Question for exclusive psalmody opponents

[timfost]

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 put together collection of inspired prayers and sermons. These seem significant considerations.

If precedent is on the table, we should not be EP since no one in scripture was EP but many were not.

Is inspiration always conjoined with singing? When it is, how do we know it’s essential to singing when it is not essential to all praises?

Where does scripture command uninspired praise, preaching and prayer? If there are examples, can we know it wasn’t an exception to the rule?

I am all in for discussing the merits of your argument. But to prove your position, we must start with scripture, not an extra biblical limitation that is nowhere in scripture.

My challenge:

Does any scripture ever justify limiting the content of singing more than the biblical examples of those who sang? This is precisely what EP argues. In my view, it is extra-biblical and not one proof has been offered to contradict this position.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

While I work on replying to this, I notice you’ve not offered any comment on the significant fact that while we have a divinely compiled collection of inspired praise songs given to us, there is no such collection of sermons or prayers. Does this not indicate that there is a difference? We’ve been given a canon of inspired scripture to read in worship, and effectively a canon of praise songs to use, I would be interested what you make of that.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

If precedent is on the table, we should not be EP since no one in scripture was EP but many were not.

Is inspiration always conjoined with singing? When it is, how do we know it’s essential to singing when it is not essential to all praises?

Where does scripture command uninspired praise, preaching and prayer? If there are examples, can we know it wasn’t an exception to the rule?

I am all in for discussing the merits of your argument. But to prove your position, we must start with scripture, not an extra biblical limitation that is nowhere in scripture.

My challenge:

Does any scripture ever justify limiting the content of singing more than the biblical examples of those who sang? This is precisely what EP argues. In my view, it is extra-biblical and not one proof has been offered to contradict this position.

I was consulting B Schwertley’s “Biblical Defense of Exclusive Psalmody” to save me some time going through all the different relevant passages, but I feel that instead of just copying and pasting what he’s written into here, it would be easier to direct you to his sections on inspiration, and while it may seem like a cop out to point you to an article that I think addresses your points, I wouldn’t be doing it justice by summarising it here because he goes into considerable detail at length:

Exclusive Psalmody.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[alexanderjames]

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.

I don’t think anyone here would argue hymns written by men are better than Psalms.

The argument as I see it is rather why would the new covenant church of Jesus Christ be forbidden to sing the truths of the unfolded mystery of the Gospel as they have come into fullness in these last days?

 

[alexanderjames]

the significant fact that while we have a divinely compiled collection of inspired praise songs given to us, there is no such collection of sermons or prayers. Does this not indicate that there is a difference? We’ve been given a canon of inspired scripture to read in worship, and effectively a canon of praise songs to use, I would be interested what you make of that.

Could it not be argued in a similar manner that we do have a canon of sermons in the New Testament gospels and epistles, and similarly a collection of prayers from the Old and New?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I don’t think anyone here would argue hymns written by men are better than Psalms.

The argument as I see it is rather why would the new covenant church of Jesus Christ be forbidden to sing the truths of the unfolded mystery of the Gospel as they have come into fullness in these last days?

They may not argue it, but in practice it amounts to the same thing. If we were meant to have songs of praises besides the Psalms, why didn’t Christ or any of the apostles deliver us any inspired New Testament songs to use? Why should the OT church be given an inspired manual of praise and not the NT church? I think the answer is that the book of psalms was prepared principally for the use of the NT church, especially as in its current form it wasn’t compiled until late in the OT dispensation. They are Christ’s songs, the Lord’s own songs, in a collection that is balanced thematically by infinite wisdom. That in itself I think would make one reticent to choose the songs of uninspired men in worship when the Lord has composed songs Himself and given us a collection of them to use. Plus if hymns aren’t better then let us offer to the Lord what is best in worship.

Could it not be argued in a similar manner that we do have a canon of sermons in the New Testament gospels and epistles, and similarly a collection of prayers from the Old and New?

I don’t see how really… where is the book of sermons? Or book of prayers? The psalms are a book of praises to be sung, and we know it was used that way and formed for that purpose, there’s nothing even close to it. Besides the nature of prayer is different, prayer is to be extemporaneous, the thoughts give rise to the words, whereas in sung praises in order for the congregation to join in there must be a set form composed beforehand that everyone follows, and then the words give rise to our thoughts and meditations. For preachers there is the gift of aptness to teach others, but for those who composed the praise songs for the church’s worship, in Scripture, they always had a gift of inspiration.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

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.

I dealt with this in my initial post in this thread. But again, where does Scripture bind songs to the gift of inspiration? All of Scripture is tied to inspiration. Where are we commanded to sing only "inspired" song? And where does Scripture ever call the Psalms a "complete manual of praise"? Where does Scripture say that "inspired songs are superior to uninspired songs"? That assertion might seem like "common sense" when you assume EP. But being inspired only makes them Scripture. It does not automatically mean they are the only songs we can sing. You need a command to narrow down their use for that exclusive purpose. All your assumptions here are foreign categories being imposed on the text, not derived from it (or at least you have not shown how they are naturally or necessarily derived exegetically from the text). Scripture also calls the Psalms a collection of "prayers" (Ps 72:20), and so can teach us how to pray. They are also called "Scripture" and so equip us for life and godliness. The Book of Psalms serve a wider purpose than just a collection of songs. Again, you must justify all these assumptions you have from Scripture itself. You are introducing categories about singing which the Bible itself does not tell us to use regarding songs (i.e. inspired song book).

