Question for exclusive psalmody opponents

[greenbaggins]

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?

No one has a knock-out rock-solid explanation as to why "spiritual" is attached to "songs" and not to "hymns." But my best guess is that it narrows the topic to the spiritual God, as I wrote in the last part of one of my previous posts. That is not all the Christian should sing about. Hence the category of "hymns." A "hymn" about farm animals that doesn't tie them to creation and therefore to God would not be biblical in content, so no, they would not be allowed. However, there are subjects such as the church, creation (as created by God), and the Word of God itself that Christians should sing about that would not be covered in the phrase "spiritual songs."

Should I take the lack of response to this as meaning that these are the only supposed commands to sing uninspired hymns?

Be very wary of taking silence to mean something here on the PB. You don't know what it means, and it is not wise to assume. You could only assume that if you had researched all the previous threads on the topic and found that there weren't any other arguments.

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).

EP is not the same position as IWO. Is it a sin to sing the Song of Moses in today's church services or not? When you shift from EP to IWO, you shift position on that very question. I think most EP'ers want to stop short of saying that it is sinful to sing a song inspired by God in corporate worship. And yet, that is the position of strict EP. Just to be clear: it was fine for the OT people of God to sing it, and it is fine for the heavenly people of God to sing it (Revelation 15:3), but it is a terrible sin for the NT people of God to sing it, despite zero evidence in the Bible that the situation on that song has drastically changed only for one period of history. On the EP position, it is a sin to sing the Song of Moses. On the IWO, it is not. These positions are therefore contradictory, at least on this point. They do not mutually support each other. As for the command to sing uninspired songs, Colossians 3:16 and its parallel provides just such a command. I have given my reasons for why that passage is not talking about psalms, psalms, and psalms. The only other option is Bushell's argument, which is that the passage is irrelevant to public worship, a position that is hardly convincing, as Paul is writing to a church and telling them what to sing.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

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?

If we apply that to the element of reading Scripture I think we'd have to say that there are many similarities where we wouldn't read what we're thinking instead of reading the text. But if the word's we singing are about "the Lord" then it doesn't get more explicit than that.

Portions of certain extraordinary inspired songs were put into the Psalter by the Holy Spirit, indicating that those were to be sung by the church in successive generations, but the fact that others were not shows that they weren't intended to be used perpetually.

 

[Sam Jer]

Be very wary of taking silence to mean something here on the PB. You don't know what it means, and it is not wise to assume. You could only assume that if you had researched all the previous threads on the topic and found that there weren't any other arguments.

Fair enough

 

[MChase]

EP is not the same position as IWO. Is it a sin to sing the Song of Moses in today's church services or not? When you shift from EP to IWO, you shift position on that very question. I think most EP'ers want to stop short of saying that it is sinful to sing a song inspired by God in corporate worship. And yet, that is the position of strict EP. Just to be clear: it was fine for the OT people of God to sing it, and it is fine for the heavenly people of God to sing it (Revelation 15:3), but it is a terrible sin for the NT people of God to sing it, despite zero evidence in the Bible that the situation on that song has drastically changed only for one period of history. On the EP position, it is a sin to sing the Song of Moses. On the IWO, it is not. These positions are therefore contradictory, at least on this point. They do not mutually support each other. As for the command to sing uninspired songs, Colossians 3:16 and its parallel provides just such a command. I have given my reasons for why that passage is not talking about psalms, psalms, and psalms. The only other option is Bushell's argument, which is that the passage is irrelevant to public worship, a position that is hardly convincing, as Paul is writing to a church and telling them what to sing.

This paragraph is entirely incoherent. You admit that most EP folk are guarded about making railing accusations about our inspired praise brethren, and then say that we claim it is a terrible sin to sing non-psalm inspired praise. Which is it Lane?

I will note the conclusion of the OPC minority report by Murray and Young.

5. We are therefore certain of divine sanction and approval in the singing of the Psalms.
6. We are not certain that other inspired songs were intended to be sung in the worship of God, even though the use of other inspired songs does not violate the fundamental principle on which Scripture authorization is explicit, namely, the use of inspired songs.
7. In view of uncertainty with respect to the use of other inspired songs, we should confine ourselves to the Book of Psalms.

