# Please critique my argument for non-Psalm singing



## austinbrown2 (Oct 7, 2006)

Preface: The Regulative Principle teaches that if we do not have a command from God to make something an element of worship, then we are not free to add it upon our own initiative. This principle doesn’t require an explicit command for all valid practices, however (1). Indeed, it is the case that the Regulative Principle is itself a good and necessary consequence from Scripture’s data; it is not explicitly taught. Given these facts, consider the following argument for non-exclusive Psalm singing: 

1.	God’s people responded to God’s awesome deeds with new songs (2). 
2.	Scripture also commands us to sing new songs (3).
3.	Therefore, in light of Christ’s first advent, which is an awesome work of God, we should sing a new song about it (4) 
4.	There is no command not to sing about this new, redemptive event, therefore we should sing about this awesome deed with a new song. 

- - - - - - -

(1) As Michael Bushell says, “When we say that each element of worship requires a divine warrant, we do not mean that an explicit command in a single text is required in every instance. Commandment in the narrow sense of the term in not necessary to establish divine prescription. Approved example or inference from relevant scriptural data is sufficient to determine the proper manner of worship.” Cited in Dr. Greg Strawbridge’s “Worship and Worship Services,” page 80.

(2) The Song of Moses and Miriam (Exod. 15)
Spring up, O well! (Num. 21:17-18)
The Mosaic Song of Witness (Deut. 31:19-32:44)
The Song of Deborah and Barak (Judges 5)
The Book of Jashar (2 Sa 1:18)
Songs of Solomon (1 Kings 4:32)
The statutes of the Law were sung (Ps. 119:54)
The Song of the Vineyard (Isa. 5:1-7)
An Eschatological Song (Isa. 26-27)
The Prayer of Habakkuk "on shigionoth" (Hab. 3)
Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55)
The Song of Zechariah (Luke 1:67-79)
The Angelic Doxology (Luke 2:14)
Simeon's Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2:28-32)
A New Song (Rev. 5:9-10; 14:3)
The Song of Moses and of the Lamb (Rev. 15:3-4)
The Hallelujah chorus (Rev. 19:5-7)
Charismatic hymnody (1 Cor. 14:15, 26)
(And we should not forget those possible hymn fragments in Scripture (Luke 1:46ff; Phi 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20;1 Ti 3:16; Eph 5:11; Rev 4:8, 11, 5:9-10.) as well as the record of early church history.)
A mandate to tell of all His wondrous works (Psalm 105:2)

(3) Psa_33:3; Psa_40:3; Psa_96:1; Psa_98:1; Psa_144:9; Psa_149:1; Isa_42:10

(4) As John Frame says, “It would be extremely odd … if, when redemptive history reaches its zenith, the covenant community's hymnody would be silent for the first time ever. Nicotene Theological Journal 1 (January 1997), p. 4.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Oct 7, 2006)

Brief critique (and it will have to be brief for the time being):

1. I don't believe that any exclusive psalmodist has a problem with "new songs" being written and sung; yea, even written in response to God's mighty deeds in recent, uninspired history. But we have a problem with them being added to the Songs of Zion, and used in formal public worship.

2. You will be hard pressed to demonstrate that *any* of the songs listed in note (2) were written for or used in formal public worship.

3. Your concluding point is a virtual repudiation of the regulative principle, assuming that we need an explicit command *not* to sing of Christ's redemptive work, after the fact.

4. The command to "sing a new song" does not mean that we are commanded to "write our own uninspired compositions and sing them in formal public worship." Usually, it refers to singing the particular Psalm wherein the phrase appears. I would argue that this means we are to sing the *old* Psalms in the *new* light of Christ and the *new* covenant.

5. You would probably do better to read Bushell's work (which is currently the standard work on the subject), and particularly his critique of that argument, rather than quote him secondhand.

6. The particular appointment of particular songs to be sung in formal public worship (2 Chron. 29:25-30) demonstrates that the divine regulation extends to the decision of which particular songs will be sung in worship. Unless this command is explicitly relaxed, any command to sing to God in worship can only be understood to command the singing of appointed songs (not as-yet-unwritten, uninspired songs).


----------



## austinbrown2 (Oct 7, 2006)

*A few follow up questions*

Thank you for your responses. Allow me to interact a bit.

