# Hymn Singing sin?



## Reformingstudent (Oct 20, 2004)

This is something that has bugged me from the first time I have heard it mentioned, namely that those who do not Sing Psalms in worship are sining against God by not worshipping Him as He demands in His holy Word.
I am in a church that does not hold to the singing of Psalms so does that mean I am sining against God every Lord's day when I take the red hymn book and sing one of the songs we pick out? Is hymn singing a form of idolatry as some people I have heard of say that it is?http://tinyurl.com/4au6m If so what should be done if any thing. Do I leave the church I am in to find one that has a more pure form of Worship and if so what if I can't find one, do I start a home church and forsake fellowshipping with other believers who may be in idolatry? Is there such a thing as a pure church that does everything right and if so how does one find such a church?
If this has been covered before I missed it. Just looking for answers. 


Tom

[Edited on 20-10-2004 by Keylife_fan]


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 20, 2004)

Tom,

Hymn singing in a Worship service is not sin. We have had a number of threads on the topic of Exclusive Psalmnody. You might want to check them out for further details on the subject.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 20, 2004)

Oh boy...the EP debate revived!  You can see what was already recently discussed on this issue here.

EDITED to show link. (Remember to format the link so it shows. Use underline or something)

[Edited on 10/20/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 20, 2004)

It is true that this topic has been debated and discussed elsewhere on the Board. 

I believe that singing uninspired (ie., man-made) hymns has no warrant in Scripture and is therefore a violation of the Second Commandment, which is the basis for the Regulative Principle of Worship, and may properly be considered "will worship" (see Col. 2.23).

The psalms alone are commanded by God to be sung to His praise in public worship. The Psalter is God's perfect and ordained "hymnal" and the principle of Sola Scriptura should inform us that His Psalter is sufficient for our use in worship. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith lists the elements of worship ordained by Scripture and includes psalms alone (see WCF XXI.V). 

The testimony of church history also shows us that psalmody has been the practice of all the most Reformed churches before, during and since the Reformation.

For more information on the issue as well as denominations which practice Exclusive Psalmody today, see this link:

http://trueworship.netfirms.com/psalmsingers/

Best wishes as you explore this issue.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Keylife_fan_
> This is something that has bugged me from the first time I have heard it mentioned, namely that those who do not Sing Psalms in worship are sining against God by not worshipping Him as He demands in His holy Word.
> I am in a church that does not hold to the singing of Psalms so does that mean I am sining against God every Lord's day when I take the red hymn book and sing one of the songs we pick out? Is hymn singing a form of idolatry as some people I have heard of say that it is?http://tinyurl.com/4au6m If so what should be done if any thing. Do I leave the church I am in to find one that has a more pure form of Worship and if so what if I can't find one, do I start a home church and forsake fellowshipping with other believers who may be in idolatry? Is there such a thing as a pure church that does everything right and if so how does one find such a church?
> If this has been covered before I missed it. Just looking for answers.
> ...



Tom:

You're asking a lot of questions at once. Your main concern seems to be the accusation that singing hymns is a sin. I assume that the church you're singing these hymns in is not opposed to singing Psalms, but just adds hymns.

You will find that there is a division of views on this Board. Some faovur singing hymns, Scripturally, and some oppose it, Scripturally. Obviously they can't both be right. But to call it a sin is going a bit far. It is just as conceivable that not singing hymns for such reasons is sin, but that too is going too far. 

Leaving a church over this is being too quick to leave a fellowship. There are other ways to deal with this, and the first is ask questions of your elders, if this is a real concern. Here you need to be discerning. If the elders are clearly telling you to sin in order to overcome this obstacle, then you know that there is a big problem, and the singing of hymns is just a symptom. But if they try to deal with it honestly, even if you think their mind is clouded by favouritism on the issue one way or the other, then you have a definite obligation to your church to see this through, and should not leave. You have to take the position that your mind may be clouded instead or also. 

If the singing of hymns is a sin, it is still true that it is only symptomatic of the lack of fidelity to the Word, of faithlessness. And if this is true then it will show soon enough, especially if it is pressed a bit. 

I have said all this on the assumption that it *may* be a sin to sing hymns. But as I said above, the singing of hymns in worship is an issue on which we are divided as yet. I am in favour of hymn-singing, and I think it is commanded. Others disagree. I have attended a church for a few years now that holds to psalm-singing, and I don't think it is a sin for them to do that. I think that they need enlightenment on the issue, but it is not sin of itself. While there is division here, the greater sin is to impose guilt on someone for something the churches do not condemn, and by which someone has praised God's name, with all his heart.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 20, 2004)

John,

I don't exactly want to get into another full-fledged discussion on this whole issue quite yet, I want to clarify one thing. I don't think that speaking of sinful activity in the other position (whatever one's position may be) is going too far at all. In fact, it seems to me that the issue _has to_ be viewed that way. If EP is biblical, then singing hymns is a violation of the RPW and is thus sin. Likewise, if EP is not biblical, than those who hold to it are in sin by neglecting the Bible's command to sing hymns. Either way, since we're dealing with the RPW, and as you said, the two positions are incompatible with each other, one party or the other must be sinning by practicing their view.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> John,
> 
> I don't exactly want to get into another full-fledged discussion on this whole issue quite yet, I want to clarify one thing. I don't think that speaking of sinful activity in the other position (whatever one's position may be) is going too far at all. In fact, it seems to me that the issue _has to_ be viewed that way. If EP is biblical, then singing hymns is a violation of the RPW and is thus sin. Likewise, if EP is not biblical, than those who hold to it are in sin by neglecting the Bible's command to sing hymns. Either way, since we're dealing with the RPW, and as you said, the two positions are incompatible with each other, one party or the other must be sinning by practicing their view.