Maybe you don't realize it, but you are trying to use the argument "from good and necessary consequence" but failing to build the case from Scripture itself about how your assumptions are a NECESSARY conclusion from the way Scriptures commands us to sing, rather than a more natural reading of the text which simply says Paul is commanding us to use songs to teach, just like sermons.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I dealt with this in my initial post in this thread. But again, where does Scripture bind songs to the gift of inspiration? All of Scripture is tied to inspiration. Where are we commanded to sing only "inspired" song? And where does Scripture ever call the Psalms a "complete manual of praise"? Where does Scripture say that "inspired songs are superior to uninspired songs"? That assertion might seem like "common sense" when you assume EP. But being inspired only makes them Scripture. It does not automatically mean they are the only songs we can sing. You need a command to narrow down their use for that exclusive purpose. All your assumptions here are foreign categories being imposed on the text, not derived from it (or at least you have not shown how they are naturally or necessarily derived exegetically from the text). Scripture also calls the Psalms a collection of "prayers" (Ps 72:20), and so can teach us how to pray. They are also called "Scripture" and so equip us for life and godliness. The Book of Psalms serve a wider purpose than just a collection of songs. Again, you must justify all these assumptions you have from Scripture itself. You are introducing categories about singing which the Bible itself does not tell us to use regarding songs (i.e. inspired song book).

Maybe you don't realize it, but you are trying to use the argument "from good and necessary consequence" but failing to build the case from Scripture itself about how your assumptions are a NECESSARY conclusion from the way Scriptures commands us to sing, rather than a more natural reading of the text which simply says Paul is commanding us to use songs to teach, just like sermons.

If besides examples of uninspired men performing the duty of preaching, as all must do since inspiration ceased with the apostles, Christ had given us a book of inspired sermons and commanded us to use them alongside uninspired sermons, I think that would make your argument more plausible but he hasn’t. We know the psalms are commanded, definitely, but where is the necessary consequence that hymns of human composure are necessarily required? It’s not necessary to conclude they are. I think the warrant for uninspired hymns in worship, while it would require good a necessary consequence, doesn’t have as much as that going for it. If we can’t by express Scripture or good and necessary inference show that God requires us to compose or own praise songs to sing alongside His in worship, then there’s no warrant to do so.

Right, here are some points about inspiration being tied to composing of songs for worship:

5. Only Inspired Songs Used
A careful examination of the Scripture passages which discuss the songs used in worship
and how worship songs were composed reveals that God only authorizes and accepts divinely
inspired songs for the praise of Himself. “If when the Bible speaks of the source of worship
song, it portrays the text as one produced by divine inspiration, then inspiration is a biblical norm
for this ordinance as well.”12 There are so many examples in the Bible which show the
connection between writing songs of praise for the church and prophetic inspiration that it is
astounding that this point has been largely ignored by those who claim to hold to the regulative
principle. There is the example of the prophetess Miriam who, by divine inspiration, composed a
song to celebrate God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt (Ex. 15:20-21). We also have the
inspired song of Deborah the prophetess (Jdg. 5). There are the Spirit-inspired songs of the
prophet Isaiah (e.g. 5:1, 26:1 ff., etc.) as well as the divinely inspired song of Mary (Lk. 1:46 ff.).
If 1 Corinthians 14:26 refers to Christians composing songs for public worship, these songs were
“as is universally admitted, charismatic songs and therefore products of the immediate
inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”13 (The question of whether the new covenant church should sing
divinely inspired songs outside of the book of Psalms is dealt with below.)
The Old Testament saints whom God used to write the Psalter wrote by the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit. Note once again that prophetic inspiration and the writing of songs of praise go
hand in hand. King David, whom the Bible calls a prophet (2 Chr. 29:25-30), wrote his songs by
a special gift of the Holy Spirit (2 Sam. 23:1, 2; Ac. 1:16). The New Testament repeatedly refers
to David as a prophet when it quotes his songs (cf. Mt. 22:43-44; Mk. 12:36; Ac. 1:16-17; 2:29-
31; 4:24-25). The worship of the temple musicians and singers is referred to as prophecy in
Scripture (1 Chr. 25:1-7). This designation, when applied to song content, obviously means that
what they sang was the product of divine inspiration. Thus, the temple musicians and singers
who were involved in writing songs for worship did so under the special operation of the Spirit.
Heman (who was appointed by David as a worship leader of the sanctuary) is called a “seer” (1
Chr. 25:5) in Scripture; a term synonymous with the word “prophet.” Bushell writes, “Prophetic
titles and roles are consistently attributed to the chief temple musicians and singers. Asaph, for
example, one of David’s principle musicians (1 Chr. 6:39; 15:17; 16:5 ff.; 2 Chr. 5:12),
appointed by him over the service of song and by Solomon in the Temple service, is also called a
‘seer’ and placed alongside David as far as authority in Temple music is concerned (2 Chr.
29:30). Nor ought we to miss the significance of the fact that some 12 of the Old Testament
Psalms (50, 73-83) are attributed to Asaph, thus confirming his role as a writer of inspired
worship song. Jeduthun, another chief temple singer, is also called a ‘seer’ (2 Chr. 35:15; cf.
25:1; and Pss. 39, 62, and 77 titles).”14
The writing of worship songs in the Old Testament was so intimately connected with
prophetic inspiration that 2 Kings 23:2 and 2 Chronicles 34:30 use the term “Levite” and
“prophet” interchangeably. The worship of Jehovah is so important that nothing less than
infallible Spirit-inspired lyrics are acceptable for praise in the church. James A. Kennedy writes,
What is praise? The word is derived from the word “price.” But who knows God’s
price or value? To prepare a complete and sufficient manual of praise one must know, on the
one hand, all the divine excellences, for they are to be set forth in sufficient measure and due
proportion; and, on the other hand, the whole range of human devotional feeling called forth by
contemplating the divine perfections. But such vast knowledge is only possible to one to whom
a divine revelation has been made. And to give adequate expression to this knowledge, divine
inspiration is an absolute prerequisite…. God evidently deemed it necessary to have His praises
prepared thus, for as a matter of fact He inspired David, Asaph, and others to compose them.
And He never puts forth divine power unless it is necessary. God kept the manual of praise
strictly under His control. Why should he be indifferent to this matter now? And why should we
be put off without a divine book for this dispensation? Are we not as worthy of such a perfect
book as the Old Testament Church?15
There have been attempts (by opponents of exclusive Psalmody) to refute the assertion
that divine inspiration was a requirement for the composition of worship songs to be used by the
church. One author argues that the Scripture only requires theological accuracy in the
composition of worship songs. The problem with his argument is that he does not offer any
scriptural texts or examples to back up his claim—not one. Another author quotes several
examples of worship songs that are not found in the book of Psalms as proof that divine
inspiration was not necessary. The problem with this person’s argument is that every song he
refers to was given by divine inspiration (e.g. Ex. 15:20-21; Jdg. 5; Is. 5:1; 26:1 ff.; Lk. 1:46 ff.;
1 Cor. 14:26). His own argument is self-refuting.
Another author quotes from Isaiah 38:20 (“The Lord was ready to save me; therefore we
will sing my songs with stringed instruments all the days of our life, in the house of the Lord”) as
proof that uninspired songs were used in public worship in the Old Testament era.16 This author
assumes that since these songs, written by King Hezekiah, were never inscripturated into the
canon, therefore they must be uninspired. This argument falls to the ground when we consider
that many prophecies and inspired writings did not make it into our Bibles. (There are Old
Testament prophets named of whom we have no surviving oracles. There is the missing letter of
Paul to the Corinthians as well as the volumes of sayings, proverbs, and teachings that Christ
spoke to His disciples, etc.). The fact that Hezekiah’s songs (except the one recorded in Is. 38)
did not make it into our Bible does not tell us at all whether or not they were inspired. In fact, the
passage under discussion, if anything, indicates that his songs were inspired. Note the transition
from the singular (“me”) to the plural (“we”). The king identifies himself with the Levitical choir
of the Temple, which as noted above functioned as a musical prophetic guild. In any case, there
certainly is not a shred of evidence that Hezekiah composed uninspired songs. That assertion is
assumed, not proven.
There are “Reformed” pastors who argue that the fact that every instance of worship song
in the Bible is divinely inspired holds no significance for today’s church. They reason that since
worship songs are in the Bible, which in itself is divinely inspired, they of necessity must also be
inspired. This reasoning is fallacious for two reasons. First, the Bible contains many infallibly
recorded statements of uninspired people speaking. The Bible records people lying, people with
bad theology, and even Satan lying to Jesus. No one would argue that Satan’s lies were divinely
inspired. Second, and even more significant, is the fact that the Holy Spirit emphasizes that
worship songs came not from anyone who decided to write a song, but only from seers and
prophets. The only way to argue against the sole use of divinely inspired songs in the church is to
abandon the regulative principle of worship, either explicitly or by subterfuge. Abandoning the
scriptural laws of worship places one outside of Reformed Christianity (with regard to worship)
and sets him squarely in the Episcopal, Lutheran, and Anabaptist camp.

