# Implications of being non-EP and how we view the EP position... NON-EP only please!



## SolaScriptura (Nov 17, 2010)

At the outset, please understand two things. First, my desire concerning the purpose of this thread/post is that it is not to discuss the merits of either the EP or the non-EP positions. Second, I am a man with feelings and I understand that when I hear - or read - of one of my cherished positions/beliefs being criticized or minimized or labeled "wrong," I get angry and want to respond. So I understand that when I write what will come below, any proponent of the EP position is likely to feel much as I would (and do!) if and when the tables are reversed. So please understand that I while I realize that you likely will be upset, I am not _trying_ to trounce your feelings or upset you. So I ask you, my EP brother, to refrain from posting in response as I strictly want to address my fellow non-EP brethren.

That said...

I'd like for non-EPers to reflect upon what their position entails logically. The reason I perceive such a need is that in another thread after I rather strongly dismissed the EP position as being _wrong_, numerous non-EPers spoke up affirming the viability and alltogether loveliness of EP as a worship practice.

Perhaps it is because EP is in our family background that some feel proud of it as a heritage though they personally disagree with it. I don't know. But I do know that when folks feel a strong familial affinity towards someone or something, they will often find it very difficult to bring themselves to put themselves out there as being too "against" that person or thing. I would like my non-EP brothers to try to cognitively take stock and see if their stance towards EP isn't to some degree a product of "familial affinity" rather than sound application of principled judgment. I am convinced that non-EPers should reassess - or at least clearly articulate - their theology of worship as it pertains to how the EP position should be regarded in the light of what it means to be convinced of the non-EP position.

If you are a non-EPer, do you believe that the New Testament _prescribes_ the singing of songs other than the the hymnal of the old covenant, or do you believe that the New Testament merely _allows_ their use? 

I can only speak for myself here, but the RPW _as a principle_ is unassailable in my mind. The matter of which songs are to be sung is, as I see it, a matter of how the RPW is applied in regards to the song life of the congregation. As a RPW matter, I confess that I have a problem with the notion that worship practices may be "allowed" but not required... but maybe I'm missing something.

Regardless, if you are convinced that the Bible _AT LEAST_ allows a practice... what room is there for having positive warm regard towards a view that prohibits that very thing? We have a concept that covers the principle of man prohibiting what God allows, and the label associated with it does not typically foster positive images within Reformed circles...

But what if you believe that, in accordance with what the RPW says about worship, Scripture requires the singing of hymns _in addition to_ the singing of the psalter? If you do, then how can you view the EP position as anything other than a flat violation of the RPW since it refuses to do that which you believe Scripture requires?

I want to put that out there for reflection and consideration by folks who are non-EPers. Again, I realize that no EPer will like me saying that I find their practice out of accord with the RPW, but I ask for your patience and restraint from responding. This is intended for those who are non-EP because I have enough self-awareness to know that while my powers of cognition are considerable, I am by no means the sum of all knowledge and thought and, contrary to how I may come across at times, I recognize and embrace the fact that I am able to be taught and indeed have room to grow. 

Now I've got patients to go see...


----------



## N. Eshelman (Nov 17, 2010)

As a confessional Presbyterian, I freely admit that if the Word of God requires/commands hymns in worship then we should be singing hymns. If we did not we would be in violation of the second commandment. 

If the Word of God commanded that, I would attempt to have this changed at the highest levels of our courts.


----------



## Bethel (Nov 17, 2010)

What does EP and RPW stand for? Obviously, I have no opinion on this subject, but I'm curious to know whether or not I'm an EP...


----------



## JML (Nov 17, 2010)

Bethel said:


> What does EP and RPW stand for? Obviously, I have no opinion on this subject, but I'm curious to know whether or not I'm an EP...


 
*EP = Exclusive Psalmody*. Those who believe that only the Psalms are proper for singing in the public worship of God.

*RPW = Regulative Principle of Worship*. The belief that God regulates His worship and only that which is commanded in the Scriptures in regards to His worship is proper. This is in opposition to the Normative Principle of Worship which says that which is commanded and that which is not condemned is proper.

Those are the shortened versions of the definitions.

Carry on my non-EP brethren. 

Hopefully, I did not violate the OP.


----------



## Bethel (Nov 17, 2010)

Thanks, John! I found your shortened versions very understandable.

Blessings,


----------



## Tripel (Nov 17, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> If you are a non-EPer, do you believe that the New Testament prescribes the singing of songs other than the the hymnal of the old covenant, or do you believe that the New Testament merely allows their use?



I'm not sure how well I can defend this, but I believe the New Testament prescribes that we sing. I also believe that said singing should fall under the single broad category of "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs". In other words, I don't thing the RPW requires that each worship service include at least one Psalm, one hymn, and one spiritual song. Frankly, I'm not sure what qualifies as a "spiritual song" as opposed to a hymn. 

Ben, I assume you would believe a church is violating the RPW if it only sings Psalms and hymns, right?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 17, 2010)

Tripel said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > If you are a non-EPer, do you believe that the New Testament prescribes the singing of songs other than the the hymnal of the old covenant, or do you believe that the New Testament merely allows their use?
> ...



While you may not claim to understand what it all entails, but whatever it means, as a non-EPer wouldn't you have to say that it at least rules out the notion excluding everything but Old Covenant psalms? And if that EP position is excluded, then where is there room for entertaining it as a viable application of the RPW?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Nov 17, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> I'd like for non-EPers to reflect upon what their position entails logically. The reason I perceive such a need is that in another thread after I rather strongly dismissed the EP position as being _wrong_, numerous non-EPers spoke up affirming the viability and alltogether loveliness of EP as a worship practice.
> 
> Perhaps it is because EP is in our family background that some feel proud of it as a heritage though they personally disagree with it. I don't know. But I do know that when folks feel a strong familial affinity towards someone or something, they will often find it very difficult to bring themselves to put themselves out there as being too "against" that person or thing. I would like my non-EP brothers to try to cognitively take stock and see if their stance towards EP isn't to some degree a product of "familial affinity" rather than sound application of principled judgment. I am convinced that non-EPers should reassess - or at least clearly articulate - their theology of worship as it pertains to how the EP position should be regarded in the light of what it means to be convinced of the non-EP position.



I think that part of the reason is, as you say, due to the longstanding practice of Psalm-singing in the Reformed tradition. The other part is probably that many of us who are non-EP find a paucity of Psalm-singing actually taking place in Reformed churches. That is, we feel some appreciation for the EP position because they are taking seriously the singing of God's own words in the Scriptures. Many Reformed churches seem to have forgotten about the Psalms almost entirely, and that's certainly not the way it should be. Now I don't believe that the answer is singing only Psalms. But it is refreshing to hear the Psalms being sung when they are so often forgotten and when so many modern songs aren't particularly helpful. That doesn't mean that this is the way it _should_ be, but I think that's probably part of the practical reason why.



> If you are a non-EPer, do you believe that the New Testament _prescribes_ the singing of songs other than the the hymnal of the old covenant, or do you believe that the New Testament merely _allows_ their use?
> 
> I can only speak for myself here, but the RPW _as a principle_ is unassailable in my mind. The matter of which songs are to be sung is, as I see it, a matter of how the RPW is applied in regards to the song life of the congregation. As a RPW matter, I confess that I have a problem with the notion that worship practices may be "allowed" but not required... but maybe I'm missing something.



You (and others) can probably help my understanding here, but as I've studied the RPW, it seems to be broken down into 3 categories: (1) elements, (2) forms, and (3) circumstances. (Though I'm not sure if the 2nd category is commonly discussed, it seems like most of the discussion centers around elements and circumstances. Applied to this situation, it would mean this:

We all agree on the element, that we are commanded to sing. Where we differ is on the form that the singing takes. EP advocates would say that the form is restricted to the Psalms, while we would say that the form is open (within the confines of what is biblical, true, edifying etc), that is, that we are permitted latitude in determining which songs to use. So I don't think this quite gets into a Lutheran "it's permitted but not commanded," as it's not referring to an element but to the form that element takes. Not sure if that makes sense, and my understanding may need some work there. 

So while I can say that I do believe EPers are wrong/mistaken in their understanding of Scripture, I can still express respect for what I see as a different view of the form the element we agree on should take. It would be different if someone were to insist that we must slaughter sheep for then they are talking about a whole different element. So I suppose in answer to your opening question, I would fall more on the side of the Bible allowing it, but not in a Lutheran view of worship sense, but rather with the element/form distinction in mind.



> Regardless, if you are convinced that the Bible _AT LEAST_ allows a practice... what room is there for having positive warm regard towards a view that prohibits that very thing? We have a concept that covers the principle of man prohibiting what God allows, and the label associated with it does not typically foster positive images within Reformed circles...



That's a helpful question, one that I haven't quite thought through before. But it seems to me that if what God commands is the singing of songs that honor him, then EP falls within those bounds, and so isn't violating the RPW. I'm not sure that he specifically commands the singing of extrabiblical songs (though I may need to rethink this point), but rather commands singing honoring songs to him in general. Psalm-singing certainly falls within that boundary, so I can see that it is still a helpful practice, even if I think that the command to sing is not specifically tied to the form of the 150 Psalms.



> But what if you believe that, in accordance with what the RPW says about worship, Scripture requires the singing of hymns _in addition to_ the singing of the psalter? If you do, then how can you view the EP position as anything other than a flat violation of the RPW since it refuses to do that which you believe Scripture requires?


 
On those presuppositions, I can see your point. However, it seems to me that even if we are convinced that the EP position is wrong/mistaken/unbiblical, we can still have respect for a position which has been held by many in the church and which is trying to take the RPW seriously, even if we disagree on the exegesis of certain passages. Because it would essentially boil down to one's understanding of a few key passages, as to whether or not the meaning is restricted to the Psalms (or inspired Scripture). So even if I'm convinced of my own view, I think we can have charity and respect for a view that takes those passages differently.


----------



## Tripel (Nov 17, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> While you may not claim to understand what it all entails, but whatever it means, as a non-EPer wouldn't you have to say that it at least rules out the notion excluding everything but Old Covenant psalms?


 
No, I don't see it that way. While I'm not at all in favor of the EP position, I don't think it is necessarily unbiblical. As I said above, I view it as one broad category: Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs....not individual requirements. So if a church chooses to only use Psalms, well, I'd consider it their loss, BUT they are still in keeping with the RPW in that they are singing songs that fall under that broad category.

