Question for exclusive psalmody opponents

[Puritan Sailor]

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.

You need a positive command to make something an element of worship. There is no positive command to sing the book of Psalms alone. Instead we have positive commands to teach and edify with songs. Without an express command, the only way you could get to an EP position is to somehow argue by "good and necessary consequence". But there is no exegetically necessary pathway to get to EP, unlike for example the doctrines of the Trinity, hypostatic union, or infant baptism. Paul's words more naturally mean to wisely teach with songs. It is the EP position which is adding to the commands of God in this case, and imposing an interpretation that is not required by the context or the general rules of the Word.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

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.

I agree with you our understanding developed more over time. But in order to get to EP without an explicit command in Scripture, you need to argue upon the basis of good and necessary consequence. EP is not a necessary consequence of studying the Scriptures. There is a legitimate natural reading of the text without concluding EP and without contradicting any other doctrines. See my comment above to MChase.

 

[MChase]

You need a positive command to make something an element of worship. There is no positive command to sing the book of Psalms alone. Instead we have positive commands to teach and edify with songs. Without an express command, the only way you could get to an EP position is to somehow argue by "good and necessary consequence". But there is no exegetically necessary pathway to get to EP, unlike for example the doctrines of the Trinity, hypostatic union, or infant baptism. Paul's words more naturally mean to wisely teach with songs. It is the EP position which is adding to the commands of God in this case, and imposing an interpretation that is not required by the context or the general rules of the Word.

Again, not the regulative principle. I don’t need a command to sing only psalms, I need a command to sing something more than psalms.

Where is the command to preach from scripture alone? I don’t think you’re gonna find one.

 

[Sam Jer]

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?

Family worship includes corporate prayer and singing, and at minimum also corporate reading of scripture. Or did I misunderstand what you mean by corporate?

 

[RemovedbyRequest]

Again, not the regulative principle. I don’t need a command to sing only psalms, I need a command to sing something more than psalms.

Where is the command to preach from scripture alone? I don’t think you’re gonna find one.

Not sure if you've already answered this, but doesn't Deuteronomy 31:19 command the singing of a non-psalter song? If so, don't we have to say that at least at some period in history, in some context, the singing of non-psalter songs was commanded?

 

[Sam Jer]

Not sure if you've already answered this, but doesn't Deuteronomy 31:19 command the singing of a non-psalter song? If so, don't we have to say that at least at some period in history, in some context, the singing of non-psalter songs was commanded?

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...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[timfost]

Again, not the regulative principle. I don’t need a command to sing only psalms, I need a command to sing something more than psalms.

Where is the command to preach from scripture alone? I don’t think you’re gonna find one.

I’m mostly bailing out of this conversation, but I keep seeing you come back to this and it is not the argument you think it is. The RPW establishes what is commanded by either direct command or necessary inference. EP is never an explicit command, so we would need to fall back on necessary inference to prove such. But here’s the problem. The example of scripture is never EP. More than the Psalms were sung. To limit song to EP is to add to God’s word and is this a violation of the RPW.

 

[Ulster Fry]

I’m mostly bailing out of this conversation, but I keep seeing you come back to this and it is not the argument you think it is. The RPW establishes what is commanded by either direct command or necessary inference. EP is never an explicit command, so we would need to fall back on necessary inference to prove such. But here’s the problem. The example of scripture is never EP. More than the Psalms were sung. To limit song to EP is to add to God’s word and is this a violation of the RPW.

I think the point is that the opposition are asking for an explicit command that says 'sing Psalms only' whereas the RPW only requires that there is a command to sing Psalms, and no clear command to sing anything else. Thus, according to the RPW, the burden of proof is on those who say other songs than the Psalms are commanded to be sung. Of course, from your comments you do believe there is such a command. Others disagree.

