# Question for the non EP



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2016)

Forgive me if this has been asked before. At what point does a contemporary praise song become a hymn in your opinion?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 16, 2016)

I'm not Non but what is the difference? How are the two defined?


earl40 said:


> Forgive me if this has been asked before. At what point does a contemporary praise song become a hymn in your opinion?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 16, 2016)

Non-EP here.

All "Contemporary Praise Songs" are already hymns.

Hymns by definition are praise songs to God.

The age of a hymn / praise song doesn't make the song acceptable. Some new songs are fantastic. Some old songs are absolutely dreadful.

The content of a song makes it acceptable for worship.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 16, 2016)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Non-EP here.
> 
> All "Contemporary Praise Songs" are already hymns.
> 
> ...



What is the difference between a hymn and a spiritual song?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 16, 2016)

Non-EP (but dominant psalmody if possible).

I don't know much about music, but "old timey" hymns have a certain stately rhythm to them. Praise songs, by contrast, go more like this.

"Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....


----------



## Justified (Dec 16, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Non-EP (but dominant psalmody if possible).
> 
> I don't know much about music, but "old timey" hymns have a certain stately rhythm to them. Praise songs, by contrast, go more like this.
> 
> "Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....


Lol. Have you had the pleasure of listening to that song? I have helped out at children's summer camp the past couple years, and that song is a regular. It is surely cringeworthy.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 16, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm not Non but what is the difference? How are the two defined?
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> ...



Of course I agree with you. Just trying to see how a non EP justifies what they believe to be the difference between a contemporary song with a song that at one time was contemporary.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 16, 2016)

Justified said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > Non-EP (but dominant psalmody if possible).
> ...



We were forced to go to Praise Night at my liberal baptist college. So yes, I've been in a few marathons.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Dec 16, 2016)

Our church has some modern songs such as "In Christ Alone", "You're the Word of God", and "Come, People of the Risen King" but played on traditional instruments (organ/piano and sometimes violins). I think it really is about the content of the songs rather than the time that they were written.


----------



## Edward (Dec 16, 2016)

earl40 said:


> At what point does a contemporary praise song become a hymn in your opinion?



When it's arranged and played on a pipe organ using at least two ranks and the foot pedals. I'd be willing to entertain argument that a string quartet could be substituted for the organ.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 16, 2016)

My knee-jerk and unthoughtful response is that tunes are important: anything after 1750 is immediately suspect (that's when Bach died). I'll grant that _Sine Nomine_ by Ralph Vaughn Williams in 1906, and a few others, are pretty good tunes, too.

As for the words, those written after 1830 or so are scrutinized heavily. 1830 was a turning point toward the bad in theology, philosophy, evangelicalism, etc. 

That's the thumbnail rule. Of course, the hymns still have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

(BTW, I'm pretty much EP myself, but I'm not in a position to impose that on others).


----------



## earl40 (Dec 17, 2016)

VictorBravo said:


> My knee-jerk and unthoughtful response is that tunes are important: anything after 1750 is immediately suspect (that's when Bach died). I'll grant that _Sine Nomine_ by Ralph Vaughn Williams in 1906, and a few others, are pretty good tunes, too.
> 
> As for the words, those written after 1830 or so are scrutinized heavily. 1830 was a turning point toward the bad in theology, philosophy, evangelicalism, etc.
> 
> ...



Take that last step.  One thing that convinced me of EP is that there is no hymn, old or new, that I do not scrutinize, unlike the psalms which are beyond scrutiny.


----------



## ReformedInSweden (Dec 23, 2016)

ReformedReidian said:


> Non-EP (but dominant psalmody if possible).
> 
> I don't know much about music, but "old timey" hymns have a certain stately rhythm to them. Praise songs, by contrast, go more like this.
> 
> "Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....Yes, Lord, Yes, Lord. Yes, Yes Lord....




 I would agree here!
What's defined as "hymn" over here is a song with stanzas and some theological content that's supposed to teach you something. It might be false theology of course....  But it's a kind of a mini sermon written in rhyme.
And wasn't this the purpose of the hymns Luther wrote? To let the congregation learn the theology by singing it and learning it by heart that way?


----------



## timfost (Dec 23, 2016)

I've understood that a hymn was a scripture paraphrase and spiritual song is more original. (And yes, this definition of "hymn" would make many of the metrical psalms into hymns.) Concerning instruments, they are predominantly circumstantial, but I think it is wise to stay away from some of the instruments more associated with secular music, though there is nothing ungodly about the instrument itself. Certain instruments may also may be more appropriate in another cultural.