Source: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jnn6jonys573y91/Exclusive Psalmody.pdf?dl=0

Further on page 22 he addresses in great detail the differences between the different elements of preaching, praying, and singing praise, in worship.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

To the point about teaching through song:

the idea that Scripture only regulates the general function of worship, such as
praise or teaching, is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Confession does not
just set forth a general category, such as praise or teaching as elements of worship; it instead
describes each particular worship ordinance that all serve as the ordinary parts of religious
worship. The Confession names “prayer with thanksgiving,”65 “[t]he reading of the Scriptures
with godly fear; the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto
God, with understanding, faith, reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the
due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of
the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and
thanksgivings, upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used
in a holy and religious manner.”66 The authors of the Confession clearly believed that scriptural
authorization or proof was required for each separate part of worship. That is why each distinct
element of worship is proof-texted by the Confession. Isbell writes, “Several worship ordinances
serve a teaching function. Among them are the reading of the Scriptures, the preaching of the
Word, the singing of Psalms, baptism and the Lord’s supper. Inasmuch as Scripture institutes
each of these parts of worship, the regulative principle descends to the level of these actions,
requiring the use of them specifically, and excluding any others from the church’s worship.”67
The attempt to broaden the definition of the circumstances of worship and blur the
distinctions between the separate elements of worship is anti-Confessional and unscriptural.
When it comes to worship, the Word of God is very specific. The Bible tells us what the distinct
elements of worship are: preaching from the Bible (Mt. 26:13; Mk. 16:15; Ac. 9:20; 17:10; 20:8;
1 Cor. 14:28; 2 Tim. 4:2), reading the word of God (Mk. 4:16-20; Ac. 1:13; 13:15; 16:13; 1 Cor.
11:20; 1 Tim. 4:13; Rev. 1:13), prayer to God (Deut. 22:5; Mt. 6:9; 1 Cor. 11:13-15; 1 Th. 5:17;
Phil. 4:6; Heb. 13:18; Jas. 1:5), the singing of Psalms (1 Chr. 16:9; Ps. 95:1-2; 105:2; 1 Cor.
14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). It tells us who is permitted to participate or conduct each part: both
men and women are to be baptized (Ac. 8:12), both men and women are to pray (Ac. 1:13-14, 1
Cor. 11:5) and sing praise (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 1:5), but only men are permitted to preach
and teach (1 Cor.14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14).
The Bible also tells us the proper content of each element. Scripture reading requires
reading from the Bible alone. Reading from the Apocrypha or Shakespeare or uninspired
theology books does not qualify as Scripture reading. The singing of praise requires the singing
of inspired songs, and the writing of worship songs for public worship requires divine
inspiration, as noted above. Preaching, which is a separate element of worship, involves
reasoning from the Scriptures (cf. Ac. 17:2-3; 18:4, 19; 24:25); it involves explaining or
expounding God’s Word (cf. Mk. 4:34; Lk. 24:27; Ac. 2:14-40; 17:3; 18:36; 28:23). New-
covenant teachers did not speak by divine inspiration, but interpreted divinely inspired Scripture.
This practice was the same in the Old Testament; Levitical teachers explained and interpreted the
inscripturated law to the covenant people (cf. Neh. 8:7-8; Lev. 10:8-11; Deut. 17:8-13; 24:8; 31:9-
13; 33:8; 2 Chr. 15:3; 17:7-9; 19:8-10; 30:22; 35:3; Ezra 7:1-11; Ezek. 44:15; 23-24; Hos. 4:6;
Mal. 2:1, 5-8). Another element of worship is prayer. The Bible authorizes the use of our own
words in prayer as long as we follow the pattern or model given to us by Christ (cf. Mt. 6:9).
God promises His people that the Holy Spirit will assist them when they form their prayers (cf.
Zech. 12:10; Rom. 8:26-27).
The fact that God authorizes the use of uninspired speaking when a Christian preaches,
teaches, or prays does not mean that God also authorizes the use of uninspired materials for the
Scripture reading and the singing of Psalms. Why? Because, as noted above, Scripture (and the
Confession of Faith) treats each of these aspects of the worship service as different parts or
elements of worship, and also sets forth different rules for each of these elements. Once a person
attempts to place the different elements, or parts of religious worship, under general categories so
that the rules that apply to one element can be applied to another, then one has circumvented
apostolic worship. Using these general categories (set forth by Bahnsen and Poythress), one
could argue that since women are permitted to pray and to sing praise, they also are permitted to
preach. The immediate objection to this assertion is: “But Paul clearly forbids women to preach
and teach in the church.” That statement is true. However, it is an unwitting admission that the
New Testament does have different parts of worship that are under different rules. Bushell
writes,
Clearly, if preaching and singing and teaching all require separate warrants as to who may
perform these acts in worship, then they also require separate warrants as to their verbal content.
Similar observations can be made about the often-mentioned parallel between prayer and
singing. It is argued that since our prayers contain non-canonical words, so may our songs. But
no one would argue that because we pray in worship we do not need to sing in worship (taking
these words here as usually understood), or that because we have a ‘song book’ for use in
worship, it would therefore be permissible to have a ‘prayer book.’ The parallel simply cannot
be maintained consistently. The problem with this whole line of reasoning is that it abstracts the
terms ‘prayer,’ ‘teaching,’ ‘preaching,’ and ‘singing’ from their scriptural context and deals
with them as nothing more than linguistic phenomena, rather than as living aspects of biblical
worship. Such a procedure is not valid and cannot help but lead to erroneous conclusions.
‘Singing,’ ‘preaching,’ and ‘teaching’ all assume a content and a context. Justice cannot be done
to these concepts without keeping their context in mind.68
As Reformed believers, we must not abandon the scriptural attainments regarding
worship achieved by our spiritual forefathers. To abandon the regulative principle or to redefine
it to render it meaningless is to abandon biblical worship and our Confession.