Again, I could be totally wrong, but that's how I interpret the RPW on this matter.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 17, 2010)

Ben, I'm in the group that believes that the bible does require us to sing songs other then the Psalms of David (et al). And yes I do believe that the EP view is a warped mis-use of the RPW, in addition to being ahistorical. However my concern extends beyong worship issues. I *think* that a consistent EP position does harm to our doctrine of inspiration of scripture.

I recognise that it is a stream within our reformed tradition, and I am not prepared to drive it out of the camp. In my opinion one of the greatest threats to the reformed tradition in our time is the tendancy to declare our own stream to be the "confessional" position & to declare that everyone else is outside the camp. So I am careful to acknowledge that EP is a legit view, just wrong.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 17, 2010)

I'll just butt in here for a second and say that there is more than one EP position. 

(a) Some - like myself - are not against the use of - other Scripture songs, paraphrases and good quality biblical hymns, but want to maintain the primacy of the Psalms in the worship of God's people, by having the Psalms as our manual of praise when we gather for public worship. The Psalms are inspired, infallible, inerrant and God's only Heaven-sent Praise Book.

(b) Others apparently seem to believe it is always sinful to sing any hymn whatsoever.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2010)

Folks,
Please stay on topic to the OP and the desired limitations. Merits and demerits of EP/nonEP are not for this thread. Moderators will delete posts failing to do so.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 17, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> At the outset, please understand two things. First, my desire concerning the purpose of this thread/post is that it is not to discuss the merits of either the EP or the non-EP positions. Second, I am a man with feelings and I understand that when I hear - or read - of one of my cherished positions/beliefs being criticized or minimized or labeled "wrong," I get angry and want to respond. So I understand that when I write what will come below, any proponent of the EP position is likely to feel much as I would (and do!) if and when the tables are reversed. So please understand that I while I realize that you likely will be upset, I am not _trying_ to trounce your feelings or upset you. So I ask you, my EP brother, to refrain from posting in response as I strictly want to address my fellow non-EP brethren.
> 
> That said...
> 
> ...


 
*If you are a non-EPer, do you believe that the New Testament prescribes the singing of songs other than the the hymnal of the old covenant, or do you believe that the New Testament merely allows their use?* 
Yes.
*Regardless, if you are convinced that the Bible AT LEAST allows a practice... what room is there for having positive warm regard towards a view that prohibits that very thing? We have a concept that covers the principle of man prohibiting what God allows, and the label associated with it does not typically foster positive images within Reformed circles...*Agreed


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 17, 2010)

As a non-EPer I believe that both being more loose AND more strict than Scripture both are sin..or at least error.

As a missionary we compose simple Gospel songs for memorization of basic Gospel truths and it appears that I am violating the RPW if I were an EPer. 

Therefore, I see the EP position as error and as an impediment to missions. 

One implication for me being non-EP is that (besides actually being able to sing the name of Jesus in church) is that I can fit my evangelization to local oral cultures in ways that lend towards easy memorization of Gopel truth.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2010)

I'm not going to do this again. Posts will be deleted without comment or repetition of this notice.


NaphtaliPress said:


> Folks,
> Please stay on topic to the OP and the desired limitations. Merits and demerits of EP/nonEP are not for this thread. Moderators will delete posts failing to do so.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Nov 17, 2010)

I used to hold to the EP position but have not done so for about 10 years or more. Even when I did hold to it, I did not consider it a sin to sing hymns, just that it was less than ideal. Anyway, over a period of time I could see no biblical warrant for the EP position.
I take the words psalms, hymns and spiritual songs as referring to three types of songs. We also have examples of songs used in worship in the Bible that are not psalms. Look through the book of Revelation. Paul may also quote early hymns on some occasions eg Phil 2, Col 1. 
I have never categorized in terms of permitting or allowing hymns/songs so I am hesitant to reply to that without further consideration. 
The EP position would say that any deviation from the unaccompanied psalms is a violation of the RPW. I do not accept that interpretation. The words of the prayers and sermons do not need to be confined to the words of Scripture. There is no indication that our songs must be. However, any non canonical song that is used in worship must be careful to remain faithful to biblical truth. We must also be pro-active about singing psalms in non EP congregations.
I respect the EP position and it is a beautiful thing to hear the psalms being sung unaccompanied in 4 part harmony. However, I find the arguments for such a position to be lacking. I will happily attend a worship service that is EP. I wouldn't dream of not attending the Free Church when I am in Scotland. I will happily discuss the issue with EP folks, but if you accuse me of will worship, suggest that I am offering strange fire to God or that I may as well sacrifice a lamb/goat/bull because I have forgotten that Christ has come, etc- then the conversation will quickly stop. In a sense the EP folks are prohibiting what Scripture permits. Out of respect for them and in deference to my own previously held views I am not offended or bothered by this. I couldn't consider it a sin to hold to EP, even though I disagree with it.


----------



## KMK (Nov 18, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> So I ask you, my EP brother, to refrain from posting in response as I strictly want to address my fellow non-EP brethren.



You have interesting questions, Ben, but I don't think it is in the best interest of the discussion to argue against someone's position and then restrict him from a rebuttal. I know how I would feel if someone started a thread arguing that teaching in a public school was sinful, but please no responses from public school teachers. As has been mentioned, the EP position is not so monolithic that it can be discussed with precision without input from both sides.

Therefore, i am going to allow the thread to continue but would encourage both sides to charitably contribute.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Nov 18, 2010)

KMK said:


> You have interesting questions, Ben, but I don't think it is in the best interest of the discussion to argue against someone's position and then restrict him from a rebuttal. I know how I would feel if someone started a thread arguing that teaching in a public school was sinful, but please no responses from public school teachers. As has been mentioned, the EP position is not so monolithic that it can be discussed with precision without input from both sides.
> 
> Therefore, i am going to allow the thread to continue but would encourage both sides to charitably contribute.


 
If I'm not mistaken, Ben isn't (in this thread) arguing against the EP position. He's asking non-EPers to discuss if and why they can have respect for an EP position depending on their view of the application of the RPW to singing. So it's not really a thread meant to discuss the merits of EP, just merely how non-EPers view EP based on their presuppositions.

It would be more like if someone started a thread asking how those who are against public schooling should view those who are involved in public schooling in their churches. The issue isn't public schooling/EP itself, but how a certain group views another issue in light of stated presuppositions.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 18, 2010)

We're taking a break until the we get this straight on how this thread will proceed.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 18, 2010)

Thread reopened. Please stick to the question of the opening post. Continued comments addressing the EP position (defenses, arguments, etc) will result in the thread being opened to all to post.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 18, 2010)

Covenant Joel said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like for non-EPers to reflect upon what their position entails logically. The reason I perceive such a need is that in another thread after I rather strongly dismissed the EP position as being _wrong_, numerous non-EPers spoke up affirming the viability and alltogether loveliness of EP as a worship practice.
> ...


 
Joel - Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you engaged my comments. 

Others - While I share your belief that EPism is wrong, it really wasn't my intent to build a bully pulpit for folks to rail against it. 

I may not have a theologically proper reason for this, but intuitively I understand that not every RPW violation is of equal gravity. Issues of serious commitment to othodox interpretation and application of Scripture factor in. So while I have profound issues with the EP position and I won't attend their churches unless I'm compelled by necessity, I'm not going to say they're outside the pale any more than I'd say that of anti-paedobaptists who I also believe violate the RPW. 

I believe that God only accepts worship He commands, and therefore He will only accept "un-inspired" songs if He has commanded they be sung. And if I believe that He has commanded they be sung, then when I encounter a view that principially refuses to sing those songs in a context in which I believe they have been commanded to be sung, then I cannot escape the conclusion that I must find that view out of accord. I may concur that they are sincere Christians - just as are Lutherans or Baptists or Evangelicals - but that doesn't mean that I have to grant the legitimacy or viability of their practice, just as I am not going to grant the legitimacy of the practice of Lutherans or Baptists or Evangelicals where it contradicts my own.

But Joel - I think your admission about the familial affinity part really is the crux. But my contention is that our faith and practice needs to trump, and that we don't have to have positive regard for a practice that in our estimation violates the RPW in order for us to grant the sincerity of their belief or the legitimacy of their Christian profession.


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 18, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> But what if you believe that, in accordance with what the RPW says about worship, Scripture requires the singing of hymns in addition to the singing of the psalter? If you do, then how can you view the EP position as anything other than a flat violation of the RPW since it refuses to do that which you believe Scripture requires?



Do the psalms fit the requirement of hymn? It would seem to me that your position would conclude that restricting any church worship to a single source would be a violation of the RPW and christian liberty. Do we have restrictions on what is to be considered a hymn?

I see that the psalms do meet the requirement of hymn and we do have to restrict ourselves at some point, trinity hymnal, psalter etc. So I would disagree with your conclusion and see EP as any other fencing of worship and not out of accord with the RPW.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 18, 2010)

gene_mingo said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > But what if you believe that, in accordance with what the RPW says about worship, Scripture requires the singing of hymns in addition to the singing of the psalter? If you do, then how can you view the EP position as anything other than a flat violation of the RPW since it refuses to do that which you believe Scripture requires?
> ...


 
I don't want to debate EP and non-EP... but for the sake of clarity, in the vernacular, the psalms - when juxtaposed with hymns - refer to the songs in the book of Psalms, the songbook of the Old Covenant church, while hymns refer to a song not located in Scripture. So along those lines, NO, a psalm does NOT meet the requirement of hymn, nor does a hymn meet the requirement of psalm. 

I think it needs to be clarified - the point of being non- exclusive psalmody is that we do not believe that psalms are the EXCLUSIVE form of song to be sung in worship. Being non-EP does NOT mean that we are anti-Psalm. Sing psalms! I believe they are commanded to be sung! But I also believe that we are commanded to sing of God's with hymns. So do not hear that I - or any non-EPer - believe that it is wrong to sing psalms in our worship. We only say it is wrong to not sing hymns as well.


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 18, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > SolaScriptura said:
> ...



I am not trying to debate EP vs non-EP. 

Your position rests on your definition of hymn. Furthermore if taken to its end, your position would not allow any restrictions as to what is sung in worship and would view any such restrictions as a violation of the RPW. 

I am not an exclusive psalmist, but do believe that the psalms contain all the necessary compositions which are commanded in worship. Hence the psalms can be sung exclusively and not violate the RPW.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 18, 2010)

gene_mingo said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > gene_mingo said:
> ...


 
But do you believe that it is legitimate for folks who sing the psalms exclusively to take the additional step and say it is wrong to sing anything else?


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 18, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > SolaScriptura said:
> ...



Do you think it is legitimate to restrict the songs we sing in worship?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 18, 2010)

gene_mingo said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > gene_mingo said:
> ...