All things are lawful, but not all are helpful.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 23, 2016)

From about 1750 onward, one factor ties Psalm-singing and hymns together: tunes designed for congregational singing. The metre, chord progressions, four-parts, etc., enable a congregation to sing well. Too many "worship songs" fail miserably in this regard.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 23, 2016)

timfost said:


> I've understood that a hymn was a scripture paraphrase and spiritual song is more original. (And yes, this definition of "hymn" would make many of the metrical psalms into hymns.) Concerning instruments, they are predominantly circumstantial, but I think it is wise to stay away from some of the instruments more associated with secular music, though there is nothing ungodly about the instrument itself. Certain instruments may also may be more appropriate in another cultural.
> 
> All things are lawful, but not all are helpful.



Tim,

Out of curiosity, where did you get those definitions for hymns and spiritual songs?


----------



## Jack K (Dec 23, 2016)

Earl:

Your question lacks needed information about your purpose in asking it. It sounds like you may be trying to make a point about Psalm-singing by referring to Paul's use of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." Perhaps you assume that non-EP folks defend their position by arguing that the Bible mentions three broad categories of worship music while EP folks see these as contents of the psalter. Therefore, you challenge non-EPs to explain the difference.

But there are plenty of non-EP people (like myself) who will readily acknowledge that "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" might be referring to the psalter and probably weren't seen by Paul as having a lot of difference between them. We have other reasons for believing it's right to sing songs not found in the psalter. So we have little reason to try to explain the difference between hymns and spiritual songs. It doesn't really matter for the position we take.

Now, if you're asking about general language usage in the church today, and how some worship music gets labelled a "hymn" while other music is thought of as a "spiritual song" or maybe a "praise song," that's a very different question. I'm not convinced those modern labels have much to do with Paul's labels, though, which I suspect is at the heart of your question. Correct?


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 23, 2016)

earl40 said:


> Take that last step. One thing that convinced me of EP is that there is no hymn, old or new, that I do not scrutinize, unlike the psalms which are beyond scrutiny.



I know your poking at me is good-natured. But really, there is no "last step" for me. 

I am confessional, LBCF, and am bound by what our church follows. In that regard, I sing the hymns, songs, and spiritual songs with as much faith as God gives me.

We do sing more psalms than anything else, and our congregation seems edified by all that.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 23, 2016)

Jack K said:


> Earl:
> 
> Your question lacks needed information about your purpose in asking it. It sounds like you may be trying to make a point about Psalm-singing by referring to Paul's use of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." Perhaps you assume that non-EP folks defend their position by arguing that the Bible mentions three broad categories of worship music while EP folks see these as contents of the psalter. Therefore, you challenge non-EPs to explain the difference.
> 
> ...



I was simply asking the mindset of what people who are not EP on what is the difference between an old traditional hymn and a contemporary praise song written today. As Chris said in post #2 there is no difference, to which I agree with. What one prefers be the difference be it time, content, or what ever, man made preference seems to the _the standard_ based on what man scrutinizes to be right and correct in God's eyes.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 23, 2016)

VictorBravo said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Take that last step. One thing that convinced me of EP is that there is no hymn, old or new, that I do not scrutinize, unlike the psalms which are beyond scrutiny.
> ...



I am grateful to hear you understand I hold you in no derision but only posted what I did concerning what you wrote..."I'm pretty much EP myself"....pretty much is is not EP.  I see this as saying one is a little pregnant.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 23, 2016)

Just a question Sean on this issue. Does Non EP refer to music style that would not be Hymns, but could include the songs in hymnals and contemporary worship songs also?


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 23, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Just a question Sean on this issue. Does Non EP refer to music style that would not be Hymns, but could include the songs in hymnals and contemporary worship songs also?



EP refers to "exclusive psalmody." So non-EP means including songs with text not from the Psalms. It doesn't refer to tunes or styles. It only refers to the text that is sung.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 23, 2016)

Thank you Victor! So it means that songs from just the Psalms areeep, and non ep could be either other portions of Bible, or not from it at all?


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 23, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Thank you Victor! So it means that songs from just the Psalms areeep, and non ep could be either other portions of Bible, or not from it at all?



"areeep"??? I have no idea what that means.

