I didn’t miss your point, I was simply making mine. And no, I don’t view uninspired hymns the same way, because I understand the Lord to be commanding to sing scriptural truth, which is a broader category. That’s why I can say both that EP is not wrong and that never singing psalms is wrong.
Question for exclusive psalmody opponents
- Thread starter Sam Jer
- Start date
Interesting. Why is the qualifier "spiritual" only put of songs, and not on hymns, by this reasoning? Did Hymnos specifically speak of religious songs sung to the one true God?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
That is debated quite a lot in the IP camp. I am not convinced that the three terms have no overlap in meaning. I think it more likely that Paul simply meant to cover all the bases. Whatever they sang, it should be geared towards inculcating a rich indwelling of the word of Christ. It is all qualified by the term "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly." EP'ers will say this means IWO. IP'ers say the term "richly" implies "expounded" in various ways. The phrase itself, of course, does not inherently mean "inspired words only." It does imply that the concepts in what Paul is saying must be biblical. It seems unlikely that "spiritual" means "inspired in a technical sense" as some claim. Why would it only be attached to the last word in the sequence, then? Even if it does mean that, it cannot be proven that it applies to all three terms (as Brian Schwertley claims). If it only applies to the third term and means "inspired," then plainly the other two terms are not limited to what is inspired. My own opinion is that psalmos refers mostly to the Psalter (and includes all of the Psalter), hymnos refers to man-made compositions that are biblical, and odais pneumatikais refers either to songs about the spiritual God, or, possibly, inspired compositions outside the Psalter.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I was not going of the spiritual = inspired idea. I was actually assuming it is not the case, since I am trying to understand the non-EP position. I assume hymns about farm animals (without reference to God) are not allowed, right? So why are the "songs" specifically said to be spiritual, and the hymns not?
I appreciate your first paragraph, as it seems the only consistent position if one rejects ep.
On your second paragraph this is something you've brought up several times; but I disagree that it's some sort of shifty shifting
)) to argue from inspired praise only to exclusive psalmody. The reason being that it makes it easier for people to understand ep if they can first understand that the OT people of God sang only inspired praise in the assembly, and that therefore we must find a command in Scripture to do otherwise. If that command can't be found, then the question becomes what Scripture do we sing. I don't see it as shifting the argument at all. I see it as a valid help to people's thought process (it certainly was to mine).
Tim, it's not the melody that makes the difference. It's that the words are put into the people's mouths to confess corporately. This is different from prayer and preaching from the minister, where the people may listen and judge.
@Scottish Presbyterian I could not reply to you because your whole post is in a quote, but to answer your question, see this post.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I was under the impression that you believe that worship is worship whether private or corporate. Is this correct?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I agree that this topic has been hashed out almost weekly on PB for years. But I always appreciate that the question keeps arising. I believe you are genuinely working this out. In addition to the many excellent posts on both sides, I will add the following (you ask "Where in the scriptures" and I hope you see I am trying to appeal to the whole counsel of Scripture).
To being with a Biblical analogy on a similarly debated issue, my wife covers her head in worship because she fears God - maybe I Cor. 11 doesn't require it. But it might. Better safe than sorry when she considers that one day she will meet our Maker and His angels. I sing only Psalms in public and private worship because I fear God. Maybe Paul is introducing the singing of uninspired songs in Colossians and Ephesians. But maybe he’s not. Again, I would rather be safe singing something I know God approves of (His Word) than something I am not absolutely (exclusively?) sure He approves of. The fear of the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom. The fear of the Lord is also the beginning of worship, as the WCF reflects in introducing Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day (Ch.21): “1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.” Note that fear is listed before praise. Think of the many times in Scripture where a lack of fear before worship led to disaster (Cain, Nahab/Abihu, Saul, etc.). If you do not begin with the fear of God, your worship will not be unblemished. It is interesting that, by fearing God, I enter worship with no fear that my sacrifice of praise will not be acceptable.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
EPers, if one day you were convinced that Col 3:16 is not referring to Psalms only, would your view change? (Asking for the sake of narrowing down the issues)
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I must admit that I did not find that post very helpful then or now. I've never understood the "but Jesus isn't mentioned in the Psalms" argument from those who sing uninspired hymns that don't all mention Christ. Jesus is explicitly named in the Psalms.