 

[timfost]

While I work on replying to this, I notice you’ve not offered any comment on the significant fact that while we have a divinely compiled collection of inspired praise songs given to us, there is no such collection of sermons or prayers. Does this not indicate that there is a difference? We’ve been given a canon of inspired scripture to read in worship, and effectively a canon of praise songs to use, I would be interested what you make of that.

We have a divine book of praise, yes. We have other divine books with praise among other things. Why it would be sinful to sing other divine songs is beyond me. But even with a divine book of praise, mandating it’s exclusive use cannot in any way be derived from the fact that it is there.

Do you see how this train of thought is not remotely logical:

We have a divine book of praise. Therefore we must sing exclusively from it.

Hebrews and Deuteronomy are sermons. We have two biblical books that are full sermons. Therefore, we can only read these sermons in worship.

The Psalms of David are also called prayers. Therefore we must pray exclusively from the Psalms.

The Psalms are a book of praise. Therefore we must only praise God (singing or speaking) with Psalms.

These are not valid arguments. I could also state that when ice cream consumption increases, so do drownings (which is true). Therefore, ice cream consumption makes one more likely to drown. (The real correlation is that people consume more ice cream in hotter weather, which is also when people swim.)

All this to say, a correlation does not prove a command, and especially does not overturn a biblical pattern of praise, and does not justify calling the praise of others sinful. I am fully convinced that EP is a commandment of man— a man made tradition that binds the conscience, alienates people in their own churches that don’t agree with them, and hinders the praises offered by the children of the King.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

It’s such a great blessing to sing the Psalms. We are singing with Christ, the Man of God’s right hand, the Man of sorrrows in his travail on the earth, the Son of God who treads down all his enemies and prophecies their doom, and we sing and prophecy these war songs of the Lamb along with him as he stands in the congregation. He is the song leader (Psalm 22:22, Hebrews 2:12) and he will not take the uninspired songs of men on his lips. He is declaring, and we declare with him. We sing along with the Head and his suffering church; I often think of his people in China and Muslim countries when we sing those Psalms of suffering and crying out to the Lord. We are standing with them, crying out with them and for them.

As we sing them over and over they begin to shape us; somehow, it begins to reorient us. We take on another ethnicity (?) or orientation- it’s hard to describe. I think Rev. Rob McCurley has a sermon on this, I’ll try to find it.

If you’re one who is not among those able at present to sing God’s word with Christ in the great congregation, pray for it. Take your strong desire to God and pray that he will pour out a spirit of prayer and supplication on his church, that the Spirit will come with reformation and revival.

And you can always try to come to one of the FCC family conferences. They’re always in August.

 

[MChase]

I dealt with this in my initial post in this thread. But again, where does Scripture bind songs to the gift of inspiration? All of Scripture is tied to inspiration. Where are we commanded to sing only "inspired" song? And where does Scripture ever call the Psalms a "complete manual of praise"? Where does Scripture say that "inspired songs are superior to uninspired songs"? That assertion might seem like "common sense" when you assume EP. But being inspired only makes them Scripture. It does not automatically mean they are the only songs we can sing. You need a command to narrow down their use for that exclusive purpose. All your assumptions here are foreign categories being imposed on the text, not derived from it (or at least you have not shown how they are naturally or necessarily derived exegetically from the text). Scripture also calls the Psalms a collection of "prayers" (Ps 72:20), and so can teach us how to pray. They are also called "Scripture" and so equip us for life and godliness. The Book of Psalms serve a wider purpose than just a collection of songs. Again, you must justify all these assumptions you have from Scripture itself. You are introducing categories about singing which the Bible itself does not tell us to use regarding songs (i.e. inspired song book).

Maybe you don't realize it, but you are trying to use the argument "from good and necessary consequence" but failing to build the case from Scripture itself about how your assumptions are a NECESSARY conclusion from the way Scriptures commands us to sing, rather than a more natural reading of the text which simply says Paul is commanding us to use songs to teach, just like sermons.