Non EP means to most of us: 
1. Uninspired man-written text for a religious song and/or 
2. Text from the Bible that is not from the Book of Psalms.

Some EP adherents historically have allowed other "songs" from Scripture, but strictly speaking, that is not EP as most use it today (at least here on the PB).


----------



## BGF (Dec 23, 2016)

"Areep" = "are EP". It took me a minute to figure it out.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 23, 2016)

BGF said:


> "Areep" = "are EP". It took me a minute to figure it out.



Thanks.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 24, 2016)

earl40 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Earl:
> ...



I'd say applying the "hymn" or "praise song" label is a judgment call depending mostly on a number of style factors and maybe also on theological richness. If it would work as a decent poem if it weren't set to music, then chances are folks will label it a "hymn." But there's no hard and fast rule for how to apply those labels, nor does there need to be.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 24, 2016)

Jack K said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Jack K said:
> ...



I agree that a hymn in today's thinking it is just that.


----------



## timfost (Dec 24, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Tim,
> 
> Out of curiosity, where did you get those definitions for hymns and spiritual songs?



My pastor. The resources below may be useful:

Calvin:



> Farther, under these three terms he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way -- that a psalm is that, in the singing of which some musical instrument besides the tongue is made use of: a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; while an ode contains not merely praises, but exhortations and other matters.



Fesko:



> The assembly’s Annotations embrace Leigh’s understanding of the verse in question and explain that psalms are the psalms of David, hymns are certain “ditties”composed on special occasions, and spiritual songs were not composed before hand but were “prick’t before them with musical notes, but such as men endited by an extraordinary gift.”79 In other words, spiritual songs were composed extemporaneously.
> 
> 79 Annotations, comm. Eph. 5: 19.



The Greek words used certainly don't mean Psalms from a historical linguistic context. Whether Paul meant Psalms only is not in the scope of this thread.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 24, 2016)

VictorBravo said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Victor! So it means that songs from just the Psalms areeep, and non ep could be either other portions of Bible, or not from it at all?
> ...



Thanks for your response Victor, and yes, I meant to say are EP!
So would it be correct to say that non-EP churches then allow for contemporary/modern worship songs to be sung?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 24, 2016)

EP churches take their direction from Ephesians 5:19 then, correct Tim?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 24, 2016)

Tim, you cited this before in a prior thread some time back and I raised a question, got confused and dropped it. I have since checked the citation. I confess that out of context this is a very confusing, I would say a misleading extract. I thought surely Dr. Fesko is not presuming that the Annotations reflect the Assembly's actual views? The Annotations are not any sort of formal production of the assembly. Yet the way he references it in his book seems to imply this. The annotations only represent the views of the authors in the work (Featley, an Anglican, did the Pauline Epistles in the 1645 edition; I don't know who did them in the 1657 but seem to have the thought the publishers drafted someone else given his ejection from the assembly). Thus they have the same weight as Leigh's or any other individual work of a Westminster divine; they only express the author's opinion. Thus one is left with looking at individual views and he omits some that are important as they work against his theory. He doesn't interact with Ford; and then their is the preface to the only English printing of the Scottish Psalter. I'm sure Matthew Winzer could add more here but I'll leave it at that. This is not to derail the thread but since it is the second time at least you have referenced that quote from Fesko, I wanted to address it.


timfost said:


> The assembly’s Annotations embrace Leigh’s understanding of the verse in question and explain that psalms are the psalms of David, hymns are certain “ditties”composed on special occasions, and spiritual songs were not composed before hand but were “prick’t before them with musical notes, but such as men endited by an extraordinary gift.”79 In other words, spiritual songs were composed extemporaneously.
> 
> 79 Annotations, comm. Eph. 5: 19.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 24, 2016)

timfost said:


> The Greek words used certainly don't mean Psalms from a historical linguistic context


 Tim, what historical linguistic context are you referring to? It's a fact that the Psalm headings contain all these words (psalm, hymn, and ode) in the Greek. https://heidelblog.net/2012/09/psalms-hymns-and-spiritual-songs-in-the-septuagint/


Even Scott Aniol, who disagrees with EP, admits that Paul is referring in Ephesians and Colossians to the book of Psalms: http://religiousaffections.org/news-reviews/of-psalms-hymns-and-spiritual-songs-and-the-rpw/

I don't know what to say about the quote from Calvin, except that he wasn't 100% right on every doctrinal issue in his lifetime.