It is wrong to refuse to sing songs other than Old Covenant psalms since we are commanded to include hymns and spiritual songs. If you, for whatever reason you may have, believe that it IS permissible to principially refuse to do as we are commanded and sing only the Old Covenant psalms, then I think you should reconsider the non-EP position in the light of the RPW... which was the point of my initial post. Becuase what I'm hearing you say - through my lens - is that though we are commanded to sing psalms AND hymns (because unless we were commanded, we would automatically be prohibited from doing it) - it is nonetheless ok to refuse to do that. And I have to be honest... my RPW alarm goes off when I hear that.


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 18, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > SolaScriptura said:
> ...



It is wrong to allow songs that are composed for the glorification of men. We are commanded to glorify god in worship. I think you should reconsider your position on the RPW in light of your normative ideals.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 18, 2010)

gene_mingo said:


> It is wrong to allow songs that are composed for the glorification of men. We are commanded to glorify god in worship. I think you should reconsider your position on the RPW in light of your normative ideals.


 
It sounds like you are arguing like an EPer and I find your argument grossly errant as it misses the point entirely. Of course worship is about glorifying God... but it is also about teaching and building up the saints. But a theology of worship services isn't my aim here. You go and do as you see fit, but know that IF we are commanded to include songs other than the psalms from the Book of Psalms, then to not do so is sin. _That_ is the issue, and it is one that in my estimation you do not seem to be willing to address.


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 18, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > It is wrong to allow songs that are composed for the glorification of men. We are commanded to glorify god in worship. I think you should reconsider your position on the RPW in light of your normative ideals.
> ...



Aw, there it is. Now you go and dismiss me entirely. I have tried my best to stick to the OP even though you have attempted to drag it elsewhere. I was not unwilling to address your issue, you just did not want to read what I wrote.



> I am not an exclusive psalmist, but do believe that the psalms contain all the necessary compositions which are commanded in worship. Hence the psalms can be sung exclusively and not violate the RPW.



Whether or not you want to discuss the theology of worship is up to you, but in your OP you have made some sweeping generalizations on the theology of worship that, of course, support your original contention. I am a non-EPer and do not agree with your generalizations and furthermore see those generalizations as pushing outside the bounds of the RPW. You don't have to agree with me, but it is unfair to say that I am unwilling to address the issue.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 18, 2010)

Well, Josh, I realize you've stated you are not EP, and I believe that you are being honest, but now in my opinion you do make statements that lead me to wonder how deeply you have reflected on what it means for something to have been commanded with the corollary and corresponding consequence of what it means when we refuse to do something that has been commanded. The matter boils down to the simple principle of how we regard a view that explicitly refuses to do what has been commanded.

But thank you for your thoughtful interaction. Now I'm going to go finish importing my massive music library into iTunes on my new MacBook. Later!


----------



## Covenant Joel (Nov 18, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> I may not have a theologically proper reason for this, but intuitively I understand that not every RPW violation is of equal gravity. Issues of serious commitment to othodox interpretation and application of Scripture factor in. So while I have profound issues with the EP position and I won't attend their churches unless I'm compelled by necessity, I'm not going to say they're outside the pale any more than I'd say that of anti-paedobaptists who I also believe violate the RPW.
> 
> I believe that God only accepts worship He commands, and therefore He will only accept "un-inspired" songs if He has commanded they be sung. And if I believe that He has commanded they be sung, then when I encounter a view that principially refuses to sing those songs in a context in which I believe they have been commanded to be sung, then I cannot escape the conclusion that I must find that view out of accord. I may concur that they are sincere Christians - just as are Lutherans or Baptists or Evangelicals - but that doesn't mean that I have to grant the legitimacy or viability of their practice, just as I am not going to grant the legitimacy of the practice of Lutherans or Baptists or Evangelicals where it contradicts my own.



Two questions come to mind as I reflect on what you've said here:

(1) Do you think that the element/form distinction is invalid? That is, that God doesn't specifically command us to sing extrabiblical or biblical songs, but simply that he commands us to sing songs that are honoring to him, leaving the form that this takes up to us. I guess as I'm reflecting on it, I'm seeing that the issue isn't an RPW violation _necessarily_ (though as I said, I see your point and would have to reflect on it more), but that it is a difference in the application/form that the element takes.

(2) What is the practical force of your point? E.g., let's say the Reformed churches in your area are holding a joint service, perhaps on Reformation day, perhaps for no reason at all. One or more of the churches is EP. Would you consider it wrong, for the sake of your brothers' conscience, to sing psalms only at the event? Or would you insist on having hymns in the service (though they would certainly be allowed to refrain from singing the uninspired songs)? 

I ask this because your position does make sense. If I understand it correctly, you're basically just saying that Scripture commands the singing of extrabiblical hymns, and that therefore to prohibit such songs is a violation of Christian liberty and God's instructions for worship. That makes sense, though it seems to me that the element/form distinction helps with this.


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 18, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Well, Josh, I realize you've stated you are not EP, and I believe that you are being honest, but now in my opinion you do make statements that lead me to wonder how deeply you have reflected on what it means for something to have been commanded with the corollary and corresponding consequence of what it means when we refuse to do something that has been commanded. The matter boils down to the simple principle of how we regard a view that explicitly refuses to do what has been commanded.
> 
> But thank you for your thoughtful interaction. Now I'm going to go finish importing my massive music library into iTunes on my new MacBook. Later!



Ben, I have examined this issue with some detail. I just see you making the same mistake as the EPer. They point to you and say you have violated the RPW and you point back and accuse them of the same (granted I am speaking very generally here). You categorically deny that a psalm can be a hymn. All I am saying is that psalms not only are hymns, but models for the future compositions of hymns. So both the EP and non-EP position fulfill the biblical command of worship. The only place they are wrong is when they accuse the other of violating the RPW.


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 18, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> If you are a non-EPer, do you believe that the New Testament prescribes the singing of songs other than the the hymnal of the old covenant, or do you believe that the New Testament merely allows their use?



I believe that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are pleasing to the Lord, so using all or some would still fall within the set of that which was called pleasing. I believe EP is just as pleasing because those who, by individual and/or group conscience, limit themselves to one part of the set are not violating anything. I hope I wrote that understandably. My example: Vanilla ,chocolate and strawberry ice cream is pleasing to me. So any one or combination of them would also be pleasing. However, don't bring me pistachio and argue, hey, it's ice cream too.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Nov 18, 2010)

gene_mingo said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Josh, I realize you've stated you are not EP, and I believe that you are being honest, but now in my opinion you do make statements that lead me to wonder how deeply you have reflected on what it means for something to have been commanded with the corollary and corresponding consequence of what it means when we refuse to do something that has been commanded. The matter boils down to the simple principle of how we regard a view that explicitly refuses to do what has been commanded.
> ...


 
If psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are NOT referring to the same thing, then what we are commanded to do is to sing Psalms AND...
To sing Psalms(period) ignores the AND and thus violates the RPW.

If, however, this is a triadic expression, then Psalms AND violates the commandment and the RPW.

Thus, how one understands these two verses determines what they believe to be consistent with the RPW which, in turn, _necessarily_ leads them to believe sincerely that the other view is a violation.


----------



## calgal (Nov 18, 2010)

We are not EP nor will we be EP for many reasons Ben has articulated. When we were first married, DH and I had a very brief conversation about EP. The end result was NO as in we will not attend an EP church (unless a relative has an event: wedding, baptism or funeral therein) nor seek membership in an EP church. We choose to worship in a church that incorporates Psalms AND Hymns AND Songs of Praise (said church will not have the horrid 7/11 songs in its psalter or song book). We do not consider EP outside the pale: these folks are trinitarian but we do consider EP a deal breaker when looking at a new church (and we are in a church search).


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 19, 2010)

I have wrestled over this issue a lot over the years, because I am a musician. To hold to EP, especially in the non-instrumental category would seriously change the way in which I worship and how I minister within the church. Ben, to respond to your comment about "familial affinity", yes, I've thought about it a lot. 

I believe we are commanded to sing psalms AND hymns AND spiritual songs, though I don't believe that we are expected to sing from each category every time we meet for worship. The purpose (based on my understanding of Colossians) is for teaching and admonishing one another and to express thanks. I don't know how one could possibly teach and admonish with nothing but the psalter since it excludes so much of what is found in the New Testament. 

I have not really considered whether or not someone was violating the RPW with their position EP or non-EP. I have considered that many non-EPers have violated the RPW by not being careful to ensure the music they use in worship is in accordance with the command to teach, admonish and give thanks to God. I have also thought that my EP brothers and sisters are missing out by excluding what God allows. It is not my position to judge.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 19, 2010)

There is no middle ground for the diligent exegete. Either one sings Psalms exclusively or one sings Psalms and Hymns. Yet does either position violate the RPW or constitute sin? I don't think so. 

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 23, 2010)

JBaldwin said:


> I have also thought that my EP brothers and sisters are missing out by excluding what God allows.


 
They're not just missing out, they're saying that you are engaging in deviant worship for not being EP. It isn't just their conscience at stake, it is that they would dare bind yours. 

I have a peer chaplain - actually, he's not a peer, he's two grades senior to me, but he's a fellow student in my class - and he's a 7th Day Adventist. Now, he is quite convinced that only by faith in Christ will one be saved. But of course, he doesn't eat pork. I asked him, "Do you think it is a sin to eat pork?" He said, "Of course I do." To which I said,"If you simply said that you don't eat pork, that would be one thing. But for you to say it is a sin to eat pork... that, I believe, is sin."

Of course, he protested. But by calling something a violation of God's law with the guilt associated therewith, he has implicitly burdened (if not bound) the conscience of those to whom he applies the label because they're left wondering, "Am I sinning?" after having been declared as such by this man in his ministerial office.

I believe it is analogous to the EPer. It isn't just that they _don't_ sing hymns in corporate worship. It is that they say it is verboten. It is that they label the practice as out of accord with the RPW - that means it is _sin_ - and thereby call evil what we believe the Lord calls good.

And you're fine with it?

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

My dear sweet, cuddly EP brethren... despite what you may think of me based upon my strong words, I really am a nice guy who would love to get together and smoke a stogie with you. If you don't believe me, try me.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 23, 2010)

> They're not just missing out, they're saying that you are engaging in deviant worship for not being EP. It isn't just their conscience at stake, it is that they would dare bind yours.



I have often thought the same thing.

I once met a TR and EP pastor who was attempting to plant a reformed church in one fairly large metro area in the south because "there was not a faithful church" in that whole city and he wanted to "introduce a gospel witness" to that city....