We have gone back and forth on this before, but the last portion of your paragraph displays a continued misunderstanding of the Regulative Principle. The Exclusive part of EP is not because we believe that the bible explicitly restricts us, but because we have no clear command to sing something other than the psalms. If one takes for granted for the moment that singing is commanded, the possible positions are:

(1) Psalms
(2) Bible Songs
(3) Christian Songs

When someone rightly points out that singing the song of Moses does not prove (3), it is not a contradiction for the person to show that it at most proves (2) while still holding to (1). The most fundamental requirement is inspiration. (1) & (2) both hold that. They disagree on the particulars in practice, but the principle is the same. For something to be sung in corporate worship, it must be the word of Christ. The distance between (1) and (2) is millimeters compared to the miles between (2) and (3).

 

[greenbaggins]

This paragraph is entirely incoherent. You admit that most EP folk are guarded about making railing accusations about our inspired praise brethren, and then say that we claim it is a terrible sin to sing non-psalm inspired praise. Which is it Lane?

This is a misunderstanding of what I was saying. I am pointing to what I see as a tension, if not contradiction, in EP'ers. I have seen EP'ers flat out say that it is a sin to sing anything but Psalms in worship. But then, when faced with the Song of Moses, they tend to be much more guarded. I am pointing out that one cannot have it both ways. I am not contradicting myself at all. I am pointing out a contradiction in the EP position that is highlighted by a continual shifting of position from EP to IWO, which, as I have pointed out now, involves two completely different positions on the legality of singing the Song of Moses.

I will note the conclusion of the OPC minority report by Murray and Young.

5. We are therefore certain of divine sanction and approval in the singing of the Psalms.
6. We are not certain that other inspired songs were intended to be sung in the worship of God, even though the use of other inspired songs does not violate the fundamental principle on which Scripture authorization is explicit, namely, the use of inspired songs.
7. In view of uncertainty with respect to the use of other inspired songs, we should confine ourselves to the Book of Psalms.

This is not the way more recent EP'ers tend to talk. If they even mention the uncertainty, they chalk up acting on that uncertainty as a sin. As I have been trying to point out, if Colossians 3:16 and its parallel in Ephesians commands us to sing uninspired-but-biblical-in-content hymns, then the EP position is not the safe position all EP'ers think it is. It is forbidding what God has commanded.

We have gone back and forth on this before, but the last portion of your paragraph displays a continued misunderstanding of the Regulative Principle. The Exclusive part of EP is not because we believe that the bible explicitly restricts us, but because we have no clear command to sing something other than the psalms. If one takes for granted for the moment that singing is commanded, the possible positions are:

(1) Psalms
(2) Bible Songs
(3) Christian Songs

When someone rightly points out that singing the song of Moses does not prove (3), it is not a contradiction for the person to show that it at most proves (2) while still holding to (1). The most fundamental requirement is inspiration. (1) & (2) both hold that. They disagree on the particulars in practice, but the principle is the same. For something to be sung in corporate worship, it must be the word of Christ. The distance between (1) and (2) is millimeters compared to the miles between (2) and (3).

Your relative placement of 1, 2, and 3 reflects the same logical fallacy that all EP'ers commit: the word-concept fallacy. This is the way it usually runs: Christian hymns today are universally unbiblical in content because they are unbiblical in words. One has to have ipsissima verba in order to have biblical content. This is fallacious. And this fallacy is also why so many IP'ers point to the translation issue as proving our point. A translation is using other words than the original (indeed, a whole 'nother language!) to seek to communicate the same content. If the Bible can be translated into other words while retaining the same meaning, then so can hymns. They can have the same content while not having the ipsissima verba. If you say this is impossible, then you are committing the word-concept fallacy (which claims that words and ideas are the same thing).

Furthermore, you seem to be confusing "misunderstanding" with "disagreeing." I do not misunderstand the RP at all. That is why I firmly believe that we must have a command to sing uninspired hymns, and we have it in Colossians 3:16. I also completely understand the EP position on the point you indicate. We disagree on whether Colossians 3:16 constitutes a clear command to sing uninspired hymns. So, no misunderstanding of the RP here whatsoever on my part.

 

[Northern Crofter]

It is forbidding what God has commanded.

I have always found this conclusion of yours novel (that we are commanded to sing extra-Biblical/non-inspired songs in worship). Are there any writings you can point me to from our puritan and reformed forefathers who agree with your approach and/or interpretation of Paul's writings?

