Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Good Morning,
Preface: I do currently hold to the Exclusive Psalmody / Acapella Only in Worship positions and believe them to be at least supported by the Westminster Standards.
However, I have often wondered if the original Westminster Standards should be viewed as an Exclusive Psalmody (EP) document. The phrasing, I believe raises questions for both those who are EP and IP (Inclusive Psalmist). In other words, do the Standards require EP/AO or do they merely Support/Allow them?
The phrase comes from Westminster 21.5: “....singing of psalms with grace in the heart… are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God…”
So the question is: Should the Original Westminster Standards be considered an Exclusive Psalmody required document?
I have read online articles, books, and also old Puritan Board threads that included Rev. Winzer. The answers certainly seem to vary. However, it is likely more largely agreed that a majority of the divines did seem to hold forth a view in support of EP. However, majority personal beliefs may not always get fully expressed in a document seeking to balance theological truth and clarity along with unity of a larger body.
I have been disappointed with Van Dixhoorn’s Confessing the Faith, as it is more of a Devotional book defending the American Revisions and less of a historical account of the standards ( it is still a beneficial read, but I was mislead by the title). Dixhoorn would answer the above bolded question in the negative.
Recently, my family has had the blessing of sitting under the preaching of the word from JV Fesko on Lord’s Day evenings in Clinton, MS. I knew that Fesko had studied and even had a published work dealing with historical matters surrounding the Westminster Assembly and subsequent standards. I decided to ask JV Fesko his opinion on the matter. JV Fesko gave a really insightful answer that makes more sense in my brain than Dixhoorn’s, yet is also answering in the Negative. Dr. Fesko pointed to the conclusion of the Synods of Dort, which would have been known at the time of the Westminster Assembly. He stated that Dort was very precise and clear in their statements that ONLY the Psalms of David should be sung in Worship proper. Dr. Fesko stated that Westminster seems to use language and word structure to allow a broader approach. Dr. Fesko stated when compared to the Synods of Dort, it is very important to see both what Westminster DOES say and also to note what Westminster DOES NOT say.
I was very thankful for Dr. Fesko‘s perspective as it spurred be to look into the Dort Synods. PB user @Travis Fentiman has a nice summary on his website that you might find helpful to understanding the perspective of Dr. Fesko. https://reformedbooksonline.com/top...of-praise/the-history-of-psalm-singing/#dutch
To be clear this is not about agreeing or disagreeing with Fesko’s line of reasoning. This thread is to seek how you have sought to answer the bolded question, which again is: : Should the Original Westminster Standards be considered an Exclusive Psalmody required document?
Preface: I do currently hold to the Exclusive Psalmody / Acapella Only in Worship positions and believe them to be at least supported by the Westminster Standards.
However, I have often wondered if the original Westminster Standards should be viewed as an Exclusive Psalmody (EP) document. The phrasing, I believe raises questions for both those who are EP and IP (Inclusive Psalmist). In other words, do the Standards require EP/AO or do they merely Support/Allow them?
The phrase comes from Westminster 21.5: “....singing of psalms with grace in the heart… are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God…”
So the question is: Should the Original Westminster Standards be considered an Exclusive Psalmody required document?
I have read online articles, books, and also old Puritan Board threads that included Rev. Winzer. The answers certainly seem to vary. However, it is likely more largely agreed that a majority of the divines did seem to hold forth a view in support of EP. However, majority personal beliefs may not always get fully expressed in a document seeking to balance theological truth and clarity along with unity of a larger body.
I have been disappointed with Van Dixhoorn’s Confessing the Faith, as it is more of a Devotional book defending the American Revisions and less of a historical account of the standards ( it is still a beneficial read, but I was mislead by the title). Dixhoorn would answer the above bolded question in the negative.
Recently, my family has had the blessing of sitting under the preaching of the word from JV Fesko on Lord’s Day evenings in Clinton, MS. I knew that Fesko had studied and even had a published work dealing with historical matters surrounding the Westminster Assembly and subsequent standards. I decided to ask JV Fesko his opinion on the matter. JV Fesko gave a really insightful answer that makes more sense in my brain than Dixhoorn’s, yet is also answering in the Negative. Dr. Fesko pointed to the conclusion of the Synods of Dort, which would have been known at the time of the Westminster Assembly. He stated that Dort was very precise and clear in their statements that ONLY the Psalms of David should be sung in Worship proper. Dr. Fesko stated that Westminster seems to use language and word structure to allow a broader approach. Dr. Fesko stated when compared to the Synods of Dort, it is very important to see both what Westminster DOES say and also to note what Westminster DOES NOT say.
I was very thankful for Dr. Fesko‘s perspective as it spurred be to look into the Dort Synods. PB user @Travis Fentiman has a nice summary on his website that you might find helpful to understanding the perspective of Dr. Fesko. https://reformedbooksonline.com/top...of-praise/the-history-of-psalm-singing/#dutch
Dutch Synods
National Synod of Dort 1578 Article 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 Article 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 Article 62
‘The Psalms of David shall be sung in the churches, omitting the hymns which one does not find in Holy Scripture.’
.
The Synod of Dort 1618-1619
Michael Bushell – Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody Buy (3rd ed., 1999) pp. 218
‘The Remonstrants [Arminians], not surprisingly, were strong advocates of the use of uninspired song in worship, and in 1612 they attempted to introduce 85 hymns of the old church. The collection was published in 1615… but it was rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1618 (Blume, Protestant Church Music, 1974, p. 566), which also at that time limited congregational song to the 150 Psalms, plus versifications of the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, and the Songs of Mary, Zacharias and Simeon… these restrictions on worship song in the Dutch Church were maintained until 1789…
To be clear this is not about agreeing or disagreeing with Fesko’s line of reasoning. This thread is to seek how you have sought to answer the bolded question, which again is: : Should the Original Westminster Standards be considered an Exclusive Psalmody required document?
Last edited: