Again, this is not a regulative principle argument. Paul doesn’t need to limit us with restrictions as that’s the exact opposite from how the regulative principle works.
Question for exclusive psalmody opponents
- Thread starter Sam Jer
- Start date
Again, this is not a regulative principle argument. Paul doesn’t need to limit us with restrictions as that’s the exact opposite from how the regulative principle works.
The Westminster divines specified that the content of praise was to be the psalms; the Scottish church stopped singing the doxology; a psalter was commissioned with the interpretation of Col. 3 and Eph. 5 in the foreword; yet still you have people arguing that the Westminster standards are not EP. As far as I can tell, even if Paul said what you suggest, we’d be having this argument still.
It is all very well and good to note the range of meaning of the use of "psalm" in works outside of the Westminster assembly in puritan and other earlier works in general. My beef--and I've not been following this tandum of threads closely (more important stuff on my plate) so I don't know if this is what is being maintained on this thread (if so, Boo!)-- (can you tell I've been editing Rutherford; the em dash is your friend) is (and it is held with overwhelming conviction) with those who a la those who want to argue all sorts of laxities in the assembly's view like on creation importing later views, and say the Westminster Divines meant something other than what they meant. Dr. Needham, my friend Chad VanDixhoorn and Dr. Ward, who've both been very kind to me over the years helping on various publications and commendations of them, are wrong. The work of the assembly determines what they meant by psalm; and they, SURPRISE, meant the 150 Psalms. I've looked at this as much as anyone who has the time in it to express a legitimate opinion and I've maintained this since I came on this board in 2005. This of course has no bearing on what Paul meant; so I am not sure why the puritan use of the word is being brought up on this thread, but if we are speaking to what was meant at the Westminster assembly, I'll repeat what I've said before: It is a wrong approach to argue a broader meaning of the Westminster standards from outside the context of their work when it is sufficiently clear from within the work of the assembly itself what they meant. Committees like the assembly don't address issues they don't know about or do not need to address. They focus on the work they were assigned to do. Look at the work assigned and the work flow. They wanted uniformity of worship authorized by the solemn league & covenant across the kingdoms. This included a new Psalter for the kingdoms which the assembly spent a lot of time perfecting. To say that when they say psalms in WCF 21.5 they meant something broader flies in the face of the work they were actually doing, what they had already said in the directory for worship that preceded the confession, and the universal practice of psalm singing at that time, as well as the fact they focused on purging the psalter of customs prior to that time of including doxologies as parts of some psalms that don't appear in those psalms. This is essentially the same view as our former member here MW (Rev. Winzer) wrote in his review of Needham w.r.t. what the assembly meant by psalm. The assembly was not being prescient and leaving wiggle room for hymns later, an issue they never discussed and in practice none of them followed at the time (none of them; show me one).
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
Sadly, some things never change.
Amen! Oh wait, that's not what you meant hahaha
You misinterpreted Patrick's whole argument:
1) There is no explicit command to sing Psalms only
so ... since we need to look carefully at the words in Col. 3 and Eph. 5, let's do this with the accepted limits of the words Paul used from other places in Scripture and Greek documents.
It is disingenuous (unintentionally I am certain) to cast his argument as if the RPW allows for all unless specifically negated directly. That is not a fair representation in my opinion.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
There is a major anachronism that occurs in this discussion. The assumption that EP was just as rigid in the Westminster days as it is in modern EP contexts. Keeping out Roman Catholic hymns is a bit different than excluding "Holy, Holy, Holy," "Great Is Thy Faithfulness," or "Rock of Ages." As these kinds of hymns did not exist at the time of the Westminster Assembly, it is anachronistic to say, a priori, that the Westminster divines would exclude them. This is not the same category as excluding doxologies from the Psalms. In the Psalter portion of a hymn-book, one would expect nothing but Psalms. I would hope that all of us on the PB would prefer the 150 Psalms to Roman Catholic hymns. According to the index in volume 4 of CVD's work, there is no explicit definition of psalms in the divines' discussion of chapter 21.5. The Westminster Annotations on Ephesians 5:19 do not limit "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" to the 150 Psalms. This is their comment: "But it seemeth most probable, that by Psalms he meaneth the Psalms of David set to the harp or psaltery, by Hymns, certain Ditties made upon special occasion; and by spiritual Songs, such as were not composed before-hand, and prick'd before them with musical notes, but such as men endited by an extraordinary gift."
The directory for public worship only gets as specific as saying "a psalm book." Psalm books sometimes had non-psalmic material in it. As I said before, if the Westminster divines only had what was eventually the 1650 Scottish Psalter in mind, then it proves too much.