 

[MChase]

This is a misunderstanding of what I was saying. I am pointing to what I see as a tension, if not contradiction, in EP'ers. I have seen EP'ers flat out say that it is a sin to sing anything but Psalms in worship. But then, when faced with the Song of Moses, they tend to be much more guarded. I am pointing out that one cannot have it both ways. I am not contradicting myself at all. I am pointing out a contradiction in the EP position that is highlighted by a continual shifting of position from EP to IWO, which, as I have pointed out now, involves two completely different positions on the legality of singing the Song of Moses.

This is not the way more recent EP'ers tend to talk. If they even mention the uncertainty, they chalk up acting on that uncertainty as a sin. As I have been trying to point out, if Colossians 3:16 and its parallel in Ephesians commands us to sing uninspired-but-biblical-in-content hymns, then the EP position is not the safe position all EP'ers think it is. It is forbidding what God has commanded.


Your relative placement of 1, 2, and 3 reflects the same logical fallacy that all EP'ers commit: the word-concept fallacy. This is the way it usually runs: Christian hymns today are universally unbiblical in content because they are unbiblical in words. One has to have ipsissima verba in order to have biblical content. This is fallacious. And this fallacy is also why so many IP'ers point to the translation issue as proving our point. A translation is using other words than the original (indeed, a whole 'nother language!) to seek to communicate the same content. If the Bible can be translated into other words while retaining the same meaning, then so can hymns. They can have the same content while not having the ipsissima verba. If you say this is impossible, then you are committing the word-concept fallacy (which claims that words and ideas are the same thing).

Furthermore, you seem to be confusing "misunderstanding" with "disagreeing." I do not misunderstand the RP at all. That is why I firmly believe that we must have a command to sing uninspired hymns, and we have it in Colossians 3:16. I also completely understand the EP position on the point you indicate. We disagree on whether Colossians 3:16 constitutes a clear command to sing uninspired hymns. So, no misunderstanding of the RP here whatsoever on my part.

There is a lot here, but I think the most important one is the ipsissima verba one. This is a common one and overthrows the entire foundation of our faith. The logical consequence of this is that one can read Calvin’s institutes in worship instead of Romans.

I shall try to respond to the rest later. I still have no reason to believe you understand the RPW. Your comment about uncertainty proves that.

 

[Sam Jer]

The more I dig in, the more I think the EP position is probably right.
EP'ers, thank you for your patience. I think you won a "convert", if such language can be employed on this issue.
The rest of you - I am still waiting for the command to sing non-psalms. I find the three suggestions brought up here so far unconvincing.

 

[greenbaggins]

There is a lot here, but I think the most important one is the ipsissima verba one. This is a common one and overthrows the entire foundation of our faith. The logical consequence of this is that one can read Calvin’s institutes in worship instead of Romans.

This is a pretty outlandish misrepresentation of my position. To accuse a minister of overthrowing the entire foundation of our faith is rather unbelievably exaggerated. Scripture is always at the heart of worship. To say that it can be so "richly" as sermons do, and as prayer does, and as psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs do is hardly overthrowing the entire foundation of our faith, if many of those things, while based on ipsissima verba, do not have to stop there. You should phrase yourself more cautiously here, I am thinking.

I shall try to respond to the rest later. I still have no reason to believe you understand the RPW. Your comment about uncertainty proves that.

I am trying to point out that EP'ers tend to say that if you're not EP, then you don't understand the RPW. People can understand the RPW and not be EP.

 

[greenbaggins]

The more I dig in, the more I think the EP position is probably right.
EP'ers, thank you for your patience. I think you won a "convert", if such language can be employed on this issue.
The rest of you - I am still waiting for the command to sing non-psalms. I find the three suggestions brought up here so far unconvincing.

This is disappointing, as you have offered no exegesis whatsoever of Colossians 3:16 and its parallel. Beware of becoming EP in this sense: when people "convert" to it, they often wind up elevating EP into one of the most important Christian doctrines. They are often more interested in converting others to EP than they are in preaching Christ and Him crucified. I have seen this first-hand. Perspective on what is more important and what is less important becomes warped.

 

[timfost]

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).