Do you interpret verses such as Philippians 2:10 to read "at the name, Jesus" or "at the name of Jesus"? All throughout Acts, for example, when Divine power is called upon (healing, casting out demons) it is done "in the name of Jesus Christ..." There seems to be this idea that the name "Jesus" is some magical name, but it is just a common Hebrew name ("Yeshua" - see also the common use of it by our Spanish-speaking brethren). Consider Hebrews 4.8: "For if Yeshua had given them rest, then would he not after this have spoken of another day." The writer is referring to Joshua, not Jesus Christ, even though it could be translated/Anglicized "Jesus" (as some English translations do). Names matter. Consider the YHVH conundrum. I have no problem with someone naming their son Jesus anymore than I have an issue with them calling their child Joshua or Josiah. But I would have a problem with someone naming their son Christ or Messiah.
I suggest that "the name of Jesus" is not Jesus but Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One. There are many Jesuses in Scripture (Josiah, Joshua, Jesus - it's all the same name), but there is only one Messiah. Is the clamoring to have the name "Jesus" in the songs sung in worship really valid? Aren't we missing the many references to the Anointed One (Eng) /Messiah (Heb) /Christ (Gr) if we don't sing the Psalms?
I hear a lot of "Jesus" in the uninspired hymns and songs, but very little "Christ." When we sing the psalms, we should be thinking about Christ the whole time - why wouldn't we? (As an aside, I do wish our English Psalters used "Christ" or "Messiah" instead of "anointed" in their versification)
Yes
Yes, that’s my conviction.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
It would seem that, at least as far as private worship is concerned, that it is the melody that does make a difference. Am I wrong?
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Christ is by definition not a name, it is a title. That's why in the NT the phrase "the name of X" almost invariably includes Jesus, while frequently not mentioning Christ. It means "the anointed one", and in the psalms it sometimes refers specifically to the Davidic king and not to Christ, except in a secondary sense (e.g. Ps. 18:50; 105:15). Outside the psalter the title can be used even more broadly, for example of Cyrus (Is. 45:1). So no, mashiach is not the name of Jesus.
I think I may get what you’re saying but may be missing it. I would say that private worship is different from corporate or family worship only in that there is no “one another” factor. I believe that we’re commanded to sing only Psalms to God in private worship as well. We ourselves are putting words into our own mouths to bring to the Lord. Let me know if I missed your implication/what you’re getting at.
Supposed commands brought up so far (correct me if I missed one. I am purposefully skipping anti-EP arguments not directly answering the original question)
I. Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs
(The non-EP exegesis still is not convincing to me. I would not base a doctrine on the kind of exegesis that was suggested here without other passages teaching the same thing)
II. Sing to the Lord a new song
(This raises an interesting question on what the psalms say on worship. However, that raises questions on clapping hands and dancing in church)
III. It was allowed in the old testament and there is no suggestion that it is no longer allowed
(The EP crowd gave answers in a separate post I did on this, but I don't know if I agree)
I. Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs
(The non-EP exegesis still is not convincing to me. I would not base a doctrine on the kind of exegesis that was suggested here without other passages teaching the same thing)
II. Sing to the Lord a new song
(This raises an interesting question on what the psalms say on worship. However, that raises questions on clapping hands and dancing in church)
III. It was allowed in the old testament and there is no suggestion that it is no longer allowed
(The EP crowd gave answers in a separate post I did on this, but I don't know if I agree)
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
@Taylor , sorry, I'm having trouble with the quote function when using my phone (anyone else have this issue?) My understanding of the post you cited is that Lane is exegeting Colossians 3:16 to mean that uninspired songs are commanded. You have disclaimed that position, and believe that the command is to sing scriptural truth. How do you get from that scripture to your position, is my question, as your position is not the same as the one Lane is arguing.