 

[Ulster Fry]

I would like to add that a few assertions have been made that are the opposite of my own experience, having come to adopt a position that probably is IP rather than EP, though in practice I rarely sing anything other than the Psalms. Having come to this position, I've faced a fair amount of hostility from others, and it has been a pretty difficult transition. It's still difficult and I feel an enormous pressure to conform and just sing what everybody else is singing. The people who I see getting all the abuse, at least in my context, are those who hold to EP. Not everyone who is EP/IP wants to make a big song and dance about it (pun not intended) and would rather just be left in peace, but many people do have a big problem with it (unless you're already in an IP/EP church).

 

[Sam Jer]

The regulative principle basically says: "who told you to do [worship practice]?" If you can't give a good answer - just don't do it.
Asking that question was what my OP was trying to do. Some scriptures were suggested, but none if them convinced me while my main problem with EP was answered well

 

[Polanus1561]

The regulative principle basically says: "who told you to do [worship practice]?" If you can't give a good answer - just don't do it.
Asking that question was what my OP was trying to do. Some scriptures were suggested, but none if them convinced me while my main problem with EP was answered well

In a real practical sense, you have to wrestle with what happens if you cannot find an EP church and then worship in a non EP church. If you can find a EP church then all is well assumedly.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Family worship includes corporate prayer and singing, and at minimum also corporate reading of scripture. Or did I misunderstand what you mean by corporate?

Corporate worship = The assembled church, led by men gifted and called to lead worship. i.e. the regular Lord's Day church service.

Family worship is not "corporate" in the sense I meant.

 

[MChase]

I’m mostly bailing out of this conversation, but I keep seeing you come back to this and it is not the argument you think it is. The RPW establishes what is commanded by either direct command or necessary inference. EP is never an explicit command, so we would need to fall back on necessary inference to prove such. But here’s the problem. The example of scripture is never EP. More than the Psalms were sung. To limit song to EP is to add to God’s word and is this a violation of the RPW.

You're in the OPC, so I am guessing that you would be against anyone but ministers administering the Lord's Supper or giving the benediction? Why? The bible nowhere limits the ministry of the word or sacrament to only ministers? By doing so, you are adding to God's command and violating the regulative principle.

This is how you are arguing here.

 

[timfost]

You are correct, the bible does not command EP because that is not how the regulative principle works. The bible commands us to sing Psalms and specifies the content as the "...words of David, and of Asaph the seer." Nowhere is there an unambiguous command to sing anything else in the public worship of the New Testament church.

If I made the argument that "the bible nowhere commands the exclusive use of scripture in preaching," you would correctly respond that such is an incorrect line of argumentation. That is functionally the same argument you are making, and it is not a regulative principle one.

This is where you err. Do you sing words not written by David or Asaph? What about Moses, Solomon or any of the other Psalm writers? Why did the Levites sing materials outside of the 150 Psalms? What about Deborah, Moses, Habakkuk, Hezekiah? We are commanded to sing praises and this is precisely our biblical example. You promote something contrary to biblical example and needlessly restrict words that are never restricted in the Bible. Imposing a restriction is adding to what God commands. This is precisely contrary to the RPW. You are going to need a more substantial argument than simply stating that we are not following the RPW. I can certainly interact with arguments, but I will not interact with you simply stating that we don’t follow the RPW. The RPW is a principal, not a set of commands. I have demonstrated how I am promoting the principle, and you are not.

 

[timfost]

You're in the OPC, so I am guessing that you would be against anyone but ministers administering the Lord's Supper or giving the benediction? Why? The bible nowhere limits the ministry of the word or sacrament to only ministers? By doing so, you are adding to God's command and violating the regulative principle.

This is how you are arguing here.

If we had many examples in the scripture where non-ministers were administering the sacraments, then that would be a legitimate point. However, this is not the example, and therefore your argument is moot.

 

[Sam Jer]

In a real practical sense, you have to wrestle with what happens if you cannot find an EP church and then worship in a non EP church. If you can find a EP church then all is well assumedly.

I am very well aware of that... but any limitation on worship does that. It is like arguing against the Lord's Day by saying "In a real practical sense, you have to wrestle with what happens if you cannot find a church meeting on the Lord's Day and then worship in a seventh day church. If you can find a Lord's Day church then all is well assumedly."