Do you base the argument that singing praise only occurred under inspiration in the fact that all the praise in scripture is inspired? Or can you make a biblical argument outside of noting that since it’s in the Bible it’s inspired? I ask because all the sermons, prayers and spoken praises in the Bible are also inspired and yet you believe that man made prayers, sermons and spoken praises are acceptable in worship.

 

[Sam Jer]

This is disappointing, as you have offered no exegesis whatsoever of Colossians 3:16 and its parallel.

Other's have discussed it, if I recall correctly in one of the two threads here. I don't see the warrant for interpreting hymns and spiritual songs as more then psalms. They definitely can't be any less then psalms as both are used in the LXX to describe them.

Beware of becoming EP in this sense: when people "convert" to it, they often wind up elevating EP into one of the most important Christian doctrines. They are often more interested in converting others to EP than they are in preaching Christ and Him crucified. I have seen this first-hand. Perspective on what is more important and what is less important becomes warped.

I will try to avoid doing that. My church does worse things anyway (there are no reformed churches in my area)

 

[greenbaggins]

Andrew, the article by Nick Needham in volume two of The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century has a good many excellent quotations that are well defended. And since Matthew Winzer's article inevitably gets brought in as a refutation, I will add that I do not find Winzer's arguments convincing. For one thing, he proves too much. If the WCF had a specific Psalm-book in mind, then all previous Psalm-books would be forbidden, even Geneva's. No future Psalm-books would be allowed. Winzer doesn't actually directly address Needham's quotations, either. So I find Needham much more convincing than Winzer, especially after I read many of the original sources for myself and found Needham's position far more convincing than Winzer's.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The more I dig in, the more I think the EP position is probably right.
EP'ers, thank you for your patience. I think you won a "convert", if such language can be employed on this issue.
The rest of you - I am still waiting for the command to sing non-psalms. I find the three suggestions brought up here so far unconvincing.

I'm one of those who have already responded to this subject many times and don't wish to get wrapped up in another thread, but i will give you my reasons.

The simple reason to oppose EP is that there is no command to sing only the Psalter. This is what caused me to leave behind the EP position. The RPW requires an explicit command to make something an element of worship. We have a clear command to sing. We do not have a clear command to sing "the Book of Psalms".

Paul knew how to say "the Book of Psalms" (Lk 20:42, Acts 1:20) and chose not to use it. It was in the conventional usage of his day. And whatever little was written about NT singing, it never commands the "Book of Psalms". Instead, we are commanded to "teach and admonish with wisdom" the Word of Christ with songs, the same words used for preaching (Col 1:28), and that if anyone has a hymn he should use it for edification (1 Cor 14:26). In short, we are commanded to use songs to teach the Word and edify. That is the command to write new songs.

The EP argument that God required "inspired songs" is based upon a misunderstanding of "spiritual songs". Spiritual does not mean inspired. Spiritual is used many times to refer to "spiritual matters" or to our spiritual life in Christ compared to the earthly or worldly existence of those outside of Christ, a theme Paul dealt with both in Col 3 and Eph 5 prior to the commands about songs. We are singing about spiritual truths in contrast to earthly things.

Furthermore, using the categories of "man-made songs" vs. "inspired songs" is not a category used within the Bible itself. Those are man-made categories being imposed on the text. "Inspiration" refers to process in which Scripture was written down by the prophets. It's not used in discussing what songs to sing.

Why command to teach with songs? Because with the coming of Christ, greater revelation of the mysteries of the gospel were revealed and needed to be taught to the Church, through preaching and song. The book of Psalms as part of the Old Covenant scriptures were sufficient for worship under the old covenant, but did not adequately reveal or explain those later mysteries which are now crucial for us to know and believe, which is why we have a New Testament along with pastors/teachers to further explain them.

Further, if EP were commanded, then why doesn't Paul make such an important element of worship clear when writing to Gentile audiences, when all it took was using the standard title "Book of Psalms" instead of the more cryptic "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs"? He (or any other apostle) only had to use it one time in reference to singing, and it would have been clear. When viewed within the broader context of Paul's emphasis on teaching the Word in Colossians, Ephesians, and even 1 Corinthians, we can see that songs are commanded as a means of teaching the fuller revelation of Christ to the Church.