“Where are we commanded to sing only inspired song?” This is the logical equivalent to “why can’t I sing uninspired praise?” It’s a question looking for a prohibition and not a question looking for a positive command.

You have fundamentally flipped how good and necessary consequence works. This is why getting into the details is largely pointless. We are not looking for a necessary argument restricting us but commanding us. There is no necessity in Paul for interpreting his terms as uninspired Song. You may think there is decent reason, but it must be a necessary interpretation not a probable one, particularly when we have explicit commands in other places specifying the content of praise.

Here is the logic of it all. I have a command and example to sing the psalms of David. Col 3 and Eph 5 commands the use of songs, hymns and psalms. All three of those terms are used in the psalter. Nothing in the text demand that the three terms refer to uninspired praise. I come away from the text knowing I should sing inspired songs like I have example elsewhere and unconvinced that anything else is proven. Conclusion: I am only to sing the content which is specified elsewhere.

Lastly, this is not a regulative principle argument but a practical one. If singing functions exactly the same as teaching and preaching, why are women, heretics, and uninspired men some of those preparing the content for teaching? Would you allow Horatio Spafford, Fanny Crosby, or Isaac Watts in the pulpit? Further, why is it that folks can get away with criticizing the psalms as ‘unchristian’ but don’t dare criticize the Trinity hymnal.

Oh for the day when the Trinity hymnals would be relegated to the trash bins and they would be replaced with the Trinity’s hymnal: the inspired words of that sweet psalmist of Israel.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

We have a divine book of praise, yes. We have other divine books with praise among other things. Why it would be sinful to sing other divine songs is beyond me. But even with a divine book of praise, mandating it’s exclusive use cannot in any way be derived from the fact that it is there.

Do you see how this train of thought is not remotely logical:

We have a divine book of praise. Therefore we must sing exclusively from it.

Hebrews and Deuteronomy are sermons. We have two biblical books that are full sermons. Therefore, we can only read these sermons in worship.

The Psalms of David are also called prayers. Therefore we must pray exclusively from the Psalms.

The Psalms are a book of praise. Therefore we must only praise God (singing or speaking) with Psalms.

These are not valid arguments. I could also state that when ice cream consumption increases, so do drownings (which is true). Therefore, ice cream consumption makes one more likely to drown. (The real correlation is that people consume more ice cream in hotter weather, which is also when people swim.)

All this to say, a correlation does not prove a command, and especially does not overturn a biblical pattern of praise, and does not justify calling the praise of others sinful. I am fully convinced that EP is a commandment of man— a man made tradition that binds the conscience, alienates people in their own churches that don’t agree with them, and hinders the praises offered by the children of the King.

I’m really sorry you feel that way.

As for the logic, I’m afraid I can’t follow your logic. Surely no judicious reformed interpreters have ever held the view that under the RPW ministers are required to read the sermons in Deuteronomy as a way of performing the duty of preaching. If a minister just read a sermon from Deuteronomy and sat down, I don’t think anyone here would accept he had been engaged in preaching. If a congregation sings a psalm however, I think all would accept that they had sung praise to God.

While the psalms contain prayers, it’s expressly called a book of praises. There’s no book of prayers that we’ve been commanded to repeat in prayer. We have been required to sing the psalms, but no where in the NT or elsewhere do we see prayers being read out of a book.

I also don’t understand the point about correlation that you’re trying to make.. but I think we’re poles apart in our sentiments, because I think that singing the songs Christ Himself sang, and composed and gave to us to sing is not limiting at all, it is most enriching, and so much of the reformed church historically has sung only the psalms in worship, with some few inspired songs as exceptions. The practice of churches today is very much a novelty compared to the majority of the practice in Geneva, Holland, and Britain.

As you can see from the view of a many of godly and learned Puritans,

"Now though spiritual songs of mere human composure may have their use, yet our devotion is best secured, where the matter and words are of immediately divine inspiration; and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,” which the apostle useth (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). But then ’tis meet that these divine composures should be represented to us in a fit translation, lest we want David, in David; while his holy ecstasies are delivered in a flat and bald expression. The translation which is now put into thy hands [1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter] cometh nearest to the original of any that we have seen, and runneth with such a fluent sweetness, that we thought fit to recommend it to thy Christian acceptance; some of us having used it already, with great comfort and satisfaction."

— Thomas Manton; Henry Langley; John Owen; William Jenkyn; James Innes; Thomas Watson; Thomas Lye; Matthew Poole; John Milward; John Chester; George Cokayn; Matthew Mead; Robert Franklin; Thomas Doolittle; Thomas Vincent; Nathaniel Vincent; John Ryther; William Tomson; Nicholas Blaikie; Charles Morton; Edmund Calamy the Younger; William Carslake; James Janeway; John Hickes; John Baker; and Richard Mayo.

If most on the PuritanBoard today wouldn’t be prepared to put their amen to what all these Puritans have said above, then I think it shows the reformed church today is very far removed from the sentiments of the those godly men who came before us.

Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, April 15, 1646:

"Ordered, That the Book of Psalms, set forth by Mr. Rous, and perused by the Assembly of Divines, be forthwith printed in sundry volumes: And that the said Psalms, ***and none other***, shall, after the first day of January next, be sung in all Churches and Chapels within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon-Tweede; and that it be referred to Mr. Rous, to take care for the true printing thereof.—The Lords concurrence to be desired herein."

As well as the Dutch church and divines:

National Synod of Dort, 1578, Art. 76.: “The Psalms of David, in the edition of Petrus Dathenus, shall be sung in the Christian meetings of the Netherlands Churches (as has been done until now), abandoning the hymns which are not found in Holy Scripture.”

National Synod of Middelburg, 1581, Art. 51: “Only the Psalms of David shall be sung in the church, omitting the hymns which one cannot find in Holy Scripture.”

National Synod of Gravenhage, 1586, Art. 62: “The Psalms of David shall be sung in the churches, omitting the hymns which one does not find in Holy Scripture.”