 

[Polanus1561]

I am very well aware of that... but any limitation on worship does that. It is like arguing against the Lord's Day by saying "In a real practical sense, you have to wrestle with what happens if you cannot find a church meeting on the Lord's Day and then worship in a seventh day church. If you can find a Lord's Day church then all is well assumedly."

I am not arguing against EP with my comment. Just take my comment that I am saying there are some words in this thread that may help you wrestle IF you go to a non EP church and worship there.

 

[alexanderjames]

I realise there are different views within the "EP camp" but I have a question - Would strict adherents of exclusive Psalmody view it as sin for the gathering of the church to sing the songs of the book of Revelation? This would be an example where EP is utterly lost on me, but seems to be the logical conclusion of the Psalter only position.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Again, not the regulative principle. I don’t need a command to sing only psalms, I need a command to sing something more than psalms.

You have a command to teach and admonish with psalms as well as "hymns and spiritual songs". There is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul means only the "Book of Psalms", especially when we know that was the conventional way to refer to it back then. How then can you interpret the command as EP? You can only get there by good and necessary consequence. And given the data of Scripture, there is no "necessary" consequence which forces us into EP. It's a perfectly natural reading of the Greek to conclude that Paul commands the church to expound the Word with songs, in a similar way that it expounds the Word with preaching (again, note the identical words and phrases Paul used for both in Col 1:28 and 3:16).

Where is the command to preach from scripture alone? I don’t think you’re gonna find one.

We are commanded to "preach the Word" and not to tickle ears. We are commanded not to add or take away from God's commands. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men". Even without an explicit "alone" in this case we can easily get there by "good and necessary consequence" given all that is required or condemned in Scripture regarding preaching and teaching.

That is not the case for EP. If you think it is, then make that case. Simply asserting we are not following the RPW is not enough. I've clearly shown you how we are in fact following the RPW to get to our conclusion to teach with more songs than the psalms. If you are going to claim to follow the RPW, then make your case using the RPW. Making assertions without exegetical warrant is not following the RPW, but imposing a man-made tradition.

 

[Northern Crofter]

There is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul means only the "Book of Psalms", especially when we know that was the conventional way to refer to it back then

Except Luke 24:44?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Paul is commanding the singing of hymns, not the composing of them for public worship. That's the express statement, and not a necessary consequence. God instructed the inspired pen-men of the Psalms to compose them for public worship, we have no such instruction. Without it, having only an instruction to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, all which are contained in the book of Psalms that God has required to be composed for public worship, we find no warrant for anyone to compose new ones. If ones have been composed, even though men may call them hymns, why should we sing them if they were produced without any scriptural warrant? Especially given the fact that the composing and appointing of songs for public worship in scripture has always been limited to the direction of the Lord by inspiration. Why sing them also given that we have inspired ones which are superior? The fact that some inspired songs were included in the psalms and some weren't also shows us that the Holy Spirit didn't intend all the inspired songs to be sung perpetually in all ages of the church. The fact that the apostles or NT writers haven't supplemented any of the Psalms also says a lot.

You have a command to teach and admonish with psalms as well as "hymns and spiritual songs". There is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul means only the "Book of Psalms"

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Except Luke 24:44?

Sure. But Paul didn't use that either in Col or Eph. And "Law, Prophets, Psalms" was an accepted designation for the whole OT.

 

[MChase]

You have a command to teach and admonish with psalms as well as "hymns and spiritual songs". There is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul means only the "Book of Psalms", especially when we know that was the conventional way to refer to it back then. How then can you interpret the command as EP? You can only get there by good and necessary consequence. And given the data of Scripture, there is no "necessary" consequence which forces us into EP. It's a perfectly natural reading of the Greek to conclude that Paul commands the church to expound the Word with songs, in a similar way that it expounds the Word with preaching (again, note the identical words and phrases Paul used for both in Col 1:28 and 3:16).