>>>>>>>>>>1. I don't believe that any exclusive psalmodist has a problem with "new songs" being written and sung; yea, even written in response to God's mighty deeds in recent, uninspired history. But we have a problem with them being added to the Songs of Zion, and used in formal public worship.<<<<<<<<<

Could you please see my other post right below this one in the worship section? I basically ask how it is that we distinguish between formal public worship and non-public worship in the NT.


>>>>>>>2. You will be hard pressed to demonstrate that any of the songs listed in note (2) were written for or used in formal public worship.<<<<<<<<

I ask this in all sincerity, but why must that be demonstrated as such? I suppose this would be important to demonstrate IF your paradigm is correct. But why should that paradigmatic reasoning be accepted and not the logical deduction I outlined? Think of it this way. Is my syllogism invalid? I don't think it is invalid as such, but it may not be sound. There may be other factors which disprove the soundness of a particular premise. But what bearing does your comment have upon premise 1? Note the flow of the argument.


>>>>>>>>3. Your concluding point is a virtual repudiation of the regulative principle, assuming that we need an explicit command not to sing of Christ's redemptive work, after the fact.<<<<<<<<<

Is it really a repudiation of the RPW? Premise (1) in conjunction with footnote (1) and premise (2) would be justifiable grounds that accord with the RPW. Would it not-NARROWLY CONSIDERED?

The reason I stated that we don't have a command not to sing new songs is because the syllogism stands on premise (1) and (2). Those two premises, if valid, would require an explicit repudiation. Hence, I phrase the 4th premise in the fashion that I do. Fair enough? 

>>>>>>>4. The command to "sing a new song" does not mean that we are commanded to "write our own uninspired compositions and sing them in formal public worship." Usually, it refers to singing the particular Psalm wherein the phrase appears. I would argue that this means we are to sing the old Psalms in the new light of Christ and the new covenant.<<<<<<<

Is there proof that the face value understanding of "Sing a new song" does not in fact command the people of God to sing a new song? Would you at least agree that my perspective, narrowly considered, is a plausible explanation of the command? Of course other factors could defeat this understanding, but I am asking whether or not this is a viable option of understanding? If so, and surely it is, then other factors must be marshalled to overturn the assumption. Could you provide evidence that the command to sing a new song is of such a nature of which you speak? 

>>>>>>5. You would probably do better to read Bushell's work (which is currently the standard work on the subject), and particularly his critique of that argument, rather than quote him secondhand.<<<<<<

I have listened to a number of lectures on the subject and have read some internet stuff, but I haven't read this book. I would like to read it. Nevertheless, I ask for a response to what I have written.


>>>>>>>6. The particular appointment of particular songs to be sung in formal public worship (2 Chron. 29:25-30) demonstrates that the divine regulation extends to the decision of which particular songs will be sung in worship. Unless this command is explicitly relaxed, any command to sing to God in worship can only be understood to command the singing of appointed songs (not as-yet-unwritten, uninspired songs).<<<<<<<<

Naturally, there are a lot of assumptions which stand behind your response. I am genuinely interested in understanding them more fully. 

(1). Why do you deduce from this passage that such actions should be normative for all formal public worship settings? Could you structure the response in a syllogistic manner? 

(2) Forgive the question if it sounds absurd, but why don't you deduce that a king must initiate a formal worship service? Etc.

(3) Why do you believe that the gathering together of the Church on the Lord's Day is formal public worship that parallels this OT example to such a degree that a command given to the one extends without alteration to the other? Could you structure the response in a syllogistic manner?


Thanks,
Austin


----------



## Croghanite (Oct 7, 2006)

This topic is exactly what I need to see discussed from the members of this board. I know it has been discussed before and it is a touchy subject, but it should be examined thoroughly. This subject has been on my conscience for some time now. 

*I encourage both camps to post for it will surely help me in my studies. *


I am not convinced that the NT shows an example that non-inspired songs can be added to _PUBLIC_ worship.
Once again, I encourage people to post. Thanks.


----------



## staythecourse (Oct 7, 2006)

Interestingly on my mind tonight as well. Glad it came up. I am in the camp of singing songs that would include Jesus' name in worship. I will read posts though so I can do more research myself.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Oct 8, 2006)

*Layman Joe*

Thanks for the encouragement... but now you have made a call for an army of EP's no instruments to overwhelm me 

>>>>>I am not convinced that the NT shows an example that non-inspired songs can be added to PUBLIC worship.<<<<<<

I think it is precisely the presupposition behind this statement that needs thoroughly explored. Do you find in the NT anything that delineates “formal,” “public” and the like? 