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711): “The decision of the Dutch Synods has been very correct indeed, namely, that none other but the Psalms of David are to be used in the churches” (The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout [USA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995], vol. 4, pp. 34-35).

 

[Northern Crofter]

I propose adapting Pascal's Wager to this issue (please forego the ad hominem attacks on Pascal - I know he is not reformed but, like Erasmus, has much to offer in certain contexts). In the interest of transparency, though in conviction I am IP (Inspired Praise) à la Calvin, in practice I am EP (Exclusive Psalmody) since that is the practice where I worship. But back to the wager, when I meet our Saviour face-to-face, should I find that He would have been fine with me singing uninspired hymns, will I be condemned for only singing Psalms? On the other hand, for those who sing uninspired praise (UP) apart from or in addition to IP, should they find when they meet our Saviour that He was not pleased with such offerings of praise, what will you do when you stand before Him?

• In my above application of Pascal's Wager, I am playing a PB trump card (the one where someone's point is rejected outright because it has never before been heard of in all the centuries of Christendom) with Rev. Keister's position that the practice of EP is sinful. I cannot find any of our fathers in the faith who held such a position as Rev. Keister has stated in posts such as 21, 30, 61, and 65 where he states that we are commanded to sing UP in public worship (for example, in #21, "I believe it actually is a command for God's people to sing man-made songs.... This means I believe that the EP position forbids something that God commands"). The more I have dwelt on this position, the more horribly extremist I find it to be. To me this is the opposite extreme of someone saying we should only sing in Koine Greek from the Psalms Christ quoted in the Gospels.
• Some additional thoughts related to the general discussion above:
  • the various appeals to the singing of other songs (Miriam, Moses, Deborah, etc.) in the previous dispensation neglects to recognize that these were all generations before the Book of Psalms was compiled - they were not singing these songs instead of or in addition to the Book of Psalms;
  • the vast majority of Christ's references to Scripture were from the Psalms, it was what Christ sang (unless there is a novel interpretation of what new "hymn"' Christ taught His disciples to sing on the night He was betrayed that explains why such important new words were not recorded), and He used His dying breaths to quote from a psalm;
  • the idea (found in posts such as #46) that since many of the Psalms were not originally/primarily understood to be about Christ we should not use them today is odd - most of the "Old Testament" was not understood to be about Christ until He appeared and devoted much of His time on earth explaining how it was
• I further propose a Psalter Wager for the non-EP brethren: jettison the heavyweight arguments above for a moment and prayerfully consider having your congregation commit to singing only Psalms (or only IP) for a year and see what fruit that bears. Many of us who came to an IP/EP position did not grow up that way so we have this experience to a large extent - do not neglect the experiential testimony of your brethren who would not dream of going back to UP after having sung the Psalms. Other than perhaps Rev. Keister whose conscience might trouble him, I don't think EP for a year would cause any harm if at the end you decided to go back to including UP in your worship.

 

[Claudiu]

I propose adapting Pascal's Wager to this issue (please forego the ad hominem attacks on Pascal - I know he is not reformed but, like Erasmus, has much to offer in certain contexts). In the interest of transparency, though in conviction I am IP (Inspired Praise) à la Calvin, in practice I am EP (Exclusive Psalmody) since that is the practice where I worship. But back to the wager, when I meet our Saviour face-to-face, should I find that He would have been fine with me singing uninspired hymns, will I be condemned for only singing Psalms? On the other hand, for those who sing uninspired praise (UP) apart from or in addition to IP, should they find when they meet our Saviour that He was not pleased with such offerings of praise, what will you do when you stand before Him?

• In my above application of Pascal's Wager, I am playing a PB trump card (the one where someone's point is rejected outright because it has never before been heard of in all the centuries of Christendom) with Rev. Keister's position that the practice of EP is sinful. I cannot find any of our fathers in the faith who held such a position as Rev. Keister has stated in posts such as 21, 30, 61, and 65 where he states that we are commanded to sing UP in public worship (for example, in #21, "I believe it actually is a command for God's people to sing man-made songs.... This means I believe that the EP position forbids something that God commands"). The more I have dwelt on this position, the more horribly extremist I find it to be. To me this is the opposite extreme of someone saying we should only sing in Koine Greek from the Psalms Christ quoted in the Gospels.
• Some additional thoughts related to the general discussion above:
  • the various appeals to the singing of other songs (Miriam, Moses, Deborah, etc.) in the previous dispensation neglects to recognize that these were all generations before the Book of Psalms was compiled - they were not singing these songs instead of or in addition to the Book of Psalms;
  • the vast majority of Christ's references to Scripture were from the Psalms, it was what Christ sang (unless there is a novel interpretation of what new "hymn"' Christ taught His disciples to sing on the night He was betrayed that explains why such important new words were not recorded), and He used His dying breaths to quote from a psalm;
  • the idea (found in posts such as #46) that since many of the Psalms were not originally/primarily understood to be about Christ we should not use them today is odd - most of the "Old Testament" was not understood to be about Christ until He appeared and devoted much of His time on earth explaining how it was
• I further propose a Psalter Wager for the non-EP brethren: jettison the heavyweight arguments above for a moment and prayerfully consider having your congregation commit to singing only Psalms (or only IP) for a year and see what fruit that bears. Many of us who came to an IP/EP position did not grow up that way so we have this experience to a large extent - do not neglect the experiential testimony of your brethren who would not dream of going back to UP after having sung the Psalms. Other than perhaps Rev. Keister whose conscience might trouble him, I don't think EP for a year would cause any harm if at the end you decided to go back to including UP in your worship.

Re: Pascal's wager reasoning: you've just described the logic of my Messianic Jewish distant family members who hold to OT laws.

It's probably better to stick to the Reformed understanding of "conscience."

 

[Taylor]

I propose adapting Pascal's Wager to this issue (please forego the ad hominem attacks on Pascal - I know he is not reformed but, like Erasmus, has much to offer in certain contexts). In the interest of transparency, though in conviction I am IP (Inspired Praise) à la Calvin, in practice I am EP (Exclusive Psalmody) since that is the practice where I worship. But back to the wager, when I meet our Saviour face-to-face, should I find that He would have been fine with me singing uninspired hymns, will I be condemned for only singing Psalms? On the other hand, for those who sing uninspired praise (UP) apart from or in addition to IP, should they find when they meet our Saviour that He was not pleased with such offerings of praise, what will you do when you stand before Him?