The early church obviously sang Psalms, and I believe we should sing them too. But we are not commanded to sing them exclusively. We are commanded to teach the Word with more songs. Just as preaching and teaching requires exposition of the the Word, so does the use of songs.

There are many more complex arguments dealing with the composition of the book of Psalms and what place they held in OT worship, which Ian Duguid has answered before in other threads. So I won't rehash them here.

But there's my two cents.

 

[Sam Jer]

Paul knew how to say "the Book of Psalms" (Lk 20:42, Acts 1:20) and chose not to use it. It was in the conventional usage of his day. And whatever little was written about NT singing, it never commands the "Book of Psalms". Instead, we are commanded to "teach and admonish with wisdom" the Word of Christ with songs, the same words used for preaching (Col 1:28), and that if anyone has a hymn he should use it for edification (1 Cor 14:26). In short, we are commanded to use songs to teach the Word and edify. That is the command to write new songs.

But there's my two cents.

Ok, so this is an interesting argument I didn't see before. I am still open to changing my opinion, but considering the Greek for hymn in this verse is ψαλμὸν (psalm), couldn't it be he is referring to the selection of psalms to sing?

 

[greenbaggins]

Ok, so this is an interesting argument I didn't see before. I am still open to changing my opinion, but considering the Greek for hymn in this verse is ψαλμὸν (psalm), couldn't it be he is referring to the selection of psalms to sing?

The word "psalmon" is not restricted to the psalms in the OT LXX. That is the main problem with EP strictly considered. The Puritans understood this, which is why they tend to use the word in a broader sense than only the canonical Psalter. In fact, as I mentioned before, if one is going to live by the LXX, one is going to die by the LXX: the word "psalmon" is even attached to Psalm 151 LXX, the prayer of Manasseh, an uninspired composition.

 

[timfost]

The EP argument that God required "inspired songs" is based upon a misunderstanding of "spiritual songs". Spiritual does not mean inspired. Spiritual is used many times to refer to "spiritual matters" or to our spiritual life in Christ compared to the earthly or worldly existence of those outside of Christ, a theme Paul dealt with both in Col 3 and Eph 5 prior to the commands about songs. We are singing about spiritual truths in contrast to earthly things.

Thank you for your post, I really appreciated it. I just want to add to the excellent point you made about "spiritual songs." In the Greek, both psalms and hymns are both masculine nouns. Songs or odes is a feminine noun. The coupling of the feminine spiritual with songs seems like a good indicator that "spiritual" is in fact modifying "songs," not psalms and hymns. Furthermore, both "psalms" and "hymns" are nearly always religious in nature, while "songs" is a broader category that could include non-religious music. Adding the qualifier "spiritual" was necessary so that we don't take license to sing any sort of non-religious song in worship, but only ones that are indeed spiritual.

 

[greenbaggins]

Thank you for your post, I really appreciated it. I just want to add to the excellent point you made about "spiritual songs." In the Greek, both psalms and hymns are both masculine nouns. Songs or odes is a feminine noun. The coupling of the feminine spiritual with songs seems like a good indicator that "spiritual" is in fact modifying "songs," not psalms and hymns. Furthermore, both "psalms" and "hymns" are nearly always religious in nature, while "songs" is a broader category that could include non-religious music. Adding the qualifier "spiritual" was necessary so that we don't take license to sing any sort of non-religious song in worship, but only ones that are indeed spiritual.

I like your explanation better than mine. It is much simpler and much more plausible. It also is an excellent refutation of Schwertley's position.

 

[Charles Johnson]

The word "psalmon" is not restricted to the psalms in the OT LXX. That is the main problem with EP strictly considered. The Puritans understood this, which is why they tend to use the word in a broader sense than only the canonical Psalter. In fact, as I mentioned before, if one is going to live by the LXX, one is going to die by the LXX: the word "psalmon" is even attached to Psalm 151 LXX, the prayer of Manasseh, an uninspired composition.

The simple response to these objections is that whoever included Ps. 151 and the prayer of Manasseh in the LXX mistakenly thought they were inspired. The LXX is also commonly described as "scripture," but I don't think anyone would use that to claim "Scripture" doesn't refer to inspired books. We would just say the attribution is incorrect.
I don't think the use of the term "psalm" to refer to uninspired songs was particularly common among the Puritans. I did a search recently for "psalms" and "psalter" among books published 1550-1700, and every result I got was an actual psalter with metrifications of the 150 psalms.