And it just might be the case that my syllogism establishes the validity of singing songs in public worship that would actually say “Jesus.” I repeat, why would you need an example of non-inspired song singing if my syllogism is correct? Isn’t that enough? Yes, the command is broad in its parameters, but an unwillingness to accept the broad parameters hinges upon some other theological constraint which propels the man of God to deny the broad conclusions. I think all of us can agree on this. 

And here is the thing. It appears to me that the EP no instrument man is constrained by a principle that is extremely difficult to root in anything concrete. More precisely put, there is a hermeneutical assumption that causes them to discount my syllogism. But how one acquires that hermeneutic is what I have a hard time adopting. Have you ever talked with a Roman Catholic about the exegetical data for the Papacy? I think we have a similar situation- methodologically speaking. They have certain a’priori beliefs that don’t flow naturally out of the exegetical data. They establish inferences and the like from narrative, etc. As such, this doctrine can be very difficult to overturn, because how do you get at their fundamental assumptions? Those assumptions almost stand above the text. In the same way, and I might be wrong here, but my brothers who hold to EP no instruments seem to be establishing a hermeneutic and principle that isn’t firmly rooted in the text, but nevertheless is adopted and then used as a grid to debate the subject and particular texts. How does one get behind this? In a way, it is almost structured in such a fashion as to be unfalsifiable. I’m rambling… and I’m detracting from the main point of this thread, namely, my syllogism. 

Blessings,
Austin


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 8, 2006)

Just curious:

"Do you find in the NT anything that delineates “formal,” “public” and the like?"

Why just the NT??

Just a note on something you said:

"And here is the thing. It appears to me that the EP no instrument man is constrained by a principle that is extremely difficult to root in anything concrete."

You would have to say, then, for the first four centuries (which were exclusively EP for the early church until Arius introduced hymns to propagate heresy) they were out to lunch. 

And the first inclusion of instruments in public worship (8th century by the papacy (an organ), that the church was out to lunch on its worship up to then.

That would make the early church out to lunch for over 800 years until the papacy got it right, and to the fourth century until Arius...



[Edited on 10-8-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## austinbrown2 (Oct 8, 2006)

*McMahon*

>>>>"Do you find in the NT anything that delineates “formal,” “public” and the like?"

Why just the NT??<<<<<

Well, by stating it this way I am wanting to know if the NT has the same structures as the OT (Hence, I talk about the presupposition behind the question). It seems pretty clear in the OT that there was a designated place where formal worship occurred... special people, special ordinances, etc. But do the same designations or structures apply to NT worship? I think that is a fair question given the fact that historical-redemptive changes do occur with the advent of Christ. In that vein, I am wondering how one knows what applies to "formal public worship" in the NT and how one even defines "formal" and "public" from the data in the NT. 

At present, it seems to me that such distinctions aren't very clear, or at least they aren't to me. We see pictures of gatherings in Acts, we have 1 Corinthians 11-14 and the like, but it seems rather problematic to figure out what is normative from something like 1 Corinthians 11-14. What is the methodology we should employ? Or is such silence simply illustrative of a certain indifference that does not and cannot mark the OT? 

>>>>>>Just a note on something you said:

"And here is the thing. It appears to me that the EP no instrument man is constrained by a principle that is extremely difficult to root in anything concrete."

You would have to say, then, for the first four centuries (which were exclusively EP for the early church until Arius introduced hymns to propagate heresy) they were out to lunch. 

And the first inclusion of instruments in public worship (8th century by the papacy (an organ), that the church was out to lunch on its worship up to then.

That would make the early church out to lunch for over 800 years until the papacy got it right, and to the fourth century until Arius...<<<<<<<<

Sorry, I was too general in my statement. I was thinking theologically when I said that. As for rooting it in history… I can’t say I know history well enough to comment. I will say that if you are right, then that is certainly some strong extra-biblical support. 