----------



## timfost (Dec 24, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Tim, you cited this before in a prior thread some time back and I raised a question, got confused and dropped it. I have since checked the citation. I confess that out of context this is a very confusing, I would say a misleading extract. I thought surely Dr. Fesko is not presuming that the Annotations reflect the Assembly's actual views? The Annotations are not any sort of formal production of the assembly. Yet the way he references it in his book seems to imply this. The annotations only represent the views of the authors in the work (Featley, an Anglican, did the Pauline Epistles in the 1645 edition; I don't know who did them in the 1657 but seem to have the thought the publishers drafted someone else given his ejection from the assembly). Thus they have the same weight as Leigh's or any other individual work of a Westminster divine; they only express the author's opinion. Thus one is left with looking at individual views and he omits some that are important as they work against his theory. He doesn't interact with Ford; and then their is the preface to the only English printing of the Scottish Psalter. I'm sure Matthew Winzer could add more here but I'll leave it at that. This is not to derail the thread but since it is the second time at least you have referenced that quote from Fesko, I wanted to address it.
> 
> 
> timfost said:
> ...



Chris,

I understand your concern. I used the quotes to answer Tyler's question, not to make an argument that the Westminster Standards are explicitly supportive of non-EP.


----------



## timfost (Dec 24, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > The Greek words used certainly don't mean Psalms from a historical linguistic context
> ...



Please feel free to PM me. I don't want to derail the thread.

Thanks for understanding!


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Dec 24, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > The Greek words used certainly don't mean Psalms from a historical linguistic context
> ...



To be fair, Calvin makes that comment earlier in his life. Later, in his Ephesian sermons (a few years after his commentary), he makes this comment in regards to Ephesians 5:19:

“Now St. Paul sets down here songs, psalms, and hymns, which scarcely differ at all from one another, and therefore there is no need to seek entertainment for ourselves in setting forth any subtle distinction among them.”(Sermons on Ephesians (5:18-21), pp. 552-553)


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 25, 2016)

timfost said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > Tim,
> ...



Tim,

Your definitions, Calvin's definitions, and the Annotations' definitions all differ from one another significantly:

Psalm - Calvin says it is distinguished by the use of an instrument; the Annotations say it refers to the Psalms of David (You didn't give a definition; that's okay--I know you weren't asked for one).

Hymn - You say that it is a Scripture paraphrase; Calvin says it is a song of praise; the Annotations say that it is a song composed on a special occasion.

Song - You say that it is an original composition (an uninspired one, I assume); Calvin says that it is a song of exhortation; the Annotations say it is an extemporaneous song given in the moment of its performance by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 25, 2016)

Tyler, can you give the text from the Annotations and do you know who did the work for the 1657 edition and if it differs from the 1645?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 25, 2016)

timfost said:


> Jeri Tanner said:
> 
> 
> > timfost said:
> ...



It was a rhetorical question only, Tim; but thanks.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 25, 2016)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Tyler, can you give the text from the Annotations and do you know who did the work for the 1657 edition and if it differs from the 1645?



No, sir. I was just going by what Fesko said in the quotation Tim gave.


----------



## timfost (Dec 25, 2016)

Tyler,

Feel free to PM me to discuss why I thought the quotes, though varying, were relevant and helpful.

Blessings,


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 29, 2016)

timfost said:


> Tyler,
> 
> Feel free to PM me to discuss why I thought the quotes, though varying, were relevant and helpful.
> 
> Blessings,



Tim,

I'm not sure if you have seen it, but I set you a PM.


----------



## Edward (Dec 29, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Thanks for your response Victor, and yes, I meant to say are EP!
> So would it be correct to say that non-EP churches then allow for contemporary/modern worship songs to be sung?




Not replying for Mr. Bottomly, but that conclusion might or might not be accurate, depending on the church. There are churches that are not EP which avoid contemporary music. And the answer would further be nuanced by the definition of "contemporary/modern".


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 30, 2016)

Edward said:


> Not replying for Mr. Bottomly, but that conclusion might or might not be accurate, depending on the church. There are churches that are not EP which avoid contemporary music. And the answer would further be nuanced by the definition of "contemporary/modern".


Right.

Non EP means simply that psalms are not the *only *things sung. It does *not* necessarily mean "contemporary worship." 

You could call our church non-EP because we might sing 3 or 4 psalms and then one old-fashioned 4-part harmony hymn from the 17th or 18th century.


----------