• In my above application of Pascal's Wager, I am playing a PB trump card (the one where someone's point is rejected outright because it has never before been heard of in all the centuries of Christendom) with Rev. Keister's position that the practice of EP is sinful. I cannot find any of our fathers in the faith who held such a position as Rev. Keister has stated in posts such as 21, 30, 61, and 65 where he states that we are commanded to sing UP in public worship (for example, in #21, "I believe it actually is a command for God's people to sing man-made songs.... This means I believe that the EP position forbids something that God commands"). The more I have dwelt on this position, the more horribly extremist I find it to be. To me this is the opposite extreme of someone saying we should only sing in Koine Greek from the Psalms Christ quoted in the Gospels.
• Some additional thoughts related to the general discussion above:
  • the various appeals to the singing of other songs (Miriam, Moses, Deborah, etc.) in the previous dispensation neglects to recognize that these were all generations before the Book of Psalms was compiled - they were not singing these songs instead of or in addition to the Book of Psalms;
  • the vast majority of Christ's references to Scripture were from the Psalms, it was what Christ sang (unless there is a novel interpretation of what new "hymn"' Christ taught His disciples to sing on the night He was betrayed that explains why such important new words were not recorded), and He used His dying breaths to quote from a psalm;
  • the idea (found in posts such as #46) that since many of the Psalms were not originally/primarily understood to be about Christ we should not use them today is odd - most of the "Old Testament" was not understood to be about Christ until He appeared and devoted much of His time on earth explaining how it was
• I further propose a Psalter Wager for the non-EP brethren: jettison the heavyweight arguments above for a moment and prayerfully consider having your congregation commit to singing only Psalms (or only IP) for a year and see what fruit that bears. Many of us who came to an IP/EP position did not grow up that way so we have this experience to a large extent - do not neglect the experiential testimony of your brethren who would not dream of going back to UP after having sung the Psalms. Other than perhaps Rev. Keister whose conscience might trouble him, I don't think EP for a year would cause any harm if at the end you decided to go back to including UP in your worship.

As has been said several times already in this thread: "This isn't how the RPW works."

 

[Charles Johnson]

With all due respect to the parties involved, Pascal's wager isn't even a good argument for what it was originally applied to, which is belief in God. Pascal was a better mathematician than theologian.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Re: Pascal's wager reasoning: you've just described the logic of my Messianic Jewish distant family members who hold to OT laws.

It's probably better to stick to the Reformed understanding of "conscience."

The Reformed understanding of "conscience" allows your Messianic Jewish distant family members to hold to OT laws as long as it is not a matter of them believing them to be salvific.

 

[Northern Crofter]

As has been said several times already in this thread: "This isn't how the RPW works."

Agreed. I wasn't claiming it is. Both sides (UP & EP) are claiming to follow the RPW so I was setting that aside.

 

[JH]

The Reformed understanding of "conscience" allows your Messianic Jewish distant family members to hold to OT laws as long as it is not a matter of them believing them to be salvific.

Except Paul feared for the salvation of those who wanted anything to do with the types and shadows since Christ has come (Galatians 4:9-11) — in Romans 14, there is a bearing with the weakness of the Jews in their transitionary period; that bearing of the weak was temporal, and not to last forever. The way in which Paul treats Jews who were catechized under the pedagogy of the law, is different from the way he rebukes those who were never under that schoolmaster in the first place, but are intrigued to go from the substance back to types again. Herein also is the difference between the two texts when the 14th of Romans is appealed to for holy days.

 

[beloved7]

Where in the scriptures do you see a commandment for us, under the new covenant, to write and sing hymns of our own writing, even in the public assembly of the visible church, either explicitly or by good and necessary consequence?

Edit: this is a related post https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/question-for-exclusive-psalmody-proponents.110608/

Psalm 98 seems to be rather clear that it is speaking of Christ.

 

[John The Baptist]

I propose adapting Pascal's Wager to this issue (please forego the ad hominem attacks on Pascal - I know he is not reformed but, like Erasmus, has much to offer in certain contexts). In the interest of transparency, though in conviction I am IP (Inspired Praise) à la Calvin, in practice I am EP (Exclusive Psalmody) since that is the practice where I worship. But back to the wager, when I meet our Saviour face-to-face, should I find that He would have been fine with me singing uninspired hymns, will I be condemned for only singing Psalms? On the other hand, for those who sing uninspired praise (UP) apart from or in addition to IP, should they find when they meet our Saviour that He was not pleased with such offerings of praise, what will you do when you stand before Him?

• In my above application of Pascal's Wager, I am playing a PB trump card (the one where someone's point is rejected outright because it has never before been heard of in all the centuries of Christendom) with Rev. Keister's position that the practice of EP is sinful. I cannot find any of our fathers in the faith who held such a position as Rev. Keister has stated in posts such as 21, 30, 61, and 65 where he states that we are commanded to sing UP in public worship (for example, in #21, "I believe it actually is a command for God's people to sing man-made songs.... This means I believe that the EP position forbids something that God commands"). The more I have dwelt on this position, the more horribly extremist I find it to be. To me this is the opposite extreme of someone saying we should only sing in Koine Greek from the Psalms Christ quoted in the Gospels.

• I further propose a Psalter Wager for the non-EP brethren: jettison the heavyweight arguments above for a moment and prayerfully consider having your congregation commit to singing only Psalms (or only IP) for a year and see what fruit that bears. Many of us who came to an IP/EP position did not grow up that way so we have this experience to a large extent - do not neglect the experiential testimony of your brethren who would not dream of going back to UP after having sung the Psalms. Other than perhaps Rev. Keister whose conscience might trouble him, I don't think EP for a year would cause any harm if at the end you decided to go back to including UP in your worship.

My Wesleyan/Holiness friend uses the exact same logic (appearing before Christ and all) to argue against the consumption of alcohol.