 

[greenbaggins]

The simple response to these objections is that whoever included Ps. 151 and the prayer of Manasseh in the LXX mistakenly thought they were inspired. The LXX is also commonly described as "scripture," but I don't think anyone would use that to claim "Scripture" doesn't refer to inspired books. We would just say the attribution is incorrect.

This is speculation, though. You don't necessarily know that this was why Psalm 151 was included in the LXX. In the NT times, it was common to include uninspired compositions on the same scroll as inspired works. That didn't necessarily mean they thought the uninspired compositions were inspired.

I don't think the use of the term "psalm" to refer to uninspired songs was particularly common among the Puritans. I did a search recently for "psalms" and "psalter" among books published 1550-1700, and every result I got was an actual psalter with metrifications of the 150 psalms.

Then your search engine isn't giving you every instance. I've read many of the major Puritan works on the subject, and I've seen it quite a few times, the usage I am referring to. Then there is the Needham article, as well.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Andrew, the article by Nick Needham in volume two of The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century has a good many excellent quotations that are well defended. And since Matthew Winzer's article inevitably gets brought in as a refutation, I will add that I do not find Winzer's arguments convincing. For one thing, he proves too much. If the WCF had a specific Psalm-book in mind, then all previous Psalm-books would be forbidden, even Geneva's. No future Psalm-books would be allowed. Winzer doesn't actually directly address Needham's quotations, either. So I find Needham much more convincing than Winzer, especially after I read many of the original sources for myself and found Needham's position far more convincing than Winzer's.

Thank you - I will check that out.

Beware of becoming EP in this sense: when people "convert" to it, they often wind up elevating EP into one of the most important Christian doctrines. They are often more interested in converting others to EP than they are in preaching Christ and Him crucified. I have seen this first-hand. Perspective on what is more important and what is less important becomes warped.

I have to say, I find this to be "a pretty outlandish misrepresentation."

 

[Taylor]

I have to say, I find this to be "a pretty outlandish misrepresentation."

It may not characterize anyone here, but EP cage stage certainly exists. I have also experienced it firsthand—very recently, actually. It was not pleasant, as it utterly dominated the conversation, and I felt like I was being interrogated, and I couldn't really enjoy my lunch because of it.

 

[RemovedbyRequest]

Paul knew how to say "the Book of Psalms" (Lk 20:42, Acts 1:20) and chose not to use it. It was in the conventional usage of his day. And whatever little was written about NT singing, it never commands the "Book of Psalms". Instead, we are commanded to "teach and admonish with wisdom" the Word of Christ with songs, the same words used for preaching (Col 1:28), and that if anyone has a hymn he should use it for edification (1 Cor 14:26). In short, we are commanded to use songs to teach the Word and edify. That is the command to write new songs.

Could you also add that, since Paul says that their 'psalms' or 'hymns' (in 1 cor 14:26) must be "done for edification" then he must be referring to non-psalter songs? All scripture is edifying is it not? The fact that Paul says that the use of their particular psalm/hymn is only allowed if it is edifying sounds like he's referring not to scripture but to new songs (that the laypeople brought to church) that need to be tested to see if they are edifying or not.

Why command to teach with songs? Because with the coming of Christ, greater revelation of the mysteries of the gospel were revealed and needed to be taught to the Church, through preaching and song. The book of Psalms as part of the Old Covenant scriptures were sufficient for worship under the old covenant, but did not adequately reveal or explain those later mysteries which are now crucial for us to know and believe, which is why we have a New Testament along with pastors/teachers to further explain them.

What if someone said that this is a command to teach same 150 psalms but now through the lens of the fuller new testament teaching? Teaching the fuller new testament faith but still using the same psalms to do it?

 

[greenbaggins]

I have to say, I find this to be "a pretty outlandish misrepresentation."

I am referring to first-hand experience of my own by more than a few EP'ers. Of course it does not represent all of them. But a misrepresentation it most certainly is not.

 

[Charles Johnson]

This is disappointing, as you have offered no exegesis whatsoever of Colossians 3:16 and its parallel. Beware of becoming EP in this sense: when people "convert" to it, they often wind up elevating EP into one of the most important Christian doctrines. They are often more interested in converting others to EP than they are in preaching Christ and Him crucified. I have seen this first-hand. Perspective on what is more important and what is less important becomes warped.