.....what he meant was that, despite many solid baptist and pca churches, that he was going to plant a TR and EP church in that region.


I found that I had a hard time being enthused about his effort.


----------



## Bradwardine (Nov 23, 2010)

One of the practical difficulties of the EP position (stated previously as"The Psalms are inspired, infallible, inerrant and God's only Heaven-sent Praise Book") is that the Psalms that are sung are effectively paraphrases of the Hebrew Psalms - ie to put them in a metrical / rhyming form to sing with Western tonal scales requires the text to be altered. I dearly love the Scottish Metrical Psalms but I am not blind to the fact that they paraphrases (and therefore not to be treated directly as 'infallible and inerrant' as they would be closer to an NLT than an ESV ! ).


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 23, 2010)

Craig - I wish I was in Scotland for a vacation. If I was, would you have a meal with me?


----------



## sdesocio (Nov 24, 2010)

Ben, I really appreciate this question. I grew up in the RPCNA and found myself out of accord and thus had to move to a different denomination (I ended up in the PCA) .

I'd say, the NT gives a clean command to sing to the Lord, and that we find no command to only sing from the book of Psalms, even in the OT. I don't think we have enough scriptural evidence to say that the Hymnal of the Old Covenant was the book of Psalms. We can learn from 2nd temple sources the way the psalms were included in the life of the israelites around Jesus' time but, I think calling it a "hymnal" forces a perspective on the Scripture that the Scripture does not present. Many are to be sung, not all and really we do not have enough examples from Scripture to clearly explain how the Psalms were used in the regular worship of God in the OT. 

The other issue is that those who hold to the EP position do not all agree on the exegesis of Eph 5 & Col 3. In the RPCNA I knew of two major views: Some argue that the word Spiritual was a modifier that encapsulated the three nouns. (Spiritual Songs, Spiritual Hymns, and Spiritual Psalms) and that Spiritual specifically meant Spirit inspired. Others argue that Paul was referring to the titles of different Psalms found in the OT book of Psalms. The challenge then is that these two views can come to different conclusions. One would allow for the singing of anything Inspired by the Spirit, the other would allow for only the singing from the book of Psalms. 

I disagreed with both RP views of those texts. (I agree with Clowney's assessment of Eph 5 and Col 3,which can be found on page 136 of _The Church_)

With that being said: I think it would be appropriate to sing only psalms in a church for a time (but not for a long time). In the same way that we might say it would be appropriate to spend a season focused on one part of Scripture (but that It would be wrong to neglect the whole counsel of God). To look fondly on a practice that only focused on one part of Scripture seems to be akin to having a red letter book of the Bible. ('Let's just read the sermon on the mount thats the really inspired stuff!')
I would however see an overlap in the way we interact with reformed baptists and those who hold the EP view. An error but an error that does not remove one from the kingdom. 
Some fall into Legalism and others do not. Legalism is a sin, but so is judging a brother out of turn, rather than following Pauls instruction from Romans 14.
What we must admit is that in every tradition there will be inconsistencies (Roman 7). Im not sure what is more consistent the EP who says its not a sin or the one who does. And Im not sure exactly how to interact with them since after all many EPer's do not share the same exegesis of key texts for their argument.

It is hard to care for a weaker brother, but it is something that is important.


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Of course, he protested. But by calling something a violation of God's law with the guilt associated therewith, he has implicitly burdened (if not bound) the conscience of those to whom he applies the label because they're left wondering, "Am I sinning?" after having been declared as such by this man in his ministerial office.



Ben, but wouldn't this be the case with _whatever _doctrinal belief we may hold to that puts us at odds with our brother? I'm not referring to preferences that hold zero doctrinal significance; such as whether I prefer a silk tie over a knit tie. I am talking about more weighty issues such as baptism and sabbath observance (just to name two). If I believe that those who believe the opposite of me on these issues are in sin, am I binding their consciences if I make known my convictions during a conversation? Is that any different than the EPer who is convinced that his practice is the scriptural position? Don't misunderstand me. I am not an EPer. Even though I believe EP is a misinterpretation of the Word of God, I understand why EPers believe it is a the proper interpretation. I'm asking whether we fault them anymore than we we would fault a brother who differs with us on baptism, the sabbath, ecclesiology etc.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2010)

Herald said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, he protested. But by calling something a violation of God's law with the guilt associated therewith, he has implicitly burdened (if not bound) the conscience of those to whom he applies the label because they're left wondering, "Am I sinning?" after having been declared as such by this man in his ministerial office.
> ...


 
Bill! It's good to hear from you. Hard to believe you live just 15 minutes from me...

I hear what you're saying, but these other doctrinal areas - as important as they may be - are not the problem. See, I've seen nonEP Presbyterians here write posts and threads being very pointed that anti-paedobaptism is WRONG, that congregationalism is WRONG. That not being a sabbatarian is WRONG. But when the same principle is applied to the question of EP, _though we all know that the RPW is such that we can't not do that which is commanded and we can only do what is commanded_, the application of the principle goes soft and the same people who will (I can go to threads to prove it) be quite adamant about, let's say, baptism, will when it comes to the question of EP, suddenly write as if it is ok. As if mutually exclusive views can both be true.

So, Bill, it was only my intent to bring up the EP issue because that is the only area in which I perceived a need. 

And finally, please remember that in my posts on this thread, I'm not intending to address the EPer with my points. I'm addressing the non-EPer who is tempted to say that being EP is an acceptable option.


----------



## jayce475 (Nov 24, 2010)

Ben, I'm confused too. Baptism views, ecclesiology, church governance etc. have always seemed big enough issues for separation to be practised, but yet somehow EP is not as big an issue. I fail to see how partial obedience is somehow adequate obedience.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 24, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> And finally, please remember that in my posts on this thread, I'm not intending to address the EPer with my points. I'm addressing the non-EPer who is tempted to say that being EP is an acceptable option.


 
I have my reservations concerning the EP position. I have a high appreciation of the position. I also believe the Early Church sang the Psalter. I believe that is the only thing they sung in worship. I also believe that Hymns, Psalms, and Spiritual Songs are a reference to the the 150 Psalms. That is very much and most likely what St. Paul was referring to when he penned the Colossians and Ephesians epistles. So, to hold to a position that has some historical roots is not necessarily sin as you would like to name it.

I also believe that Baptism, and ecclesiastical practice are RPW issues.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > And finally, please remember that in my posts on this thread, I'm not intending to address the EPer with my points. I'm addressing the non-EPer who is tempted to say that being EP is an acceptable option.
> ...


 
Hmmm. Well, yes I've heard that the "early church only sang Psalms" from some... but on another tab I'm looking at hymns from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. So how can I put this lightly? I know... I find belief in the assertions you've given to be like the belief I was surrounded by when I was an evangelical that NASA had "discovered" the missing day, or that the Ark had been found. I understand that there was a day in which folks didn't have access to all sorts of information, but in this day and age - in which anyone can easily view songs from the early church - the notion that the Book of Psalms was the exclusive "song book" of the early church is, in my opinion, only maintained by folks who are of the same ilk as those who say we didn't land on the moon. I realize I've used strong analogies, but I must remind you - and anyone reading this - that I've drawn analogies from situations in which otherwise smart and rational folks believe things against pretty clear evidence. 


In sum, I give literally no credence to the notions you propose. And I am absolutely convinced that trying to defend them is a proverbial fool's errand.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 24, 2010)

Ben,
You admit that Hymns weren't sang in the first century by your post. 



> but on another tab I'm looking at hymns from the 2nd and 3rd Centuries.



This is part of my problem. I tried to find Hymns of the early church and just can't find them. They don't seem to exist. There seems to be no notion of their existence. I referred you to St. Paul and what he understood in reference to when he wrote the epistles and I would stand on my assertion stronger than you want to upon your assumptions. When St. Paul referenced Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs he was not referring to anything else but the 150 that our Canon contains in the book of Psalms. I believe I have solid History on my side and you are found so lacking. 

Sorry brother. Well, not really in all senses. 

Love ya brother. But you are historically wrong. 

I have also read books that seem to indicate portions of the New Testament were sang in the early Church. But the evidence is so lacking.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2010)

Randy, you infer too much. Hymns from the time of the apostles are cited by Paul.... every good NT scholar knows this. And for the record, the 2nd century is the early church.
Indeed, ironically, I think there is much earlier and more explicit historical evidence for the singing of hymns than for... infant baptism! Yet none of the EPers here would dare suggest that infant baptism wasn't apostolic. Ah, the differing standards we employ. Fortunately I'm consistent. But I digress.

I don't want to argue.

This thread is for nonEPers to think through the implications of the RPW - for something to be in our worship it must be commanded - when applied to a position that we believe is wrong by refusing to do what we believe God has commanded. If we believe God has commanded the singing of songs outside the Book of Psalms, then for anyone to say "No! I refuse!" should be seen by us as how?


----------



## gene_mingo (Nov 24, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> It isn't just that they don't sing hymns in corporate worship. It is that they say it is verboten. It is that they label the practice as out of accord with the RPW - that means it is sin - and thereby call evil what we believe the Lord calls good.



Aren't you tired of knocking down those strawmen? 
I don't see the point of any of your dialog if you won't even present the opposing position correctly. Frankly I find it a bit disturbing.

Here is the definition of hymn, since you seem a bit confused as to what the word means.

hymn |him|
noun
a religious song or poem, typically of praise to God.

I have yet to find any theological writings on the psalms that say they cannot be hymns, in fact all I can find in writing is the almost universal agreement that some of the psalms are in fact hymns.

I understand it is much easier to counter a misrepresentation of an opponents argument than to deal with what they actually believe.

I find your statement particularly disturbing in light of the position you hold as a minister of gods word. It is dishonest to misrepresent the position of the EPer for the sole purpose of trying to win an argument.


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> And finally, please remember that in my posts on this thread, I'm not intending to address the EPer with my points. I'm addressing the non-EPer who is tempted to say that being EP is an acceptable option.