Interestingly, Thomas Ford (a member of the Westminster Assembly) has this to say about the Psalms: "I am not so much against composing, as imposing; when men set up their own new songs, and shut out David's Psalms. Suppose it is lawful for men of spiritual minds to indict a Psalm, and then comment it to others, and sing it; yet, for argument's sake, it will not follow that therefore we must not sing the Psalms of David. Objection. But here again it is objected, that we conceive prayers, and therefore may as well conceive Psalms too, for praising God on occasion. Solution. I will not say it is unlawful to conceive and compose a Psalm upon occasion. But I say again there is no reason that our conceived Psalms should shut out David's" (see the McMahon version, p. 40). It is plain from this quotation that a member of the Westminster Assembly viewed the term "psalms" not exclusively, and even used it of non-inspired compositions. Winzer conveniently leaves out this portion of Ford's treatise in his treatment of Ford.
It is quite astonishing to me that Winzer accuses Needham of misrepresenting John Lightfoot, but then quotes the relevant portion of Lightfoot, which says precisely what Needham said it says. Needham says that Lightfoot understood by the three terms in Colossians 3:16 the Psalms, and other songs in Scripture. Winzer says Lightfoot was quoting someone he disagreed with, and that Lightfoot preferred a different interpretation. But when Winzer quotes Lightfoot, it is evident that Lightfoot agreed with the majority view when he says, "Others differ upon particulars, but agree upon this, that by these three are meant the Psalms of David, and other Songs in Scripture." Winzer even acknowledges that his reading of Lightfoot may have been wrong. He offers zero evidence that Lightfoot disagreed with the others he was quoting. Winzer is further unclear on whether Colossians 3:16 refers to public worship or not. For many of his arguments, he seems to assume that it is, and he argues the standard EP position on the passage. But when Needham quotes Poole's commentary (the section on Colossians 3:16 was written by the continuators), all of a sudden, Needham has to prove that Paul was talking about public worship.
I find it fascinating that Chris says that it is not proper to use sources outside the work of the Assembly if the Assembly's work is itself clear, but then gives a free pass to Winzer in this regard, who quotes plenty of sources that are outside the Assembly's direct work (confer his discussions of Ford, Burroughs, Rutherford, Edwards, Dickson, Calamy, Baynes and others). Given Winzer's distortion of Ford's position, I would not trust his analysis of others, either. If the Assembly's work was so clear, then why did Winzer need to quote sources outside the Assembly's work itself? As another example, take his quotation of Manton, which conveniently ignores this quotation on the previous page: "I confess we do not forbid other songs; if grave and pious, after good advice they may be received into the Church." He goes on to argue that the Psalms are the best songs and most fitting to be sung, which I would hope any IP'er could agree with. But Manton's position is hardly EP. Winzer quotes Cuthbert Sydenham (not Sydenham Cuthbert as in Winzer) also misleadingly. Sydenham was a Scripture song only advocate, not EP. He argues that the songs, hymns and spiritual songs are the Psalms of David "and such other which are found in Scripture penned by holy men upon special occasions" (McMahon, 156). The evidence even inside the Assembly's work is not nearly as clear to one who doesn't already hold EP. No doubt it seems overwhelming to one already convinced of the position. But many holes can be poked in the arguments. The fact is that the Westminster divines weren't NEARLY as strict as their erstwhile spiritual descendants, and it is anachronistic to assume that they were as strict as modern-day EP'ers.
The directory for public worship only gets as specific as saying "a psalm book." Psalm books sometimes had non-psalmic material in it. As I said before, if the Westminster divines only had what was eventually the 1650 Scottish Psalter in mind, then it proves too much.
Interestingly, Thomas Ford (a member of the Westminster Assembly) has this to say about the Psalms: "I am not so much against composing, as imposing; when men set up their own new songs, and shut out David's Psalms. Suppose it is lawful for men of spiritual minds to indict a Psalm, and then comment it to others, and sing it; yet, for argument's sake, it will not follow that therefore we must not sing the Psalms of David. Objection. But here again it is objected, that we conceive prayers, and therefore may as well conceive Psalms too, for praising God on occasion. Solution. I will not say it is unlawful to conceive and compose a Psalm upon occasion. But I say again there is no reason that our conceived Psalms should shut out David's" (see the McMahon version, p. 40). It is plain from this quotation that a member of the Westminster Assembly viewed the term "psalms" not exclusively, and even used it of non-inspired compositions. Winzer conveniently leaves out this portion of Ford's treatise in his treatment of Ford.