“I won’t be too upset if Jesus tells me I could have lightened up a little bit. I’ll be more upset if he tells me I caused little ones to stumble”

It smells too much of bound consciences to me.

 

[Sam Jer]

The Reformed understanding of "conscience" allows your Messianic Jewish distant family members to hold to OT laws as long as it is not a matter of them believing them to be salvific.

Except Paul feared for the salvation of those who wanted anything to do with the types and shadows since Christ has come (Galatians 4:9-11) — in Romans 14, there is a bearing with the weakness of the Jews in their transitionary period; that bearing of the weak was temporal, and not to last forever. The way in which Paul treats Jews who were catechized under the pedagogy of the law, is different from the way he rebukes those who were never under that schoolmaster in the first place, but are intrigued to go from the substance back to types again. Herein also is the difference between the two texts when the 14th of Romans is appealed to for holy days.

As someone who grew up in this kind of context, I can say that going from "I can't eat pork and have to keep holidays" to any other idea is quite a process. It took me many readings of the epistles between the time it was pointed out to me that they are rather clear until I finally changed my mind.
Besides, people like this will almost definitely keep the Sabbath on Saturdays, breaking the Lord's day, and circumcize their children instead of baptizing them.

 

[alexanderjames]

Without wishing to lose focus of the thread, has anyone read Samuel Waldron's book on the regulative principle - 'How then should we worship?'. Apparently it addresses EP, being in opposition to it.

 

[MChase]

Without wishing to lose focus of the thread, has anyone read Samuel Waldron's book on the regulative principle - 'How then should we worship?'. Apparently it addresses EP, being in opposition to it.

I have not, but Waldron has addressed Psalm singers in the past. He has 5 arguments against it.

First, the exclusive psalmodists themselves do not actually sing inspired psalms. (https://cbtseminary.org/exclusive-psalmody-4/)

This is a very interesting place to start. He quotes WCF/LBCF 1.8, but does not seem to understand the difference between immediate inspiration and mediate inspiration. If our English bibles are not inspired in any sense of the term, then everyone needs to learn Greek and Hebrew. This argument cuts against him just as much as us. Further, if we are never singing psalms then he also is not singing psalms.

Second, we are commanded to worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24), that is, we must worship in the light of gospel fulfillment and not Old Testament shadows. (https://cbtseminary.org/exclusive-psalmody-5/)

This is not a regulative principle argument, and it is a number of conjectures deep.

Third, we are commanded in Scripture to sing new songs in keeping with the progressive revelation of God’s redemption. (https://cbtseminary.org/exclusive-psalmody-6/)

There are a number of resources out there on this one. New song doesn't necessitate that the song is different in content anymore than God's mercies being new mean that they are fundamentally different.

Waldron castigates Murray for his inconsistency, but there is no inconsistency. It is not inconsistent to sing inspired praises in the first century that were outside of scripture, yet conclude when the church is in it's settled state that only the 150 of David are to be used.

Fourth, exclusive psalmody is out of accord with the requirements God makes with regard to other parts of worship. (https://cbtseminary.org/exclusive-psalmody-7/)

Waldron confuses the elements. Why is it that it is always assumed that singing is more like praying or preaching than reading? Even if it is more like those two, every element must stand or fall on its own commands. Just because I can sacrifice a male or female in the peace offering, does not mean that I can do so in the burnt offering!

Fifth, the best interpretation of Ephesians 5:19-20 and Colossians 3:16-17 leads to the conclusion that Paul was not thinking strictly of the Book of Psalms in this passage or even of inspired songs. (https://cbtseminary.org/exclusive-psalmody-8/)

Waldron does not do exegesis according to the RPW. More of the "why didn't Paul say X" type of argument. The fact of the matter is that all three of these terms we know can refer to the psalter and other inspired praises. The burden of proof is for the hymn singer to show why the necessary qualification of being a prophet, which was the case all throughout the old (Ex. 15:1ff, Judges 5:1ff, 1 Chron. 25:1-7, 2 Chron 29:30) and continued into the new (1 Cor. 14:24-30), changed sometime between Paul's writings to Corinth and Ephesians/Colossians. Now, all of the sudden inspiration was not a qualification for song. Rather, it is now a requirement that the song writer be uninspired.

 

[Parakaleo]

Our God is a merciful and gracious God, abundant in goodness and truth. He could have commanded that his worship be something more or less "mindless" for us. He could have commanded that we worship him by repeating a mantra a thousand times. He could have commanded that we worship him by sitting in silence for hours on end. He did not need to prescribe elements of worship that would so richly minister to us as we engage in them.

Instead, in wonderful grace and mercy, God has instituted elements of worship that edify us so tremendously. Prayer, for example, is an element of God's worship, yet in it we are invited to pour out our hearts and make our petitions known to God. Preaching, for another example, is an element of God's worship, yet look how he has designed it to feed us and to proclaim the truth of the Gospel to sinners! It is his worship, yet he is pleased to instruct sinners in the way of salvation as it is taking place. What mercy!

If any element of worship could have been specially reserved for God's honor such that the benefit for men would be minimal or incidental, it would have been the element of praise. Yet, look at what God has done. He has supplied his people with a book of praises giving voice to the widest range of human experience and emotion before God. It is difficult to begin to describe the generosity of God in making his own praise something that includes such instruction, such encouragement, such admonishment, such highs, such lows; all for our help.

Composing and utilizing uninspired songs of praise in the face of such generosity on God's part, with no sure warrant or authorized example in Scripture, is ungrateful. At best.

 

[alexanderjames]

Composing and utilizing uninspired songs of praise in the face of such generosity on God's part, with no sure warrant or authorized example in Scripture, is ungrateful. At best.

It’s only ungrateful if someone is ungrateful for the Psalms.
I don’t think you’ll find that position here.
I for example am not an exclusive Psalmodist. I love the Psalms and sing them, and am pushing for my church to sing them. I value them far higher than any songs outside of Scripture. But I see the expression of praise as not being limited to the Psalms alone.

I think it’s unfair to call the vast majority of evangelical believers ungrateful at best.