We are commanded to "preach the Word" and not to tickle ears. We are commanded not to add or take away from God's commands. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men". Even without an explicit "alone" in this case we can easily get there by "good and necessary consequence" given all that is required or condemned in Scripture regarding preaching and teaching.

That is not the case for EP. If you think it is, then make that case. Simply asserting we are not following the RPW is not enough. I've clearly shown you how we are in fact following the RPW to get to our conclusion to teach with more songs than the psalms. If you are going to claim to follow the RPW, then make your case using the RPW. Making assertions without exegetical warrant is not following the RPW, but imposing a man-made tradition.

You’re still not getting my point. We have express commands to sing the psalms. We have absolutely zero reasons to believe Paul’s commands in Eph and Col must mean singing uninspired psalms. The burden of proof is on the hymn singer to prove Paul’s use of terms must mean what you say they do. Not conjecture or probability, but beyond the shadow of doubt proof. I’ve never seen it.

I think we all agree there is exegetical warrant to sing the psalms. I have seen zero exegesis demanding hymns and spiritual songs demands me to sing uninspired hymns.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Paul is commanding the singing of hymns, not the composing of them for public worship. That's the express statement, and not a necessary consequence. God instructed the inspired pen-men of the Psalms to compose them for public worship, we have no such instruction. Without it, having only an instruction to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, all which are contained in the book of Psalms that God has required to be composed for public worship, we find no warrant for anyone to compose new ones. If ones have been composed, even though men may call them hymns, why should we sing them if they were produced without any scriptural warrant? Especially given the fact that the composing and appointing of songs for public worship in scripture has always been limited to the direction of the Lord by inspiration. Why sing them also given that we have inspired ones which are superior? The fact that some inspired songs were included in the psalms and some weren't also shows us that the Holy Spirit didn't intend all the inspired songs to be sung perpetually in all ages of the church. The fact that the apostles or NT writers haven't supplemented any of the Psalms also says a lot.

I already answered this in previous posts here. Short answer "teach and admonish with wisdom" requires you to "compose" just as it is does for preaching in Col 1:28. You can't preach without composing a message, so you can't teach with songs without composing a message (unless Paul had specified further what songs to use or how to use them). Getting fixated on the word "compose" overlooks all the regular usages of all the other words used to describe the function of song, and their parallel uses with things like preaching and teaching.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

You’re still not getting my point. We have express commands to sing the psalms. We have absolutely zero reasons to believe Paul’s commands in Eph and Col must mean singing uninspired psalms. The burden of proof is on the hymn singer to prove Paul’s use of terms must mean what you say they do. Not conjecture or probability, but beyond the shadow of doubt proof. I’ve never seen it.

I think we all agree there is exegetical warrant to sing the psalms. I have seen zero exegesis demanding hymns and spiritual songs demands me to sing uninspired hymns.

I do get your point. And I gave you several good exegetical reasons why your assertion is not justified. Just because you don't like the reasons, doesn't mean there are "zero". I could equally say there is no shadow of doubt proof for EP. And that's the whole point. Without an explicit command or explanation that "psalms, hymn, and spiritual songs" means "book of Psalms" you must make your case by good and necessary consequence. That seems to be a crucial part of the RPW you are unwilling to use. In Greek, "psalms" does not always mean "Book of Psalms". You have to deal with that exegetical reality as part of your case, and prove there is no other possible meaning for Paul's words than "book of Psalms". That's the "necessary consequence" part of the RPW. You need to make that case in order to impose it as an element of worship on the Church.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

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.

Schaff, who wrote the Anti-Nicene fathers, commented that you couldn't find evidence of singing outside the scriptures before Nicea. More specifically, to Arius. I suppose you can find small sects doing this outside the norm, but no hard evidence exists. Arius popularized the practice, which then spread to corrupt orthodoxy.

As Professor Schaff says, ‘We have no religious songs remaining from the period of persecution (i.e. the first three centuries) except the song of Clement of Alexandria to the divine Logos, which, however, cannot be called a hymn, and probably never was intended for public use’. (The Psalms in Worship, p. 111.)