As for myself, I have read “The Apostolic Church Fathers” translated by Lightfoot and Harmer a couple of times and nothing comes to mind, at least off the cuff, which would speak to this issue much. I do think of the Didache, however, and how it requests people who are candidates for baptism to be baptized in running water and in a certain way and to fast, etc. The Lord’s Supper is also governed by baptism as a requirement for participation and set prayers are stated, prophets are said to be given opportunity for thanks, the Lord’s Supper is obviously a meal “After you have had enough, give thanks as follows…” they are to break bread on the Lord’s Day, etc. But I don’t see anything about singing. I know of something called the “Ode’s of Solomon.” Was that sung? Anyway, I am willing to read some literature on the subject if you could recommend something. But I must confess a certain ignorance on the matter. 

Austin


----------



## MW (Oct 8, 2006)

Two weaknesses inherent in the new song argument:

1. There is no evidence of new songs being composed or sung in the New Testament church. No indication of it as an activity, and no mention of an office which may have fulfilled it. Presbyterians believe that Christ, the Head of the church, has given gifts to men so as to fully equip His church to carry out her commission; but there is no mention of a gift of composing songs in the New Testament Scriptures. Quite the opposite is the case. Where the church is commanded to sing, she is also directed to utilise an existing corpus -- psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.

2. Our Lord and His apostles turned to the Psalms to expound their teaching concerning the person, work, and benefits of Christ. In fact, the NT regards the words of the Holy Spirit which were in the mouth of David to be the words of Christ Himself, Heb. 2:12 -- words which He sings in the midst of the congregation, as the Superintendent over the house of God. Hence, when the Christian church takes up the Psalms of David, they are in fact singing Christ's words after Him. Uninspired "new songs" cannot lay claim to such a reality.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Oct 8, 2006)

> ... the whole history of error in the Church shows us how argument that is essentially weak and worthless may be considered overwhelmingly strong and convincing, when it is backed by keen personal desire or imperious popular demands.



-- James Dick, Hymns and Hymnbooks


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 8, 2006)

Has anyone read Nick Needham’s "Westminster and Worship: Psalms, Hymns? and Musical Instruments" in volume 2 of the Westminster Confession into the 21st century series edited by Ligon Duncan et al? I hope a good interaction with it will appear in part two of the sixty year survey of RPW literature in the 2007 Confessional Presbyterian but am interested in what other's think. It is a very lengthy article and disputes the contention that the WCF is exclusive psalmodist (whether speaking practically or otherwise evidently). I'm going on memory as the volume is now in Dr. Smith's hands.


----------



## MW (Oct 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> 
> 
> > ... the whole history of error in the Church shows us how argument that is essentially weak and worthless may be considered overwhelmingly strong and convincing, when it is backed by keen personal desire or imperious popular demands.
> ...



Alas! very true. Man's heart deceives him that his experience is right, so he proceeds to discover rational arguments in quest of validating his experience.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 8, 2006)

Austin - 

You said, "Well, by stating it this way I am wanting to know if the NT has the same structures as the OT (Hence, I talk about the presupposition behind the question)."

This is a critical issue.

You said, "But do the same designations or structures apply to NT worship?"

Without answering this succintly, you will not get very far in dealing with your initital question, and a whole host of other theological problems including salvation and how that works.

I'd dig into that first...

You said, "I think that is a fair question given the fact that *historical-redemptive changes do occur with the advent of Christ."

See previous statement...*


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 8, 2006)

Have either you Matt or you Matthew read the Needham I mention above?


----------



## MW (Oct 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Has anyone read Nick Needham’s "Westminster and Worship: Psalms, Hymns? and Musical Instruments" in volume 2 of the Westminster Confession into the 21st century series edited by Ligon Duncan et al? I hope a good interaction with it will appear in part two of the sixty year survey of RPW literature in the 2007 Confessional Presbyterian but am interested in what other's think. It is a very lengthy article and disputes the contention that the WCF is exclusive psalmodist (whether speaking practically or otherwise evidently). I'm going on memory as the volume is now in Dr. Smith's hands.



I haven't read it yet, but I have heard that it simply rehashes the arguments of Iain Murray's piece on the Directory for Public Worship in the commemoration volume To Glorify and Enjoy God (I think that is the title).