This is the thread I am referring to:
Question for exclusive psalmody proponents
Edit: this is a related post https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-for-exclusive-psalmody-opponents.110609/ How would you, as EP proponents, understand different non-psalm songs in the bible? Under the old covenant, it seems you could write songs, just like you can pray uninspired...
Fair enough. I’ll give it some more thought.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you for interacting with my point. Let’s say that in private worship, you offer praise to God for what he is doing in your life. To be clear, that is praise, but not inspired praise. If you added a melody to that praise, you would then be sinning (if I understand you correctly). Since the same words are acceptable or sinful depending on the use of a melody when speaking the words, can we not say that the melody was the only difference between acceptable and unacceptable praise?
Oh thanks Tim. Yes, singing the words (what you’re referring to as the melody) makes a difference. We’re commanded to sing, and that singing has parameters and regulation. So my conscience would dictate that any singing directed to God in private worship would be a Psalm. Hopefully I’m understanding your point.
And I just realized this is the thread for EP opponents. Opponent and proponent look too much alike! (Sometimes in real life!)
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
It appears to be used as both in Scripture. When accompanied by the definitive article (often appearing in our English translations as "that" or "the") it appears to be a title. But it is not always used that way. For example, the Jewish leadership and others used it as His name - see passages such as Matthew 26:67-68: "Then spat they in his face, and buffeted him, and others smote him with rods, Saying, 'Prophesy to us, Christ, Who is he that smote thee?'" In the Greek there is no definite article before "Christ" here which occurs when it is being used as a title - "the Christ" - like in a previous verse in this passage, 63). This (using Christ as a name, not a title) occurs several more times in Matthew's gospel as well as the other gospels (for example, Pilate does not say "Jesus who is called the Christ" in Matt. 27 - Pilate twice says "Jesus who is called Christ."
But there are also many times where the opposite occurs - Christ (with and without the definite article) is frequently used without mentioning the name Jesus.
I was surprised to see you say this. Although referring to a different term in Matthew 22, Christ clearly teaches that the primary sense of many of the Psalms was actually referring to Him: "While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?" They said unto him, "David’s." He said unto them, "How then doth David [in Psalm 110] in spirit, call him Lord, saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?' If then David call him Lord, how is he his son?" And none could answer him a word, neither durst any from that day forth ask him any more questions." (Matthew 22.41-46). Note what Christ said - David was speaking/writing "in spirit." How much of the primary meaning of the Psalms was missed by unbelief or not having the Spirit in the same fulness that we do? Isn't this what Christ was promising in John 14.17: "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him: for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."? Do you also think Psalm 2.2 is referring to Jesus Christ in a secondary sense? Considering vv. 7 and 12 that follow, I think it is clear the Divine Messiah is clearly being referred to specifically.
Agreed. Just as the name Jesus/Joshua/Josiah are broadly used.
Again, I just don't understand how anyone can sing the Psalms without thinking about Jesus Christ the whole time.
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
My position was addressed in my previous post and demonstrates perhaps where we differ on the interpretation on the RPW.. There is no express rigid command to dance but David showed it to be a commendable thing in the sight of God if one desires to with a sincere and joyful heart. So in this I believe we have freedom.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
So, as I said before, when you sing Psalm 72, you are thinking in your heart "Jesus shall reign where'er the sun doth his successive journeys run..." So how is singing out loud what you are thinking in your heart wrong?
I hope our women are thinking quite a lot during the sermon; it is forbidden for them to speak their thoughts out loud.
Should I take the lack of response to this as meaning that these are the only supposed commands to sing uninspired hymns?
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
That's not how the RPW works.