More recently, Professor K. S. Latourette admits, that ‘from a very early date, perhaps from the beginning, Christians employed in their services the psalms found in the Jewish Scriptures, the Christian Old Testament. Since the first Christians were predominantly Greek-speaking, these psalms were in a Greek translation’. (A History of Christianity, p. 206.)

And ‘until near the end of the fourth century’, he continues, ‘only the Old Testament Psalms and the hymns or canticles’ were sung, ‘the other hymns were for personal, family, or private use’. (Ibid. p. 207.)

More information on this can be referenced here:

The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God – by G. I. Williamson | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

 

[Charles Johnson]

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.

Well, I'm EP, and I've been so for years, but I don't believe this to be true. Usually people that make these sorts of claims haven't spent a lot of time reading the Fathers. Tertullian says in the Apology, "After manual ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each is asked to stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy Scriptures or one of his own composing — a proof of the measure of our drinking."
As for the Schaff quote, does he just say that there are no surviving songs from before Nicaea? Because that's quite different from saying they weren't used. A relatively small number of Christian writings of any sort survive from before Nicaea.
Tertullian isn't the only early father to mention uninspired hymns either, as I understand it. When I posted this quote on facebook, one of my friends, who has read more of the fathers than I have, mentioned other fathers where he had seen similar statements.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I do get your point. And I gave you several good exegetical reasons why your assertion is not justified. Just because you don't like the reasons, doesn't mean there are "zero". I could equally say there is no shadow of doubt proof for EP. And that's the whole point. Without an explicit command or explanation that "psalms, hymn, and spiritual songs" means "book of Psalms" you must make your case by good and necessary consequence. That seems to be a crucial part of the RPW you are unwilling to use. In Greek, "psalms" does not always mean "Book of Psalms". You have to deal with that exegetical reality as part of your case, and prove there is no other possible meaning for Paul's words than "book of Psalms". That's the "necessary consequence" part of the RPW. You need to make that case in order to impose it as an element of worship on the Church.

I already answered this in previous posts here. Short answer "teach and admonish with wisdom" requires you to "compose" just as it is does for preaching in Col 1:28. You can't preach without composing a message, so you can't teach with songs without composing a message (unless Paul had specified further what songs to use or how to use them). Getting fixated on the word "compose" overlooks all the regular usages of all the other words used to describe the function of song, and their parallel uses with things like preaching and teaching.

Does the fact that the composure of songs for worship in scripture is always tied to the gift of inspiration hold no weight at all?

As Manton pointed out, why should men prefer their own effusions when the Lord has given us such a complete and suitable manual of praise? Surely the uninspired songs of men under the NT aren’t superior to the inspired songs of the Holy Spirit of Christ, which even though they were delivered under the OT, are so often speaking of the accomplishments of our Lord and Saviour in the past tense.

 

[timfost]

Does the fact that the composure of songs for worship in scripture is always tied to the gift of inspiration hold no weight at all?

As Manton pointed out, why should men prefer their own effusions when the Lord has given us such a complete and suitable manual of praise? Surely the uninspired songs of men under the NT aren’t superior to the inspired songs of the Holy Spirit of Christ, which even though they were delivered under the OT, are so often speaking of the accomplishments of our Lord and Saviour in the past tense.

Perhaps it might be helpful to consider this question: why would anyone want to hear an uninspired sermon, prayer or spoken praise when we have inspired sermons, prayers and spoken praises? Every one of these categories is inspired in scripture, why should singing be different?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Perhaps it might be helpful to consider this question: why would anyone want to hear an uninspired sermon, prayer or spoken praise when we have inspired sermons, prayers and spoken praises? Every one of these categories is inspired in scripture, why should singing be different?

Firstly because of scriptural precedent, prayers and sermons are not tied to a gift of inspiration, and secondly, we’ve not been given or commanded to use a divinely compiled collection of inspired prayers and sermons. These seem significant considerations.