It is quite astonishing to me that Winzer accuses Needham of misrepresenting John Lightfoot, but then quotes the relevant portion of Lightfoot, which says precisely what Needham said it says. Needham says that Lightfoot understood by the three terms in Colossians 3:16 the Psalms, and other songs in Scripture. Winzer says Lightfoot was quoting someone he disagreed with, and that Lightfoot preferred a different interpretation. But when Winzer quotes Lightfoot, it is evident that Lightfoot agreed with the majority view when he says, "Others differ upon particulars, but agree upon this, that by these three are meant the Psalms of David, and other Songs in Scripture." Winzer even acknowledges that his reading of Lightfoot may have been wrong. He offers zero evidence that Lightfoot disagreed with the others he was quoting. Winzer is further unclear on whether Colossians 3:16 refers to public worship or not. For many of his arguments, he seems to assume that it is, and he argues the standard EP position on the passage. But when Needham quotes Poole's commentary (the section on Colossians 3:16 was written by the continuators), all of a sudden, Needham has to prove that Paul was talking about public worship.
I find it fascinating that Chris says that it is not proper to use sources outside the work of the Assembly if the Assembly's work is itself clear, but then gives a free pass to Winzer in this regard, who quotes plenty of sources that are outside the Assembly's direct work (confer his discussions of Ford, Burroughs, Rutherford, Edwards, Dickson, Calamy, Baynes and others). Given Winzer's distortion of Ford's position, I would not trust his analysis of others, either. If the Assembly's work was so clear, then why did Winzer need to quote sources outside the Assembly's work itself? As another example, take his quotation of Manton, which conveniently ignores this quotation on the previous page: "I confess we do not forbid other songs; if grave and pious, after good advice they may be received into the Church." He goes on to argue that the Psalms are the best songs and most fitting to be sung, which I would hope any IP'er could agree with. But Manton's position is hardly EP. Winzer quotes Cuthbert Sydenham (not Sydenham Cuthbert as in Winzer) also misleadingly. Sydenham was a Scripture song only advocate, not EP. He argues that the songs, hymns and spiritual songs are the Psalms of David "and such other which are found in Scripture penned by holy men upon special occasions" (McMahon, 156). The evidence even inside the Assembly's work is not nearly as clear to one who doesn't already hold EP. No doubt it seems overwhelming to one already convinced of the position. But many holes can be poked in the arguments. The fact is that the Westminster divines weren't NEARLY as strict as their erstwhile spiritual descendants, and it is anachronistic to assume that they were as strict as modern-day EP'ers.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
There may have been some range of opinion perhaps among the Divines, as there were some who were not as strict on certain things in the assembly as others, there were Erastians and Independents of course. But I think this quote from William Romaine, who is a bit later, shows that today's EP "rigidness" is not a novelty:
by William Romaine, An Essay on Psalmody, 1757,
by William Romaine, An Essay on Psalmody, 1757,
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I think that Luther alone pretty easily proves this claim is not accurate (https://hymnary.org/person/Luther_Martin) unless you also claim "A mighty Fortress is our God" =/= "Holy, Holy, Holy," "Great Is Thy Faithfulness," or "Rock of Ages"? (the first English translation is reputed to be the one by Myles Coverdale in 1539)
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
As I have pointed out, Mason, this is a fallacy of extension. My views most certainly do not imply what you say they do, and to say otherwise is a distortion of my position. The fact that you think I can endanger the entirety of our faith by my views on ipsissima verba with regard to EP appears to me to prove just how high you put the doctrine of EP. It overshadows any and all other mitigating factors in my view. Do you think you overstated this or not?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
So far, I have not seen a single Westminster divine as harsh or rigid as this.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
well at any rate, the divines of the Church of Scotland that adopted the Westminster standards never attempted to introduce any songs outwith the book of Psalms into worship for several generations, and even when in 1781 the General Assembly passed an interim act permitted ministers who felt that some of the paraphrases revised by a committee were edifying to use them, there were still a majority of presbyteries that showed no support for introducing them alongside the psalm and a significant number who opposed them.
Certainly, it is a bit overstated to prove the point. You have no consistent limiting principle as far as I can tell that limits you to reading Romans instead of Calvin’s institutes.