While I don't deny this happens, I see the same sort of behavior from the Vos fan boys, and the Van Til fanboys, and the Rushdoony fanboys, and just about every other minority position with a small but dedicated following. It's not even limited to Reformed circles, because traditional Catholics who attend Latin masses, and converts to eastern orthodoxy, exhibit the same kind of behavior. Ideological converts too, like communists, anarchists, and racial activists.

 

[greenbaggins]

While I don't deny this happens, I see the same sort of behavior from the Vos fan boys, and the Van Til fanboys, and the Rushdoony fanboys, and just about every other minority position with a small but dedicated following. It's not even limited to Reformed circles, because traditional Catholics who attend Latin masses, and converts to eastern orthodoxy, exhibit the same kind of behavior. Ideological converts too, like communists, anarchists, and racial activists.

This is definitely true. No doubt there is always a temptation to take Christ out of the central place He must inhabit in our lives, regardless of whether the position embraced is minority or majority. It is always easier to see it in positions one opposes, also.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Then your search engine isn't giving you every instance. I've read many of the major Puritan works on the subject, and I've seen it quite a few times, the usage I am referring to. Then there is the Needham article, as well.

I just checked the OED, and, in the edition I checked, the use for the "psalms of David" was marked as the predominant use, and the only reference for the puritan era where a non-psalm was referenced as a psalm was in Milton. Most examples were pre-reformation. So I don't deny that such cases exist, but I think the vast majority of puritans took the term "psalm", without any qualification, to refer to the 150 psalms.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Could you also add that, since Paul says that their 'psalms' or 'hymns' (in 1 cor 14:26) must be "done for edification" then he must be referring to non-psalter songs? All scripture is edifying is it not? The fact that Paul says that the use of their particular psalm/hymn is only allowed if it is edifying sounds like he's referring not to scripture but to new songs (that the laypeople brought to church) that need to be tested to see if they are edifying or not.

Paul does not specify one way or the other. So, I think it could include both OT Psalms and newer songs. The reason he told them to be "edifying" was because some in the church there were abusing their gifts for self-promotion rather than seeking to edify the church. The command for bring songs fits within that exhortation, and to me would imply at least some new content, just as the different forms of teaching mentioned there would as well. My point above is that there is no command or context in the text itself to restrict songs to the Book of Psalms.

What if someone said that this is a command to teach same 150 psalms but now through the lens of the fuller new testament teaching? Teaching the fuller new testament faith but still using the same psalms to do it?

That is the EP "default" argument. The problem is that there is no such command given in Scripture. If Paul had said something like "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching one another with the Book of Psalms in light of the new mysteries that have been revealed" then you could make that argument. But he gave no such command.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Ok, so this is an interesting argument I didn't see before. I am still open to changing my opinion, but considering the Greek for hymn in this verse is ψαλμὸν (psalm), couldn't it be he is referring to the selection of psalms to sing?

Lane answered sufficiently about the range of meaning. I think the word could certainly include the Psalms, but there is nothing in the context or anywhere else in the NT to indicate that only the Book of Psalms was in mind. In the context of 1 Cor 14, "psalmon" is included within the discussion of newer teaching or revelations used for the edification of the church. They serve the same function there as mentioned in Col. and Eph, to teach. With all the concern to do things "decently and in good order" in that chapter, Paul could have set things in order forever by specifying "the Book of Psalms".

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Lane answered sufficiently about the range of meaning. I think the word could certainly include the Psalms, but there is nothing in the context or anywhere else in the NT to indicate that only the Book of Psalms was in mind. In the context of 1 Cor 14, "psalmon" is included within the discussion of newer teaching or revelations used for the edification of the church. They serve the same function there as mentioned in Col. and Eph, to teach. With all the concern to do things "decently and in good order" in that chapter, Paul could have set things in order forever by specifying "the Book of Psalms".

Re: Paul not being more specific: I notice in Scripture there are many doctrinal things that require earnest seeking, prayer, and searching out. For instance, Paul could also have plainly said, “baptize your infant children.” And he could have set the reasons why forth so clearly that there would never have been a disagreement among true Christians. Yet God seems to have placed many doctrines as buried treasure in a field.