I suppose we have to define what we mean by _acceptable_. Is EP within the bounds of orthodoxy? If it is we may be able to accept it in the sense that we're not accusing our EP brethren of heresy. We recognize that Christians of goodwill hold to it. That's why I brought up baptism and sabbatarianism. Ben, you're a paedo. I believe that position is wrong. However, I recognize it is within the pale of orthodoxy and not, at least according to my understanding, heretical. I _accept _the fact that you are paedo, but I do not endorse your being so. Does that make sense? The other type of acceptance would be to say that EP and non-EP are both approved forms of worship. They're not. One is correct and the other is not.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 24, 2010)

I am a non EPer Ben. You still haven't addressed the issue of Paul's understanding of Hymn in his historical context. I sang uninspired Hymns in a Church I visited a few weeks ago. I love the Hymn Holy, holy, holy. But I don't believe that uninspired hymns is what St. Paul is thinking about when he wrote his epistles. And when you reference others who claim that hymns were sang in the early Church, I don't deny that. I deny that the likely hood of them being outside of the 150 is very questionable. The early first Century Church sang Hymns, I have looked hard into this topic having been amongst EPer's for the past 25 years. I just don't see the evidence that they were outside of the 150. I don't see the evidence of anyone composing a Hymn outside of the 150 during the first Century. The evidence this happened is only assertion and assumption. I also believe we would have evidence of written hymns during this time. After all, Polycarp's writings exist as well as other historical writings concerning worship and the canon during the first century. 

BTW, you have to want to discuss this.(i.e. argue) You make so many assertions and calling others sinners that violate the RPW that you need to stand challenged on some of your assumptions. You seem to have an air of superiority in knowledge on this issue. You are also inciting those of us who say we have an appreciation for the EPer's.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2010)

Randy -

Your response is precisely why I started this thread. It is about logical consistency in how we estimate other views in the light of our own positions and the principles that inform the positions we have adopted. I will NOT romanticize a view or have a nostalgic appreciation for a view that violates principles I hold dear. I can (and do!) fellowship with people whom I believe worship incorrectly. But you don't find me speaking positively about their views when I believe they're wrong. And, as I've said above, on issues of baptism or church governance, credos have consistently communicated that paedobaptism is a BAD thing just as paedos have consistently communicated that denying baptism to infants is a BAD thing. But when it comes to the EP scenario, the nonEPer almost seems to forget that the EPer posits things that are mutually exclusive to their (the nonEP) view. You say you appreciate the EP position. Do you "appreciate" the happy clappy evangelical worship - are they not trying to be Christ honoring?

Now, (and this gets to what Bill was asking about "is it orthodox"), I use the term "orthodox" very sparingly. Much more sparingly than some. I use the term to denote being in the Christian faith. Lutherans are orthodox in that sense. But you won't find me speaking appreciatively of the Lutheran normative principle any more than you'll find me expressing approval for a view that excludes the sign of the covenant from people I believe are commanded to receive it.

Again it needs to be asked and addressed by you and others: IF the RPW requires that we do something, then what do we do with a view that forbids the thing commanded? And if you question whether the thing is really _commanded_ in the first place, then upon what authority is it lawfully being done in worship at all?  

See, from my vantage point, I see that the logic is crystal clear and as I see it, it looks to me like it is emotional sentimentality that keeps folks from going where the logic clearly goes. However, I must reassert - I don't know everything. If there is some larger principle of why this isn't such a significant RPW issue as (say) images of Christ or dancing or something else, then please instruct me. But I must warn you - going on about the supposed merits of the EP position establishes nothing since by virtue of my own nonEP position I find the EP position lacking and arguments why, for tradition sake or some other reason, why I should have appreciation for the view don't have any effect on the principles at stake.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 24, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Randy -
> ...
> Again it needs to be asked and addressed by you and others: IF the RPW requires that we do something, then what do we do with a view that forbids the thing commanded? And if you question whether the thing is really _commanded_ in the first place, then upon what authority is it lawfully being done in worship at all?
> ...



You are negating Ben without addressing my points. When you claim the Ephesians passage along with the Colossians passage is commanding you to sing uninspired hymns, are you absolutely positive of the understanding Paul was giving when he addressed Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. Was he *in fact* thinking of uninspired hymns? Or was he thinking of the hymns composed by God himself contained in the 150 songs. Historically your understanding is out of kilter in my estimation. And you haven't even addressed my questions. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 24, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> So along those lines, NO, a psalm does NOT meet the requirement of hymn, nor does a hymn meet the requirement of psalm.


 Just for clarification Ben, this is where we are having a problem.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2010)

Randy, you know very well that you're trying to play coy semantic games. In the vernacular - as it pertains to the argument of this thread - a "psalm" is from the book of psalms, whereas a "hymn" refers to something else. The reason the label is Exclusive _Psalmody_ is because of the vernacular - they mean they exclusively sing from the book of psalms. The question I'm asking is not a side step. It is the question I've been asking since the start. How about answering it? The question has been there for days before you decided to involve yourself in the discussion, waiting for an answer from folks with perspectives such as yours. Answer it as a _principle_, and then maybe perhaps address it to the EP issue. Ooh... I see, I made a tactical error. I should have just asked about the principle and then when everyone agreed I should have then applied it to the issue. But alas, I prematurely played my hand.

Guys. I totally get the whole concept of not being able to intellectually grasp why something is wrong yet having my gut still say it is. Perhaps the whole "the logical conclusion of adhering to the RPW and believing that it requires being nonEP is that the EP position is errant" thing is butting up against the gut intuition that it seems ridiculous to call it errant. Just like as (perhaps some of you can remember) years ago there was this big blow up here in which some folks came pretty close to saying that Baptists were heretics and their churches and ordinations were invalid... remember that? But despite the "logic" of the position, it just seems ridiculous to me to make such an assertion. So I get it. I get why the reaction seems to me to be gut level. And it isn't necessarily wrong to be influenced by our intuitive sense. (Especially when our gut is calling us to be charitable with our fellow Christian.)

I'm not trying to negate that. I'm simply trying to see if we can do better. If you are an adherent to the RPW, and you believe the Bible commands the singing of songs from outside the book of Psalms, then where - as a matter of principle - do we come off endorsing or approving of a pattern of worship that is contrary to that?


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 24, 2010)

1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> 1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
> 1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
> 1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
> 1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
> 1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


 
Would you kindly elaborate?


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> 1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
> 1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
> 1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
> 1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
> 1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


 
Are you suggesting that we should bend on this issue in order not to offend a brother? 

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2010)

I've been late in my joining this thread because I wanted to see where it was going fist before jumping in. While my dear brother Ben can be as gentle as blowing your noise with sandpaper at times, he is making a cogent argument. Let me ask this question of my fellow nonEPers; do you consider the EP debate to be an RPW issue? If you believe it is are you willing to compromise on the RPW for the sake of not offending your brother?

Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## jayce475 (Nov 24, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> 1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
> 1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
> 1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
> 1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
> 1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


 
Yes, I believe all of us have seen your Romans 14 quote as well. The question is whether they apply to the EP position.


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> 1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
> 1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
> 1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
> 1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
> 1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


 Come to think of it, you need to explain your block quote of scripture.


Sent using my most excellent Android device.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 24, 2010)

Herald said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > 1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
> ...


 
The true EP and Non-EP position would bind the conscience in matters pertaining to worship and preaching, hence the strident nature of the proponents. Consequently, the positions are inherently divisive going so far as to call each other’s worship of God sinful. The partisans should not wonder why they receive so few dinner invitations from the others camp. Breaking down the elements and circumstances to the molecular, apparently worship is not a matter of liberty for the partisans. Must we really exhaust Greek linguistic relativism to see God’s will in the matter of acceptable worship? Both positions have sufficient exegetical ammo to carry the day but the war is lost on the substitution of micro analytical doctrine for Biblical macro implications. In other words, both camps suffer from theological myopia. Because there is a conundrum, does the RPW restrict Liberty of Conscience/Christian Liberty pertaining to worship? We should endeavor to exercise charity and promote unity if possible while striving to embrace one another as servants of the Most High Jehovah-jireh.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2010)

Herald said:


> While my dear brother Ben can be as gentle as blowing your noise with sandpaper at times, he is making a cogent argument.



Bill - Yes, I can be a bit... abrasive... at times, but I can also be quite delicate. To each according to their need, I say. 

Thank you for the call, it was a balm for my soul brother.


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > seajayrice said:
> ...


 
CJ, there are two issue at play. Firstly, there is the exegetical argument for or against EP. Music is an essential part of Christian worship. Worship is not a trivial matter. God has commanded how we are to worship Him. Therefore it is altogether proper that we get worship as right as possible. Secondly, how we interact with those with whom we hold to a different conviction will display our charity or our lack thereof. How much latitude are you willing to give on baptism? Ecclesiology? How about the Lord's Supper? If a brother comes into your assembly and announces he believes in paedocommunion and wants his infant children to partake; is that a line in the sand issue with you, or would you be willing to defer to that brother for the sake of unity? Either a practice that is observed by the corporate body of believers is approved by scripture or it's not. For the sake of, dare I use the word, unity a church needs to determine how it will perform worship. Such determination should be explained with charity and respect towards the one who disagrees, but there should never be a compromise on truth.


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > While my dear brother Ben can be as gentle as blowing your noise with sandpaper at times, he is making a cogent argument.
> ...


 
Likewise, brother.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 24, 2010)

Herald said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> > Herald said:
> ...


 
I could not agree more, and that is why denominations are characteristic of sinners yet not sinful in practice.


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2010)

For what it's worth let me state than Ben's thread caused me to question why I have been willing to be so accommodating towards EP when I clearly do not believe it to be the scriptural position. I love my EP brethren and certainly appreciate the singing of psalms. I'm glad that my church sings a psalm each week. But I needed Ben's challenge to man up and stand by my conviction. I certainly have no qualms about making my opinion known on other controversial doctrinal beliefs. Of course, how I communicate my beliefs should always be governed by love towards my brother. But the how takes second position to the why and what. 

Thanks, Ben.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2010)

Herald said:


> For what it's worth let me state than Ben's thread caused me to question why I have been willing to be so accommodating towards EP when I clearly do not believe it to be the scriptural position. I love my EP brethren and certainly appreciate the singing of psalms. I'm glad that my church sings a psalm each week. But I needed Ben's challenge to man up and stand by my conviction. I certainly have no qualms about making my opinion known on other controversial doctrinal beliefs. Of course, how I communicate my beliefs should always be governed by love towards my brother. But the how takes second position to the why and what.
> 
> Thanks, Ben.


 
My pleasure, Bill.


----------



## EKSB SDG (Nov 24, 2010)

Having read through all these posts, it seems to me that there needs to be a clarification of terms. Specifically, I believe that there is a need to clarify what is meant in Ephesians 5:19 "addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart."

I believe that we need to understand what scripture means by the words: "psalms" "hymns" and "spiritual songs."

Hopefully this may be of some help in this discussion:

I. Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26. Here we are told that, on the occasion of the passover, Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn before going out to the Mount of Olives. The Greek is humnesantes, which literally means "having hymned." The evidence available to us from other sources is to the effect of indicating that the hymn sung on this occasion was what is known as the Hallel, consisting of Psalms 113-118. This instance evinces the following facts.