I think it’s rather easy to prove this as well. When I was in the OPC, it was an element of worship to read uninspired creeds. If the limiting principle is merely ‘correct content’ and not inspiration, that makes sense.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
From a history of the paraphrases and hymns revised by a committee of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland in the late 1700s,
“It is quite apparent from the action of the Assembly in thus prolonging the consideration of this Collection of Hymns that there was a majority in the church opposed to its introduction but that at the same time the minority was sufficiently strong to prevent the proposed paraphrases from being wholly rejected. For ten years the subject had been before the church (notice how it hadn’t been attempted at all before 1750s) but the conservative spirit had succeeded in keeping it out of public worship.”
Source: https://electricscotland.com/bible/The_Scottish_Paraphrases.pdf
“It is quite apparent from the action of the Assembly in thus prolonging the consideration of this Collection of Hymns that there was a majority in the church opposed to its introduction but that at the same time the minority was sufficiently strong to prevent the proposed paraphrases from being wholly rejected. For ten years the subject had been before the church (notice how it hadn’t been attempted at all before 1750s) but the conservative spirit had succeeded in keeping it out of public worship.”
Source: https://electricscotland.com/bible/The_Scottish_Paraphrases.pdf
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
Some further indication that todays attitude is no novelty, our Presbyterian forbears in Scotland following in the footsteps of the flock before them, at the free church general assembly of 1872, in order to preserve their consistent practice from earlier decades, argued thus,
Source: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/publica...mns-in-public-worship-rev-h-m-cartwright-554/
Source: https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/publica...mns-in-public-worship-rev-h-m-cartwright-554/
Charles Johnson
Puritan Board Junior
Hi brother, I think you may be mistaken about what these "doxologies" were. They were what we would call uninspired hymns. They were contained in a separate section of the psalter, and they were uninspired songs, and there were usually a relatively small number of them. The assembly intended to exclude them, as evidenced by their production of the 1650 psalter, which is the only psalter of the day that did not include these uninspired hymns.
Here is an example of one such Psalter from 1652, the Sternhold Psalter. (the metric psalms are towards the end of the scan, after the New Testament). I have about ten other examples from the 17th century that follow the same pattern.
As such, I don't think it's correct to say uninspired hymns did not exist yet. They did exist, they were printed in psalters, and the assembly had the intention of producing a psalter that excluded them.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Mason, then you don't mind if I overstate things a bit in response, presumably? You overthrow the faith by elevating EP to a level of importance it should never have. You believe that all others who do not hold to EP are heretics because they overthrow the faith. You therefore believe I am headed to Hell, and so is anyone else who is not EP. That's only a bit overstated, correct, to prove the point?
If you really knew what I believe, you would know that I firmly believe Scripture itself defines what preaching is: reading the text, and giving the sense (as in Ezra). You would also know that the Second Helvetic Confession says that the preaching of the Word of God IS the Word of God. You would also know that the distinction between creeds and Scripture is the distinction between "normed norm" and "norming norm." But also that Scripture itself commands us to confess our faith. This should be done in a way that the church agrees upon, not, in other words, on the basis of a single person's theology (the fact that you see no difference between the confessions of the church and Calvin's Institutes proves you do not understand the point). I cannot believe you think your level of overstatement is justified. At a stroke, all churches in the OPC, PCA, ARP, and elsewhere that believe the faith should be confessed in worship are undermining the entire faith. I am breathless from your judgmentalism.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Alex, your quotations are completely irrelevant to the discussion, because I never claimed (and never would) that the strict view of EP has no historical precedent. I have said that the view of the Westminster divines is not that strict. You can quote all the authors you want to from 1700 and later, and they are therefore completely irrelevant to the discussion.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
As, if I recall, youve quoted Manton, here is something from him, as representing an attitude of Westminster, pointed out by the late Rev Hugh Cartwright in the article I linked in my previous post, showing that Manton was not very far off from Romaine, if a slightly more diplomatic:
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
See my very last post re Manton
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Alex, as I was assuming already the quotation use of it that is in Winzer's article, and as I already noted in previous posts the substance of what you quoted, your accusation of my misquotation is wide of the mark. You are behind in the discussion, and are not contributing anything positive to it, so far.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
Well
Well given that quote, and I do apologise if I’ve overlooked your discussion of it, I think it’s not very fair to say that none of the divines were very strict, because, as I say, Manton was pretty near in line with sentiments like Romaine’s
Well given that quote, and I do apologise if I’ve overlooked your discussion of it, I think it’s not very fair to say that none of the divines were very strict, because, as I say, Manton was pretty near in line with sentiments like Romaine’s
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
I don't think you are reading very carefully if you think Manton's position is nearly in line with Romaine. Where is Manton's rhetoric against the hymnists? Absent. Where is Manton calling hymnists blasphemous? Manton explicitly says that the sober hymns received into the church are acceptable. Romaine says they are blasphemous. Not quite in line.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
I agree he was more diplomatic. But he says,
“Scripture Psalms not only may be sung, but are fittest to be used in the Church”
Though not expressed as strongly as Romaine, this in practice means it’s more fit to use psalms than other songs, so you end up practically with strict EP.
“it seemeth a wonderful arrogance and presumption in any to pretend to make better, or that their private and rash effusions will be more edifying.”
Granted he doesn’t call it blasphemous, as I say, he’s less inflammatory in his language, and yet still casts a stern censure on any who would find it more edifying to sing something else instead of Psalm in church.
As C Coldwell has pointed out, their views, and their practice, boils down to strict EP.
“Scripture Psalms not only may be sung, but are fittest to be used in the Church”
Though not expressed as strongly as Romaine, this in practice means it’s more fit to use psalms than other songs, so you end up practically with strict EP.
“it seemeth a wonderful arrogance and presumption in any to pretend to make better, or that their private and rash effusions will be more edifying.”
Granted he doesn’t call it blasphemous, as I say, he’s less inflammatory in his language, and yet still casts a stern censure on any who would find it more edifying to sing something else instead of Psalm in church.
As C Coldwell has pointed out, their views, and their practice, boils down to strict EP.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lane, I admitted to overstating things and please forgive me for that. I think you are wrong, and will give an account for binding people’s consciences to sing uninspired praise, but I don’t think you have overthrown the foundation of the faith. I think you’re incredibly inconsistent, and praise God for that. We all shall be inconsistent this side of glory. Blessings, and wish no ill.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
I know some may disagree on this, most would say that the regulative principle applies to the worship service on Sunday. This wouldn't forbid anybody from being creative outside of Sunday worship. Sunday is worship to the LORD as he prescribes.
About your comment on Church History. The first four centuries forbade the singing of anything outside the scripture itself. Primarily people would sing the Psalms, and in some cases, they would sing songs found in other places. However, they never deviated from the scriptures until Arius in the fourth century AD. Arius was the first recorded to create man-made music about God, and the song was anti-trinitarian.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Is this really true and provable from evidence, though? I am not convinced.
The Phos Hilaron seems to be from circa 200 AD.
Sub tuum praesidium seems to be from the 200's AD as well.
Likewise, Te Deum is from ancient times.
How do the arguments for the regulative principle not apply to all worship?
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
All of the things commanded to be done in corporate worship, seem to me to only be rightly done in corporate worship.
1. Teaching / preaching of the Word, by a person duly gifted and called.
2. Corporate singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
3. Corporate prayer, done by a person duly gifted and called.
4. Administration of the sacraments, by a person duly gifted and called.
There are only two logical conclusions to this that I can see:
1. Worship of any kind outside of the normal corporate meetings of the church are forbidden.
2. The RPW only applies to the normal corporate meetings of the church.
Does family worship and worship in private violate the second commandment then?*
*I am not talking of a father dispensing the sacraments in his house. I am speaking of the kind of thing the Westminster divines and Joel Beeke advocate.
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
This article from the Banner of Truth argues against several pro-EP claims.
banneroftruth.org
Since he has been mentioned here..
Several other articles I found online similarly arguing against EP referenced Puritan exegetes and those who followed. Although when it comes to Westminster Divines especially, many EP proponents argue that comments in favour of singing non-Psalms relate to private worship as opposed to corporate. Jonathan Edwards’ comments appear to be well liked for non-EP’ers. E.g. https://fpcurrent.com/faithful-praise-through-songs-and-hymns/
What Should We Sing?
h2>The Question Should we sing Psalms only? ‘Exclusive Psalmody’ is the teaching that, in the worship of the church, we should sing all, and only, the 150 Psalms found in the biblical Book of Psalms. We are not allowed to sing hymns. Hymn singing is sinning against God. There is no unity on this...
banneroftruth.org
..Thomas Manton is quoted in the linked article (supposedly his come from his comments on Ephesians 5:13).
Several other articles I found online similarly arguing against EP referenced Puritan exegetes and those who followed. Although when it comes to Westminster Divines especially, many EP proponents argue that comments in favour of singing non-Psalms relate to private worship as opposed to corporate. Jonathan Edwards’ comments appear to be well liked for non-EP’ers. E.g. https://fpcurrent.com/faithful-praise-through-songs-and-hymns/
Last edited:
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Well, no, of course not, but I don't understand the mental path it took to even come up with the question.
Can you help me out with the thought process here?