Iain Murray duplicated the claim in his booklet on the subject. I have provided an answer to this in my review.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 8, 2006)

Thanks Matthew; interesting. The Needham seemed pretty heavy on historical data but I didn't have it in hand long enough to evaluate.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Oct 9, 2006)

*ArmourBearer*

>>>>>>>Two weaknesses inherent in the new song argument:

1. There is no evidence of new songs being composed or sung in the New Testament church. No indication of it as an activity, and no mention of an office which may have fulfilled it. Presbyterians believe that Christ, the Head of the church, has given gifts to men so as to fully equip His church to carry out her commission; but there is no mention of a gift of composing songs in the New Testament Scriptures. Quite the opposite is the case. Where the church is commanded to sing, she is also directed to utilise an existing corpus -- psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.<<<<<<<<<<<


Let me think out loud. In light of my syllogism, it wouldn't follow necessarily that an absence of evidence for new songs being composed and sung in the NT church invalidates the argument. Consider the following:

1. God’s people responded to God’s awesome deeds with new songs. 
2. Scripture also commands us to sing new songs.
3. Therefore, in light of Christ’s first advent, which is an awesome work of God, we should sing a new song about it.
4. There is no command not to sing about this new, redemptive event, therefore we should sing about this awesome deed with a new song. 

5. There is no evidence of new songs being composed or sung in the New Testament church. No indication of it as an activity, and no mention of an office which may have fulfilled it.

6. Therefore we have no right to sing new songs for NT worship. 

I trust you can see that this is non sequitur as it is presently stated. Number 5 has some assumptions that must be added to the syllogism in order to give it teeth. There is no direct evidence of an infant being baptized in the NT either, but surrounding evidence will constrain that fact. I’m not saying your objection is wrong it just needs unpacked for your statement to follow necessarily. 

I’m not sure the argument from gifts follows either. 

1.	Do you think the gifts listed in Scripture are exhaustive? If so, then your point gets some teeth.
2.	Do you think God has gifted certain men with musical ability? There is no evidence for having someone lead worship in NT worship, yet my RPCNA congregation has men stand up front and begin the tune and then lead. Naturally, this person is musically capable. I would say that they are gifted musically. 
3.	“But do they have the gift of songwriting?” Well, I guess I just wonder how this point could be proven. Let me state it this way:


(A)	Christ, the Head of the church, has given gifts to men so as to fully equip His church to carry out her commission.
(B)	There is no mention of a gift of composing songs in the New Testament Scriptures.
(C)	Therefore we have no right to compose new songs.


1.	Does songwriting need its own special office? Could it be the case that a pastor could also be given great musical ability to write songs, yes, even gifted? Do those who write up our English Psalters have a gift? They do move the words of the Psalms around and translate the words in such a way as to provide meter and rhyme. Does this require a gift? 
2.	Must songwriting be listed among the gifts?
3.	Are we justified in writing worship songs for other contexts than formal public worship? Does that need a special, mentioned gift or office? 
4.	With respect to my other post on formal public worship and my having a hard time distinguishing between what is commanded for formal public worship and other types of worship: I’m not sure the NT adopts this outlook. If it does, then it can surely be demonstrated. But why don’t we greet one another with a holy kiss? Is Ephesians 5:19 a command for public worship? If it isn’t, then why aren’t we constrained to only sing the Psalms as Christians? *Moreover, if it is directed towards non-public worship AND if we can also sing non-Psalms for non-public worship, then this means that our command to only sing Psalms (assuming the passage means this) doesn’t exhaust the available options for Christian worship. The command isn’t absolute- absolute in the sense that the 150 Psalms are the only things that can be sung*. Make sense? So if Ephesians 5:19 does mean only Psalms and if Ephesians 5:19 should be applied to formal, public worship, then Ephesians 5:19 doesn't necessarily entail that only Psalms should be sung. 

>>>>>>> 2. Our Lord and His apostles turned to the Psalms to expound their teaching concerning the person, work, and benefits of Christ. In fact, the NT regards the words of the Holy Spirit which were in the mouth of David to be the words of Christ Himself, Heb. 2:12 -- words which He sings in the midst of the congregation, as the Superintendent over the house of God. Hence, when the Christian church takes up the Psalms of David, they are in fact singing Christ's words after Him. Uninspired "new songs" cannot lay claim to such a reality.<<<<<<<<<

(A)	My four point syllogism inserted here.
(B)	Our Lord and His apostles used to Psalms to expound their teaching of Christ. 
(C)	These Psalms are inspired songs which are actually Christ’s words.
(D)	Uninspired songs cannot lay claim to such a reality
(E)	Therefore we should not sing uninspired songs.

I trust you can see that this is non sequitur also. And again, it may not be wrong if filled out, but as it is presently constructed, it is unsound. 