(1) No warrant whatsoever can be adduced for the singing of uninspired hymns. There is no evidence that an uninspired hymn was sung on this occasion.

(2) The evidence we do possess evinces that Jesus and His disciples sang a portion of the psalter.

(3) The singing took place in connection with the celebration of the Old Testament sacrament of the Passover and the New Testament sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

II. I Corinthians 14:15, 26. Paul is here dealing with the assembly of the saints for worship. He says, "I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also" (vs. 15), "Each one hath a psalm" (vs. 26). From the verb that Paul uses in verse 15 we might quite properly translate as follows: "I will sing a psalm with the spirit and I will sing a psalm with the understanding also," just as in verse 26 he says, "Each one hath a psalm." We must conclude, therefore, that psalms were sung in the church at Corinth and such singing has, by obvious implication, the apostle's sanction and is confirmed by his example.

The question does arise: What were these psalms? It is possible that they were charismatic psalms. If so, one thing is certain—they were not uninspired compositions. If charismatic they were inspired or given by the Holy Spirit. If we today possessed such charismatic psalms, sung by the apostle himself in the assemblies of worship or sanctioned by him in the worship of the church, then we should have the proper authority for the use of them in the songs of the sanctuary. It so happens, however, that we do not have conclusive evidence to show that we have any of such alleged charismatic psalms. But even on the hypothesis that they were charismatic psalms and even on the hypothesis that we have examples of such in Acts 4:23-30; I Timothy 3:16, we are not thereby furnished with any authorization for the use of uninspired songs in the worship of God.

On the hypothesis that they were not charismatic psalms we have to ask, what were they? To answer this question we have simply to ask another: what songs in the usage of Scripture, fall into the category of psalms? There is one answer. The Book of Psalms is composed of psalms and, therefore, by the simplest principle of hermeneutics we can say that, in terms of Scripture language, the songs that are repeatedly called psalms perfectly satisfy the denotation and connotation of the word "psalm" as it is used here. If inspired Scripture says, "Each one hath a psalm," and Scripture also calls the "Psalms" psalms, then surely we may also sing a Psalm to the praise of God in His worship.

So far as these two texts are concerned we can say that they provide us with no warrant whatsoever for the use of uninspired hymns. We can also say that, since the psalms we possess in the psalter are certainly psalms in the terminology of Scripture itself, we are hereby provided with divine warrant for the singing of such in the worship of God.

III. Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16. With respect to these two texts it should be noted, first of all, that Paul is not necessarily referring to the public worship of God. The context does not make clear that Paul is confining himself here to exhortation that concerns the behaviour of believers in relation to one another in the assemblies of worship. Paul may very well be giving general exhortation. Indeed, the context in both passages would appear to show that he is exhorting to a certain kind of exercise in which believers should engage in reference to one another in the discharge of that mutual instruction and edification requisite to concerted advancement of one another's highest interests and of the glory of God.

This consideration does not, however, remove these texts from relevancy to the question of the public worship of God. For, if Paul specifies psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs as the media through which believers may mutually promote the glory of God and one another's edification in those more generic Christian exercises, this fact has very close bearing upon the question of the apostolically sanctioned and authorized media of praise to God in the more specific worship of the sanctuary. In other words, if the apostolically enjoined media or materials of song in the more generic exercises of worship are psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs, then surely nothing inferior to psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs would be enjoined for use in the more specific exercises of worship in the assemblies of the church. If psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs are the limits of the materials of song in praise of God in less formal acts of worship, how much more are they the limits in more formal acts of worship. With respect to these two texts the following considerations are to be borne in mind.

(1) We cannot determine the denotation or connotation of psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs by any modern usage of these same words. The meaning and reference must be determined by the usage of Scripture.

(2) Some of the facts with reference to the usage of Scripture are very significant.

The word psalmos (psalm) occurs some 94 times in the Greek Scriptures, that is to say, some 87 times in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament and 7 times in the New Testament. In the Septuagint some 78 of these instances are in the Book of Psalms. In the great majority of instances in the Book of Psalms, some 67 in all, it occurs in the titles of the Psalms. In three of the seven instances in the New Testament the word is unmistakably used with reference to the Psalms, in two instances in the phrase the "Book of Psalms" (biblos psalmon) and in the other instance with reference to the second Psalm. It is surely significant, therefore, that in some 70 of the 94 instances the reference is clearly to the Book of Psalms or to Psalms in the Book of Psalms.

The word humnos (hymn) occurs some 19 times in the Greek Bible, 17 (?) times in the Old Testament and 2 times in the New (in the passages under consideration). Of the 17 Old Testament instances 13 occur in the Book of Psalms and 6 of these are in the titles. In the seven instances not occurring in the titles the reference is in each case to the praise of God, or to the songs of Sion. The other four instances in the other books of the Old Testament have likewise reference to the songs of praise to God.

The word, odee (song) occurs some 86 times in the Greek Bible, some 80 times in the Old Testament and 6 times in the New. Apart from these two passages (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), it occurs in the New Testament only in the Book of Revelation. Of the 80 occurrences in the Old Testament some 45 are in the Book of Psalms and 36 of these are in the titles of the Psalms.

It is surely apparent, therefore, how large a proportion of the occurrences of these words is in the Book of Psalms. These facts of themselves do not prove that the reference here in Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16 is to the Book of Psalms exclusively. But these facts must not be forgotten as we proceed to determine the character of the lyrical compositions mentioned in these two texts.

(3) In the New Testament the word psalmos occurs seven times, as was just stated. Two of these instances are in the texts we are considering. One of these instances is I Cor. 14:26, a text dealt with already. Two instances (Luke 20:42; Acts 1:20) refer to the Book of Psalms (biblos psalmon). Luke 24:44 clearly refers to Old Testament inspired Scripture and probably to the Book of Psalms. Acts 13:33 refers to the second Psalm. In none of these instances is there any warrant for supposing that "psalms" refer to uninspired human compositions. In the majority, without the least shadow of doubt, the reference is to inspired Scripture.

In the New Testament the word humnos occurs only in these two passages. The verb humneo (to hymn) occurs four times (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, Acts 16:25; Heb. 2:12). As we found already, the synoptic passages most probably refer to the singing of the Hallel by our Lord and His disciples. Acts 16:25 refers to the singing of Paul and Silas in prison. Hebrews 2:12 is a quotation from the Old Testament (Ps. 22:23)—en meso ekklesias humneso se.

No evidence whatsoever can be adduced from the usage in support of the use of uninspired hymns.

Apart from these two instances the word odee occurs in the New Testament only in Rev. 5:9; 14:3 (2); 15:3.

From the New Testament, then, no evidence can be derived to show that these words may be used here (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) with reference to uninspired songs. Even though odee is used in the Book of Revelation with reference to songs other than those in the Book of Psalms it is not used there with reference to uninspired human compositions but with reference to inspired songs.

(4) We now come to the consideration of some facts which are even more significant than those already discussed. The Book of Psalms is composed of psalms, hymns and songs. We have already found that the overwhelming majority of the instances of these words in both Testaments has reference to the Book of Psalms. We now come to the discussion of the meaning of these words in the titles of the Psalms.

In the Septuagint psalmos occurs some 67 times in the titles to the Psalms. In most cases it is the translation of the Hebrew mismor, but in a few cases it translates other Hebrew words. Psalmos means simply "song of praise." The frequency with which the word psalmos occurs in the titles is probably the reason why the Book of Psalms is called in the LXX version simply psalmoi. In the Hebrew it is called tehillim.

It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that the New Testament writers, familiar as they were with the Old Testament in Greek, would necessarily have the Book of Psalms in mind when they used this word psalmos. There is no other piece of evidence that even begins to take on the significance for the meaning of the word "psalm" in the New Testament that this simple fact takes on, namely, that the Book of Psalms was called simply "Psalms" (psalmoi). The usage of the New Testament itself puts this beyond all doubt. There the Psalms are called the Book of Psalms.

There is nothing in the context of these two passages requiring us to regard "psalms" as referring to uninspired compositions. On the other hand, there are abundant instances in the usage of Scripture elsewhere which show that the word "psalm" refers to an inspired composition. Furthermore, there is no instance in which the word "psalm," as used with reference to a song of praise to God, can be shown to refer to an uninspired song. It is therefore quite unwarranted to regard "psalms" in these two passages as referring to uninspired songs, whereas there is abundant warrant for regarding them as denoting inspired compositions. Consequently, if we are to follow the line of the evidence provided by the Scripture, we are forced to find the "psalms" here mentioned within the limits of inspiration.

As we found, the word humnos appears some 17 times in the Septuagint version. In thirteen cases it appears in the Book of Psalms. In five or six cases it appears in the titles of the Psalms as the translation of the Hebrew neginoth or neginah. It is significant that on several occasions in the text of the Psalms humnos translates the Hebrew word tehillah, which is the word used to designate the Book of Psalms in the Hebrew. This shows that psalms may be called hymns and hymns are psalms. Psalms and hymns are not exclusive of one another. A psalm may be not only a psalm but also a hymn.

These facts show that when, in the usage of Scripture, we look for the type of composition meant by a "hymn," we find it in the Psalms. And we have no evidence whatsoever that a hymn, in the usage of Scripture, ever designates an uninspired human composition.

The word odee occurs much more frequently in the titles of the Psalms than does the word humnos, but not as frequently as does the word psalmos. There are some 36 instances. It usually translates the Hebrew word shir but not always. Occasionally it is the translation of mismor, the word generally translated by psalmos. Odee occurs so frequently in the titles of the psalms that its meaning would be definitely influenced by that usage.

The conclusion to which we are driven then is that the frequency with which these words occur in that book of the Old Testament that is unique in this respect that it is a collection of songs composed at various times and by various inspired writers, the book that stands out distinctively and uniquely as composed of psalms, hymns and songs, would tend most definitely to fix the meaning of these words in the usage of the inspired writers. The case is simply this that beyond all dispute there is no other datum that compares with the significance of the language of the Septuagint in the resolution of this question. When taken in conjunction with the only positive evidence we have in the New Testament, the evidence leads preponderantly to the conclusion that when Paul wrote "psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs" he would expect the minds of his readers to think of what were, in the terms of Scripture itself, "psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs," namely, the Book of Psalms.

(5) The evidence does not warrant the conclusion that the apostle meant by "psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs" to designate three distinct groups or types of lyrical compositions. It is significant in this connection that in a few cases in the titles of the Psalms all three of these words occur. In many cases the words "psalm" and "song" occur in the same title. This shows that a lyrical composition may be a psalm, hymn and song at the same time.

