is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul is commanding only the Book of Psalms to be used. The grammar of the passage indicates he is commanding the use of songs as a method of "teaching and admonishing" the word of Christ with "wisdom", the exact same vocabulary used to describe the act of preaching Christ earlier. Will the Psalms do that? Sure. But Paul did not limit teaching possibilities to the Book of Psalms only, nor did anyone else in the NT. Further, when Paul uses that term "the word" in both Colossians and Ephesians, he used it in reference to the fuller revelation of Christ made in the NT (Col. 1;5, 1:25, 4:3, Eph 1;13, 5:26). He had a bigger source of revelation in mind than just the book of Psalms or even the OT. There's no indication in the text anywhere that he has somehow narrowed down his concept of "the word" to "the Book of Psalms" when it comes to singing. Obviously they did sing Psalms a lot because it was already available, but there is no restriction given on what it means to teach with songs in the NT other than that they wisely teach the Word.

I love singing the Psalms, and lead my own congregation to do so every Sunday. But we can't make the Bible say what it doesn't say. It doesn't say "Book of Psalms only", but "teach and admonish" with songs, songs that teach the fuller revelation of "the word" to our people. To limit that singing only to the book of Psalms unnecessarily limits your ability to teach the Word because it restricts from our praise the more explicit vocabulary and concepts revealed later in the NT about our God and our salvation. Paul did not make such limitations in preaching, and there's no indication he did so with singing either.

And just to clarify for the rest of those on this thread, denying EP does not mean you are advocating for the use normative principle of worship. We are arguing that the regulative principle requires singing songs that teach the Word and help it dwell in us richly, not singing the Book of Psalms only. The difference is not over the regulative principle of worship, but about what it actually commands. There is no explicit command for exclusive psalmody, and I do not see how we can arrive at it by good and necessary consequence in the text of the NT. That's why I gave up the EP position years ago, after vigorously arguing for it (as my early posts on the Board will show). Once I better understood both Greek and the regulative principle of worship, I couldn't in good conscience bind my congregation to exclusive psalmody. There's just no command for it and God's people lose the use of beautiful songs that rightly expound the word of truth if we follow EP.

Another two cents...

 

[Logan]

The headings in the LXX still don't prove EP. For the sake of argument, let's grant that Paul is saying to teach and admonish through the instrument of songs. What other vocabulary words would he use to describe these other songs other the words "psalms", "hymns." or "spiritual songs"? The EP argument is again assuming what needs to be proven. Paul himself did not restrict these terms to the Book of Psalms. Again, Paul knew how to say "Book of Psalms" or "The Psalms". That vocabulary was standard usage in the apostle's day as evidenced throughout the NT. Paul quoted from "the Psalms" often when quoting Scripture. But he didn't use it in the specific context of instructing Gentiles how or what to sing, Gentiles who came from a background of pagan hymnody. That consideration needs to be given due weight.

No, they don't prove EP, but they are the primary indication we have of what the original audience would have understood by those terms. Otherwise you make them mean whatever you want.

I can't speculate on how else Paul would have written if he truly didn't mean the 150 psalms. But to turn that argument around, why didn't Paul say "speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual, of your own composition" if that's what he truly meant? He could have said that if that's what he meant, right? So we can go down the speculation on what "should have been written" trail. Fact is, we don't have what should have been written, we have what was written.

It seems to me that the argument that those terms could mean things other than the book of psalms, still doesn't deal with the lack of an explicit command to compose your own songs. I'm not seeing that the assumption of such necessarily follows from those passages unless you first assume you need songs for worship other than the psalms and by consequence, you must be authorized to compose them.

So limiting myself to the text and what the original audience knew, I'm seeing a command to sing something, and that something appears to be known to the audience, and they knew of the 150 psalms by those titles. Thus, while the LXX doesn't prove EP, it does help to interpret what those terms would have meant to the audience. That's the reason for bringing it up.

 

[iainduguid]

No, they don't prove EP, but they are the primary indication we have of what the original audience would have understood by those terms. Otherwise you make them mean whatever you want.

I can't speculate on how else Paul would have written if he truly didn't mean the 150 psalms. But to turn that argument around, why didn't Paul say "speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual, of your own composition" if that's what he truly meant? He could have said that if that's what he meant, right? So we can go down the speculation on what "should have been written" trail. Fact is, we don't have what should have been written, we have what was written.

It seems to me that the argument that those terms could mean things other than the book of psalms, still doesn't deal with the lack of an explicit command to compose your own songs. I'm not seeing that the assumption of such necessarily follows from those passages unless you first assume you need songs for worship other than the psalms and by consequence, you must be authorized to compose them.

So limiting myself to the text and what the original audience knew, I'm seeing a command to sing something, and that something appears to be known to the audience, and they knew of the 150 psalms by those titles. Thus, while the LXX doesn't prove EP, it does help to interpret what those terms would have meant to the audience. That's the reason for bringing it up

On the IP view, he did, in 1 Cor 14:26: What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. (1 Cor. 14:26 ESV). These are a list of things that the Corinthians are contributing to the worship service: in what sense could they "have a psalm"?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

No, they don't prove EP, but they are the primary indication we have of what the original audience would have understood by those terms. Otherwise you make them mean whatever you want.

The original audience was predominantly converted pagans, not Jews. How would they have understood the use of those terms given the broader cultural use of that language? And wouldn't Paul's instruction to limit the purpose (teaching) and the content (the Word) of their songs have provided the necessary instruction they needed to modify their old pagan concepts of hymnody? Why not cut through the confusion by just saying "Book of Psalms"? Perhaps, because he was not commanding it's exclusive use?

I don't know how else Paul would have written if he truly didn't mean the 150 psalms. But to turn that argument around, why didn't Paul say "speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual, of your own composition"? It seems to me that the argument that those terms could mean things other than the book of psalms, still doesn't deal with the lack of an explicit command to compose your own songs. I'm not seeing that the assumption of such necessarily follows from those passages.

What does it mean to "teach and admonish" if not to "compose"? How can you teach any text or concept without using additional words to explain it? The necessity of "composing" is assumed under the definition of teaching, just as it is an any other context in which that term "teaching" is used in the NT.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

On the IP view, he did, in 1 Cor 14:26: What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. (1 Cor. 14:26 ESV). These are a list of things that the Corinthians are contributing to the worship service: in what sense could they "have a psalm"?

Rev. Duguid, I'm sure you know that the KJV has "psalm" there rather than "hymn", and that the Greek is "psalmos." What do you make of what Paul says there, that one has a psalm?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

What does it mean to "teach and admonish" if not to "compose"? How can you teach any text or concept without using additional words to explain it? The necessity of "composing" is assumed under the definition of teaching, just as it is an any other context in which that term "teaching" is used in the NT.

Sorry, I know this was in response to Logan, but had to jump in (where I shouldn't likley) to say they taught and admonished one another with the whole OT... your premise in your third sentence is one I've never heard before. Doesn't your thinking seem dispensational to you?