The argument might be re-worked so as to make a case that the Church should only sing inspired songs. Of course this will introduce the question as to whether other inspired songs will permit. And it will raise the question of my formal public vs. non-public worship and our methodology for applying the commands of Scripture to each, etc. 

I suppose in all of this I could be viewed as simply being difficult. Why don’t I want to sing only inspired songs and the Songbook that God has provided for His people, namely, the 150 Psalms? Well, I do like to sing those. But I also like un-inspired preaching and praying and singing. There are many un-inspired songs that accord with Holy Scripture that are wonderful and edify me. I think it is a fair question to ask why such songs that teach good truths and edify in non-public non-formal worship cannot also be good and edifying for formal, public worship. Moreover, in order for me to accept the EP claims, I need to challenge assumptions and be constrained by Biblical teachings. I’m not necessarily saying this for you Armourbearer, but more for those who may be watching. 

Austin

[Edited on 10-9-2006 by austinbrown2]


----------



## austinbrown2 (Oct 9, 2006)

*McMahon*

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You said, "Well, by stating it this way I am wanting to know if the NT has the same structures as the OT (Hence, I talk about the presupposition behind the question)."

This is a critical issue.

You said, "But do the same designations or structures apply to NT worship?"

Without answering this succintly, you will not get very far in dealing with your initital question, and a whole host of other theological problems including salvation and how that works.

I'd dig into that first...<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Give me a shovel! I want to dig, but I honestly don't know how to anwser the questions that I have raise here- with respect to our worship issue. I can see how the structures move with respect to soteriology, sign of the covenant, etc., but I'm having a hard time with this one. It isn't apparent to me. So could you:

A. Recommend a line of Biblical study.
B. Recommend a book or article that deals especially with this specific issue.
C. Explain it yourself.
D. All of the above.

Thanks,
Austin


----------



## MW (Oct 9, 2006)

Austin,

I am not sure if you are aware that your method of argumentation necessitates continuing revelation. The songs you are speaking of, which were brought forth in the light of God's might saving deeds, were prophetic songs. We do have examples of these in the NT, 1 Cor. 14.

According to reformed biblical theology, act revelation is always followed by word revelation. What your argument requires is a continuation of the NT gift of prophecy in order to be able to provide an inspired interpretation of the person, work, and benefits of Christ. I believe we have that provided for us in the NT, and that the canon of Scripture is closed.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Oct 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Austin,
> 
> I am not sure if you are aware that your method of argumentation necessitates continuing revelation. The songs you are speaking of, which were brought forth in the light of God's might saving deeds, were prophetic songs. We do have examples of these in the NT, 1 Cor. 14.
> ...


Exactly. I don't know of any defenders of hymn-singing that recognize they make a huge leap from arguing for new songs in response to God's new works, to arguing for new _*uninspired*_ songs in response, _etc._ Until such a connection is demonstrated, all reference to the songs occurring in the canon of Scripture outside the Psalter will only lead you to the exclusive inspired song position, not to the use of uninspired compositions in singing praise to God. And if we no longer have immediate inspiration producing particular writings or compositions (as most Reformed will affirm), then we have a closed hymnbook, as surely as we have a closed canon.


----------



## ADKing (Oct 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> >>>>>>>4.	With respect to my other post on formal public worship and my having a hard time distinguishing between what is commanded for formal public worship and other types of worship: I’m not sure the NT adopts this outlook. If it does, then it can surely be demonstrated. But why don’t we greet one another with a holy kiss? Is Ephesians 5:19 a command for public worship? If it isn’t, then why aren’t we constrained to only sing the Psalms as Christians? *Moreover, if it is directed towards non-public worship AND if we can also sing non-Psalms for non-public worship, then this means that our command to only sing Psalms (assuming the passage means this) doesn’t exhaust the available options for Christian worship. The command isn’t absolute- absolute in the sense that the 150 Psalms are the only things that can be sung*. Make sense? So if Ephesians 5:19 does mean only Psalms and if Ephesians 5:19 should be applied to formal, public worship, then Ephesians 5:19 doesn't necessarily entail that only Psalms should be sung.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 10-9-2006 by austinbrown2]



Sorry for jumping in in the middle of this. I know it can be difficult answering lots of people at the same time!