The words, of course, have their own distinctive meanings, and such distinctive meanings may intimate the variety and richness of the materials of song the apostle has in mind. Paul uses three words that in the established usage of Scripture designate the rich variety of such lyrical compositions as were suited for the worship of God in the service of song.

(6) Paul specifies the character of the songs as "Spiritual"—odais pneumatikais. If anything should be obvious from the use of the word pneumatikos in the New Testament it is that it has reference to the Holy Spirit and means, in such contexts as the present, "given by the Spirit." Its meaning is not at all, as Trench contends, "such as were composed by spiritual men, and moved in the sphere of spiritual things" (Synonyms, LXXVIII). It rather means, as Meyer points out, "proceeding from the Holy Spirit, as theopneustos" (Com. on Eph. 5:19). In this context the word would mean "indited by the Spirit," just as in I Corinthians 2:13 logois...pneumatikois are "words inspired by the Spirit" and "taught by the Spirit" (didaktois pneumatos).

The question, of course, arises: why does the word pneumatikos qualify odais and not psalmois and humnois? A reasonable answer to this question is that pneumatikais qualifies all three datives and that its gender (fem.) is due to attraction to the gender of the noun that is closest to it. Another distinct possibility, made particularly plausible by the omission of the copulative in Colossians 3:16, is that "Spiritual songs" are the genus of which "psalms" and "hymns" are the species. This is the view of Meyer, for example.

On either of these assumptions the psalms, hymns and songs are all "Spiritual" and therefore all inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bearing of this upon the question at issue is perfectly apparent. Uninspired hymns are immediately excluded.

But we shall have to allow for the distinct possibility that the word "Spiritual," in the grammatical structure of the clause, is confined to the word "songs." On this hypothesis the "songs" are characterized as "Spiritual," and therefore characterized as inspired or indited by the Holy Spirit. This, at least, should be abundantly clear.

The question would arise then: is it merely the "songs" that need, to be inspired while the "psalms" and "hymns" may be uninspired? The asking of the question shows the unreasonableness of such an hypothesis, especially when we bear in mind all that has already been shown with reference to the use of these words. On what conceivable ground would Paul have insisted that the "songs" needed to be divinely inspired while the "psalms" and "hymns" did not need to be? In the usage of Scripture there was no hard and fast line of distinction between psalms and hymns, on the one hand, and songs on the other. It would be quite impossible to find any good ground for such discrimination in the apostolic prescription.

The unreasonableness of such a supposition appears all the more conclusive when we remember the Scripture usage with respect to the word "psalms." There is not the least bit of evidence to suppose that in such usage on the part of the apostle "psalm" could mean an uninspired human composition. All the evidence, rather, goes to establish the opposite conclusion.

We see then that psalms are inspired. Songs are inspired because they are characterized as "Spiritual." What then about the hymns? May they be uninspired? As already indicated, it would be an utterly unreasonable hypothesis to maintain that the apostle would require that songs be inspired while psalms and hymns might not. This becomes all the more cogent when we recognize, as we have established, that the psalms and songs were inspired. It would indeed be strange discrimination if hymns might be uninspired and psalms and songs inspired. But it would be strange to the point of absurdity if Paul should be supposed to insist that songs had to be inspired but hymns not. For what distinction can be drawn between a hymn and a song that would make it requisite for the latter to be inspired while the former might not be? We, indeed, cannot be sure that there is any distinction so far as actual denotation is concerned. Even if we do maintain the distinct colour of each word there is no discoverable reason why so radical a distinction as that between inspiration and non-inspiration could be maintained.

The only conclusion we can arrive at then is that "hymns" in Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16 must be accorded the same "Spiritual" quality as is accorded to "psalms" by obvious implication and to "songs" by express qualification and that this was taken for granted by the apostle, either because the word "Spiritual" would be regarded as qualifying all three words, or because "Spiritual songs" were the genus of which "psalms" and "hymns" were the species, or because in the usage of the church "hymns" like "psalms" would be recognized in their own right and because of the context in which they are mentioned to be in no other category, as respects their "Spiritual" quality, than the category occupied by psalms and songs.


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2010)

EKSB SDG said:


> Having read through all these posts, it seems to me that there needs to be a clarification of terms. Specifically, I believe that there is a need to clarify what is meant in Ephesians 5:19 "addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart."
> 
> I believe that we need to understand what scripture means by the words: "psalms" "hymns" and "spiritual songs."
> 
> ...


 
Bruce, if you actually take the time to _*read *_the OP you will notice this thread is not about the merits of EP.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 25, 2010)

I think through this issue quite a bit since we have a good relationship with the RP church in town. I think there's three main issues why I am accomodating to EP: 

1) There's the exegetical issue: Even though I do believe Paul commands the use of hymns, I think the exgetecal case for EP is certainly a legitimate possibility. In other words, the case for both is not so clear cut that we should be drawing swords over it, but respectfully agreeing to disagree. The exegetical grounds are not serious enough to warrant severe condemnation. So I can respect my EP brothers, because I know they are sincerely trying to obey the RPW on exegetical grounds (and hopefully they can respect me for trying to do the same).

2) There's the practical issue: Even though the issue is very minor exegetically and doctrinally within the "99%" of theological/exegetical agreement we do have, it happens to result in very obvious and unavoidable differences in practice. But since my position has more liberty, I have no problem restricting myself to sing only psalms in order to promote unity in more important matters. So for example, in our occasional joint OPC-RPCNA worship services we sing psalms only. We would rather worship God together with songs we agree on, than never worship together at all simply because they won't sing some of the songs we do. We are worshipping the same God, we are both united to Christ, we need to build one another up because of that relationship. Even though we may think of the other as violating the RPW regarding song in our denominations, it's not a big enough issue to prevent us from building each other up as much as possible in everything else. 

3) We both have a commitment to the RPW. That alone should be celebrated and appreciated in light of our Western worship crisis. Even though we disagree on songs, we can at least discuss it within a common biblical framework and criteria. 

So that's why I'm more accomodating. It's not Reformed nostaliga over the pedigree but simply an acknowledgment (at least for me) that the exegetical issues are not serious enough to warrant a hardline, and working for unity is more important than fighting for hymns. Obviously we remain true to our consciences by remaining in our denominations. But we can still try to express our love for one another and for God by singing psalms together. 

Hopefully that contributes something helpful toward the discussion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 25, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> 'm not trying to negate that. I'm simply trying to see if we can do better. If you are an adherent to the RPW, and you believe the Bible commands the singing of songs from outside the book of Psalms, then where - as a matter of principle - do we come off endorsing or approving of a pattern of worship that is contrary to that?



Finally, a question I can deal with but not upon your assertions in your other posts. You still have negated my questions In my humble opinion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 25, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Randy, you know very well that you're trying to play coy semantic games. In the vernacular - as it pertains to the argument of this thread - a "psalm" is from the book of psalms, whereas a "hymn" refers to something else.



I am not sure this is true..... And no one has proved otherwise. Prove it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 25, 2010)

Normative Principle.....

http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/normative-regulative-critique-25192/


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 25, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > I have also thought that my EP brothers and sisters are missing out by excluding what God allows.
> ...



No, I’m not fine with it. You make excellent points, and you are right. To accuse a brother or sister of deviant worship is going too far. In spite of the disagreements over what the Scriptures say, I don’t see anywhere in the NT where the Scriptures tell us that if we sing anything to God other than Psalms we are engaging in deviant worship. On the contrary, if anything, there is more liberty in the NT, because we have been given the Holy Spirit. (That, of course, does not give us liberty to sing in worship anything that is out of accordance with God’s Word.)

The truth is, I can’t even grasp the bondage attached with the idea that I would have stop singing words such as “All is in Christ, God’s dear Son is Lord of all” or “In Christ alone my hope is found”. I can’t imagine that my God would be displeased with those words in worship. Those words are cried out in some form in prayer often in worship, and they are stated from the pulpit. Why can’t they be set to music? It seems inconsistent to me. So, perhaps, I take the easy way out and refuse to take a stand, because I don’t want to accuse my brethren of deviant worship or at least binding the conscience, because you are right, that is the logical conclusion. 

On the other hand, I have been in the seat of EPers, not on the issue of music in worship, and I do know that I have been guilty of pointing fingers at those who have found freedom in Christ. I now sit in the seat of those who were at the other end of my finger. I know what it feels like to be in both places, and I want to extend grace. 

Thank you, Ben, for starting this thread. It has given me much to think about.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2010)

Richard,

One more time and you are banned from the thread.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 25, 2010)

Sorry Fred. I thought this thread was open to EP-ers. I thought Randy is an EP-er?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 25, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Sorry Fred. I thought this thread was open to EP-ers. I thought Randy is an EP-er?


 As far as I know he is not. I don't mind if you participate, just not with judgmental comments.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 25, 2010)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think through this issue quite a bit since we have a good relationship with the RP church in town. I think there's three main issues why I am accomodating to EP:
> 
> 1) There's the exegetical issue: Even though I do believe Paul commands the use of hymns, I think the exgetecal case for EP is certainly a legitimate possibility. In other words, the case for both is not so clear cut that we should be drawing swords over it, but respectfully agreeing to disagree. The exegetical grounds are not serious enough to warrant severe condemnation. So I can respect my EP brothers, because I know they are sincerely trying to obey the RPW on exegetical grounds (and hopefully they can respect me for trying to do the same).
> 
> ...



This is helpful, because in our relatively small denomination, those of us that believe that the stated services (formal, congregational worship) should have unaccompanied Psalm-singing only, so that no-one's conscience is bound, are going to have to get along with some of our brothers and sisters who seem to think that hymns, worship songs and instrumental accompaniment are the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 25, 2010)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think through this issue quite a bit since we have a good relationship with the RP church in town. I think there's three main issues why I am accomodating to EP:
> 
> 1) There's the exegetical issue: Even though I do believe Paul commands the use of hymns, I think the exgetecal case for EP is certainly a legitimate possibility. In other words, the case for both is not so clear cut that we should be drawing swords over it, but respectfully agreeing to disagree. The exegetical grounds are not serious enough to warrant severe condemnation. So I can respect my EP brothers, because I know they are sincerely trying to obey the RPW on exegetical grounds (and hopefully they can respect me for trying to do the same).



Patrick, of course you should be charitable, but I wonder how you are in regards to credobaptism? Is the exegetical argument for credobaptism a legitimate possibility? Or what about the Sabbath? Is it not within the realm of possibility that the exegetical argument of guys like DA Carson is indeed valid? I could go on, but my point is this - in these other areas where folks are sincerely trying to honor God's Word, you may deal with them graciously, but you don't commend their view or participate in worship according to their norms in the area in question. So why do you do it in regards to EP?



> 2) There's the practical issue: Even though the issue is very minor exegetically and doctrinally within the "99%" of theological/exegetical agreement we do have, it happens to result in very obvious and unavoidable differences in practice. But since my position has more liberty, I have no problem restricting myself to sing only psalms in order to promote unity in more important matters. So for example, in our occasional joint OPC-RPCNA worship services we sing psalms only. We would rather worship God together with songs we agree on, than never worship together at all simply because they won't sing some of the songs we do. We are worshipping the same God, we are both united to Christ, we need to build one another up because of that relationship. Even though we may think of the other as violating the RPW regarding song in our denominations, it's not a big enough issue to prevent us from building each other up as much as possible in everything else.



Very minor? We share 99% in common? (_Isn't that what they say about the genetic makeup of humans and apes?_) Could I not say something similar in regards to other pesky doctrines that get in the way of me being able to be one with other groups? Again, as an RPW issue, it comes down to have we or have we not been commanded to do this? Would you not baptize an infant because you have Baptists visiting? Would you schedule a joint service with a Baptist church when they want to baptize folks knowing that their congregational words of instruction will contradict what you believe? No. But again, this issue becomes different. Why? And I say unto you - when you agree to worship according to their expectations, this is not the gracious act of a stronger brother condescending to a weaker brother. No, this is a case where the one group is unyielding in its studied principles and if you want to worship with them it will be on their terms, thus binding your conscience to their dictates which explicitly refuse to obey what you believe to be a command of God. When they sing psalms it is not as when you sing psalms. I heard a White Horse Inn several years ago in which Horton said that if he's with someone and they go out to eat and the server offers wine, and the person he's with says, "I'm a Christian, so I don't drink," Horton said he takes it as his Gospel duty to say to the server, "I'm a Christian so I'd love to have a glass of wine." I think it is very similar to the case of allowing the EPer to impose his will on you and your congregation - you have a gospel duty to proclaim true liberty, yet you lose that when you bow to the EPer's unflinching principle. On top of that, I think you should reconsider the whole group worship service according to their dictates because of the RPW issue of essentially signing off on a practice of worship that you say is errant. 



> 3) We both have a commitment to the RPW. That alone should be celebrated and appreciated in light of our Western worship crisis. Even though we disagree on songs, we can at least discuss it within a common biblical framework and criteria.



Again, Patrick, there are others who operate with the same framework and criteria yet I wonder if you would be so accommodating. Perhaps I should read this one in the light of what you say about the present worship crisis - could it be that this is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?" 



> So that's why I'm more accomodating. It's not Reformed nostaliga over the pedigree but simply an acknowledgment (at least for me) that the exegetical issues are not serious enough to warrant a hardline, and working for unity is more important than fighting for hymns. Obviously we remain true to our consciences by remaining in our denominations. But we can still try to express our love for one another and for God by singing psalms together.
> 
> Hopefully that contributes something helpful toward the discussion.



Well, the EPers undoubtedly love what you've written Patrick, and they love even more that you're willing to legitimize their practice. But again, according to what I've understood about the RPW, "close" doesn't count. It's all or nothing, baby. I guess that's why I am uncomfortable with the whole "they're so close to us, if I can just bend on this one teeny tiny point we can get along and hold hands and sing Kum-by-yah " rationale. So again: Do you really believe that we have been commanded to sing songs from outside the book of Psalms? If you do (and I think you do), then I understand being gracious with those with whom we disagree, but how can you worship according to a pattern that fundamentally and principally calls "evil" what you believe God has commanded?

But thanks for the contribution and explanation Patrick! I hope your Thanksgiving was relaxing.


----------



## Herald (Nov 26, 2010)

Ben,

Out of curiosity, if you were traveling and visited a church, and only after the worship service had begun did you realize they were EP, would you participate in the congregational singing or not? If so, would you participate because psalm singing is prescribed in scripture (and therefore the RPW), or would you not participate because you believe hymns are prohibited?


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 26, 2010)

(Some of) the "Hymn singers" clearly feel that their liberty is being impinged upon if they worship in a Church that is EP and non-instrumental, while the "Psalm singers" feel that their liberty is being stepped on by being obliged to sing uninspired hymns and worship through the medium of non-living instruments.

Can two worship together, except they be agreed? Yes, but with some dicomfort and discomfit for one group or the other. We have to put love for the brethren higher than some of our other principles, as paedobaptists do when they attend a credobaptism, or Reformed people worship with a congregation that is in other ways less than ideal.

No gathering of God's people is perfect - yet.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 26, 2010)

Herald said:


> Ben,
> 
> Out of curiosity, if you were traveling and visited a church, and only after the worship service had begun did you realize they were EP, would you participate in the congregational singing or not? If so, would you participate because psalm singing is prescribed in scripture (and therefore the RPW), or would you not participate because you believe hymns are prohibited?



Bill,

I won't normally attend worship at such a place.

But I would visit IF I was showing support for a friend - to check out their church, etc. Of course, if by some strange providence the EP church was the only orthodox church in an area, I'd go.

I alluded to it earlier, and I can't rationally explain it, but my gut tells me that not RPW violations are equally egregious. I'd attend an EP church before I'd attend a church that had a pastorette or practiced paedocommunion, etc. 

But - to be honest - I'd rather go to an essentially reformed Baptist church than an EP presbyterian church. I find not explicitly singing of Jesus and his accomplished work to be THAT offensive.


----------



## Herald (Nov 26, 2010)

Ben, you're not being bushwhacked. I meant it as an honest question. Listen, you've been rather bold in holding your fellow non-EPers accountable. I told you, both in private and in this thread, that I appreciate that. I'm wondering how it plays out in real life. There is no hidden agenda to my question. I'll answer my own question. If I found myself in an EP church for a service I would probably sing the psalms because psalms are commanded in worship. I wouldn't call attention to myself during a one-time visit to a church. However, if I knew in _advance _that the church was EP, I would probably look for another church to attend that Lord's Day. But there are exceptions. Do I believe that it contradicts my non-EP position? No. The world isn't a perfect place and sometimes we find ourselves in circumstances not of our own choosing. Now, if an infant baptism was taking place that morning I would quietly excuse myself. 

So, Ben, I wasn't bushwhacking you. I just wanted to see the theoretical moved into real life.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 26, 2010)

Even as I write what I've written in this thread, I'm conflicted.

See, logically, I think my perspective makes a lot of sense.

But practically, man, I have to tell you... I don't like how rigid and unacomodating and downright graceless I sound to myself. But is this inner conflict just a part of the effect of my enculturation into American culture, which has bought into a value system that places getting along above standing by principle? Or is it a "warning alarm" that what makes apparent sense to my intellect is actually causing me to be unnecessarily strict on my brothers?

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------




Herald said:


> So, Ben, I wasn't bushwhacking you.



I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't think your question was a bushwhack. I was referring to the sensation of how I'd feel if I found myself walking into a place and being surprised to learn that it (surprise!) is an EP church.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 26, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > I think through this issue quite a bit since we have a good relationship with the RP church in town. I think there's three main issues why I am accomodating to EP:
> ...




There's two different issues here Ben. One is how we do church as an OPC church. Our norm is hymns and psalms. We baptize babies, regardless of who is attending. We have specific convinctions about worship and practice that align us with the OPC and where our conscience is most at ease.

But then's there our broader Reformed fellowship, especially those we have fraternal relations with. And we also must work to promote fellowship with them. And if that means singing psalms (which is a perfectly legitimate form of worship) in order to fellowship with another Reformed church, then we will sing the psalms. It's not like we both don't know where we stand. But for the sake of Reformed unity, we go to the lower Scriptural common denominator. Do we think each other is "sinning" in our regular practices? Perhaps. But there are different degrees of sin. You have to look both at the act and motive of your brother to determine the severity of response. 

Regarding Baptism, of course I disagree with Baptists, and their presence in our worship service will not change our practice. They know up front they are coming to an OPC church and should respect that. And I would not expect them to change for me. And if a Baptist joins our church, they know up front what we believe and how we practice, and they are agreeing, in the very least, to not argue against that practice as members of our church. But if we were to have a joint worship service with a Baptist church, or some joint gospel venture, we would not baptize anyone together. The purpose of gathering together is not to fight but to promote fellowship and common ground. 

I'm not striving for warm campfire fuzzies. Whether we like it or not, we are united in Christ and members of one another. We are commanded to love one another. Love shows itself in concrete actions and attitudes. We can remain faithful to our conscience and understanding of Scripture through our denominations. But we should still find ways to promote fellowship and edification with other Reformed brothers. It's not a sin to sing psalms, why not do it if it will give us more opportunities to build relationships within the broader body of Christ? And what kind of atmosphere will better promote discussion and resolution? An atmosphere of hostility or an atmosphere of humility and charity? 

Anyway, that's how I think it through. It's an important question Ben. But I think if we took more time to realize who our "freinds" and "enemies" really were, then the charity would come naturally.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 26, 2010)

> I find not explicitly singing of Jesus and his accomplished work to be THAT offensive.



We do sing about Christ in the Psalms, and we know that Christ is Jesus, so we do sing "of Jesus". We just don't find the specific name "Jesus" there, unless you want to include "The LORD is (my) salvation'' > Yahweh is salvation > Yehoshua > Ye'shua > Jesus.

We sing of Jesus' accomplished work in e.g. Psalm 22.

It helps when singing the Psalms to remember that the covenant name of God, LORD, or Yahweh/Yahveh, which often appears in the Psalms, was as precious to the OT believer, as the name "Jesus" is to us in the New Covenant. 

When we sing about the LORD (Yahweh) we are singing about the same Covenant-keeping God that saved Israel from Egypt through Moses, and that saved the Israel of God from sin and Satan through Jesus, Who is Jehovah.


----------



## Rook (Nov 26, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> > I find not explicitly singing of Jesus and his accomplished work to be THAT offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I appreciate your passion, Ben, but my goodness be careful in your words. To make the claim that EPers do not sing of Jesus is erroneous and downright gross. Not seeing Christ throughout the Psalms is a serious mistake. Jesus even said so, "everything written about me in... the Psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44). To say we do not sing of Jesus is to deny the words of Jesus.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2010)

*Folks, please take arguments for or against EP to new threads as this thread was asked to be only about the topic of the opening post. All threads on the subject of EP should be in the EP subforum.*


----------