However, I think that the above quotation has some assumptions of its own. I would contend that the RPW applies to ALL worship not just public worship. The only acceptalble way of worshipping God is instituted by God himself in public, family and private. At no time are we left to the imaginations of men in how we worship God. I would guess that most defenders of EP would say that when we sing in worship to God we should sing only the psalms. If this is the case, it is unnecessary to find such a sharp distinction in the NT between public and other worship. 

One of the major differences as I see it between public and family/private worship is that in the former we have all of God's ordinances whereas in the latter we are more limited (no sacraments, preaching, etc.). 

I am sorry if this side-tracks you from the rest of the discussion, however this conept seems to be assumed in your syllogism and in some of your reasoning and I just wanted to bring it out explicitly for perhaps greater clarity.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Oct 10, 2006)

*Armourbearer*

I'll have to consider your point more fully. I can't say that I have considered the issue from that angle. I suppose I should start, at the very least, by looking closely at 1 Corinthians 14. Thanks.

Austin


----------



## austinbrown2 (Oct 10, 2006)

*ADKing*

No, No, I'm glad you jumped in. Thanks for the comments.

>>>>>However, I think that the above quotation has some assumptions of its own. I would contend that the RPW applies to ALL worship not just public worship. The only acceptalble way of worshipping God is instituted by God himself in public, family and private. At no time are we left to the imaginations of men in how we worship God. I would guess that most defenders of EP would say that when we sing in worship to God we should sing only the psalms. If this is the case, it is unnecessary to find such a sharp distinction in the NT between public and other worship.<<<<<<< 

Yes, you are right. I do have some assumptions there don't I. And I think these assumptions may be some of the most important presuppositions to this issue. If you look at my post which is close to this one called "Personally Thinking through the EP no instrument position-" you will see my raising of this issue. 

If we say that the RPW does apply to all of life, then how do we distinguish between public worship and non-public worship in the NT? Now of course this is to still carry around my assumption that there should be a distinction, but surely if the EP position is correct then there has to be some kind of distinction. Are we to greet one another with a holy kiss in non-public worship? Public worship? And if the exclusive singing of Psalms is mandated for public worship then how do we avoid the conclusion that exclusive Psalm singing is mandated for the Christian in all quadrants of life? The First commandment applies to all of life, so why not the Ephesians 5:19?

Personally, I do recognize that the Church assembles together on the Lord's Day to do certain things, but how that is to be regulated as oppossed to the rest of the Christain's daily affairs is certainly not spelled out in wonderfully clear detail in the NT. In fact, it doesn't seem to be much of a concern, like what we see in the OT Temple worship. One doesn't have to read in 1 Corinthians 11-14 for very long to realize that our worship services aren't parallel to theirs in every way, and it certainly wasn't like Temple worship. We catch glimpses of it here and there, but the issue didn't get systematic treatment. And here might fall back on Synogogue practices or whatever, but then you read 1 Corinthians 11-14 and bits of data here and there and you begin to realize that things are real hard to parallel and that things get real complex given certain RPW assumptions. At least it does to me. But again, complexity doesn't = wrong. 

Now I do grant your obervation that "One of the major differences as I see it between public and family/private worship is that in the former we have all of God's ordinances whereas in the latter we are more limited (no sacraments, preaching, etc.)," but even here there is are lot of grey areas. 

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Austin


----------



## Kevin (Oct 10, 2006)

Chris, I just picked up that book this weekend & read the Needham article first! You are correct in your memory it is very heavy on historical info and overall very good. I also picked up the Murray B of T booklet but have not yet read it. Murray is much shorter than Needham & at a glance seems to lack the depth of historical data of Needham.

In a nutshell you might say that Needham demonstrates that a large number (majority?) of the Divines who wrote the WCF held to a view of the RP that (at least) allows for hymns, & in many cases did so outright. A very valuable part of his work is his demonstration of how the word 'Psalm' was used to include all religious songs not just the 'Psalms of David'.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 10, 2006)

Thanks for the refresher Kevin. Yes, that sounds like the same "discussion" I've had for years with Dr. Rowland Ward who stands by a similar argument. My contention is that it is an inaccurate procedure to use secondary sources to overturn the clear indications of the productions (the primary materials) of the Assembly as a whole (i.e. we look at what the Assembly produced and how they produced it to understand what they meant by the term psalm in the WCF and Directory for Worship), but I look forward to how Dr. Smith views the presentation and hopefully an even but thorough analysis will be given of Needham's facts and argument. I did note before handing the volume off that Needham concedes there is no getting around the acapella views that were probably held by 100% of Puritanism and the Assembly at the time. Of course that is not addressed in the Standards (though it is in a letter by the Scottish Commissioners back to the GA I think) but there would be no reason for why it should have been as instruments were not common except in a few of the big cathedrals that had organs. The Puritans pulled these out when they ran things during the 1640s; which is what was noted in the forementioned letter if I recall correctly.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 10, 2006)

You are correct, Chris on his view on music. However Needham makes an argument for "limited" use as a circumstamce.

I have to disagree with your assesment of methodology when engaged in historical research however.

An example; If I read in a pimary source that New England Puritains wore only "sade colours" I still don't know what they wore. This is how the popular 19th century misconception that the Puritains wore Black began. The proper method is rather to seek out other sources that elaborate on what is meant by "sade".

BTW your use of "secondary sources" is not valid. The writings you cite (as does Needham) are all "primary".


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 10, 2006)

Yes; thanks for the correction Kevin. I meant secondary as opposed to the productions of the Assembly itself or directly related to its work (Lightfoot's and Gillespie's notes for instance). If a term is unclear from the context of their work, then it is fair to try and get a firmer grasp by going to other writings outside their work. I just happen to believe that it is pretty clear what the Divines meant by "psalms" when we look at what they produced and authorized.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 10, 2006)

Hey Chris I agree I think they are clear also. I just think we disagree on what it is that they meant!


----------



## austinbrown2 (Oct 10, 2006)

*Kevin and Chris*

I am not very familiar with the debate over what the Westminter divines intended with their particular words, but would you, Kevin, say that the WCF and the like did not intend for the Psalms to only be sung in public worship? If you do, is that based upon the actual confession itself, what the men taught, which tells you what they actually meant, or is it a combination of the two?

And would you say that this article by Needham successfully demonstrates such facts?

Thanks,
Austin


----------



## Kevin (Oct 10, 2006)

Austin, I am not a strong advocate of the 'traditional' view I just find the exclusive arguments lacking. 

The primary problem is with the interpretation of "psalms" as used by the divines. I am unconvinced based on some primary source reading that the older (17th cent) usage is interchangable with the use it is put to by modern advocates.

In my humble opinion 'psalm' is a term used to refer to religious songs including Psalms of David, but not limited to them.
This is my view, and the view ably presented by Needham.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Hey Chris I agree I think they are clear also. I just think we disagree on what it is that they meant!


Well, as they say, to each his own ... banana.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

There are technical and general uses of the word "psalm" in Puritan literature. In my review of Murray I go through a number of uses where it cannot refer to something uninspired. There was a favourite saying among some of the Puritans -- sing David's psalms with David's Spirit. This cannot refer to anything other than Spirit-inspired Psalms.

But as Chris has said, however the term is used in secondary literature, it cannot overturn the prima facie meaning in the Standards. The fact is, these men were discussing what was to become a uniform worship practice for at least three kingdoms. They spoke of a book of psalms, of lining out of the psalms, and worked on their own metricated version of the Psalms of David for worship. No provision was made for the introduction of man mande hymns. In fact, the Scottish practice of singing the doxology was abandoned because it did not agree with the majority of the divines' view of Scriptural worship.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> There are technical and general uses of the word "psalm" in Puritan literature. In my review of Murray I go through a number of uses where it cannot refer to something uninspired. There was a favourite saying among some of the Puritans -- sing David's psalms with David's Spirit. This cannot refer to anything other than Spirit-inspired Psalms.
> 
> But as Chris has said, however the term is used in secondary literature, it cannot overturn the prima facie meaning in the Standards. The fact is, these men were discussing what was to become a uniform worship practice for at least three kingdoms. They spoke of a book of psalms, of lining out of the psalms, and worked on their own metricated version of the Psalms of David for worship. No provision was made for the introduction of man mande hymns. In fact, the Scottish practice of singing the doxology was abandoned because it did not agree with the majority of the divines' view of Scriptural worship.


Matthew,

Is this review of yours available, online or otherwise? I'm aware of several critiques of Murray's booklet (Keddie, Mohon, Watts), but wasn't aware of one written by yourself.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

Sean,

It was written for Credo Quarterly. Chronologically I think it was the first. It is available in pdf if desired. Please send me an email, and I will attach the review in response.


----------