Chris:
I too am trying to avoid another discussion on it as yet. We do have a brother here who is asking an honest question, though. 

I agree with you on this point. If the one is correct the other must involve sin. You are right. But we ought not to be imposing guilt yet, because all we will be doing is pointing fingers at each other, calling each other sinners, instead of trying to work out what is right to do in this matter. While godly men are divided on the issue, it is wrong to impose guilt on people over the issue. If there is guilt in the matter, it will show itself in other ways as well; we do not need to make hymn-singing or exclusive Psalmody the test for sin. At this time it would be the greater sin to do so.


----------



## Reformingstudent (Oct 20, 2004)

Tom:

You're asking a lot of questions at once. Your main concern seems to be the accusation that singing hymns is a sin. I assume that the church you're singing these hymns in is not opposed to singing Psalms, but just adds hymns.

You will find that there is a division of views on this Board. Some favor singing hymns, Scripturally, and some oppose it, Scripturally. Obviously they can't both be right. But to call it a sin is going a bit far. It is just as conceivable that not singing hymns for such reasons is sin, but that too is going too far. 

Leaving a church over this is being too quick to leave a fellowship. There are other ways to deal with this, and the first is ask questions of your elders, if this is a real concern. Here you need to be discerning. If the elders are clearly telling you to sin in order to overcome this obstacle, then you know that there is a big problem, and the singing of hymns is just a symptom. But if they try to deal with it honestly, even if you think their mind is clouded by favoritism on the issue one way or the other, then you have a definite obligation to your church to see this through, and should not leave. You have to take the position that your mind may be clouded instead or also. 

If the singing of hymns is a sin, it is still true that it is only symptomatic of the lack of fidelity to the Word, of faithlessness. And if this is true then it will show soon enough, especially if it is pressed a bit. 

I have said all this on the assumption that it *may* be a sin to sing hymns. But as I said above, the singing of hymns in worship is an issue on which we are divided as yet. I am in favor of hymn-singing, and I think it is commanded. Others disagree. I have attended a church for a few years now that holds to psalm-singing, and I don't think it is a sin for them to do that. I think that they need enlightenment on the issue, but it is not sin of itself. While there is division here, the greater sin is to impose guilt on someone for something the churches do not condemn, and by which someone has praised God's name, with all his heart. [/quote]

To be honest, I personally never felt convicted that singing of hymns was a sin although some have made a claim that it is committing idolatry (same thing?). I would like if our Church did sing Psalms some times as I think it would be a blessing to our worship service. I had never thought singing from a hymn book was in any way wrong or sinful and yet at the same time i wanted to understand the other view as well to know if I might be wrong or not. (If I am should I leave?)
Our church elders do not believe in Psalmody not that they openly oppose it but mainly because it is something that has never come up before. I have only been a member there for the last three years and this issue has never been addressed. i have asked my pastor about it and he sees nothing wrong with the music we have in worship. 

Anyway, thanks for your input. Did not mean to re-open a messy can of worms again 

Blessings.



Tom


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 20, 2004)

Don't think that it's a problem, Tom - we're all glad to hear and discuss questions. Do the pastors at your church not believe in singing any Psalms at all - or do they simply reject Exclusive Psalmody? If the former is the case, that is unfortunate, since we are at least commanded to sing some Psalms. But I don't think that alone is an issue to leave over.

John, if I'm hearing you right, I totally agree. It seems to me you're saying that even though one side is inevitably sinning by consistently practing their view, emphasizing that in the discussion and pointing to the people of the opposite persuasion serves no practical purpose at this point, and is counter-productive and non-edifying.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2004)

Chris:



> It seems to me you're saying that even though one side is inevitably sinning by consistently practing their view, emphasizing that in the discussion and pointing to the people of the opposite persuasion serves no practical purpose at this point, and is counter-productive and non-edifying.


That is, in part, what I am saying. I am saying a bit more than that, though. We ought not to be so sure of ourselves while godly men are divided on the issue. To go accusing each other of sin overtop of this is to go beyond the scope of the church. It is a greater sin to accuse people of sin, so as to bind their conscience, when all we have is our own particular persuasion to do so. As individuals we can't overrule the Church. And that is what we would be doing if we accused each other of sin on this issue. 

The fact remains that one is convinced this way, another is convinced that way, but there is no universality on this in the churches. And so accusing the other side of sin is divisive and sinful. We should be brotherly about it, and remember that it is still possible that our side may be wrong. If we cannot take that position, then I would suggest that it is most likely that we are indeed wrong.

But if, let's say, I am wrong about hymns, then it is still true that I was wrong, but for the right reasons. I was not understanding, but what I did understand I used to the best of my ability to account for what Scripture was saying. In a sense, even if we were to find out that one side is right, we are still faced with the problem that both sides were yet wrong to some degree. Where do we draw a line in the sand to say, "This is sin" concerning this issue? I do not doubt your faith, Chris, and I hope you don't doubt mine. What we are looking for is greater obedience in ourselves and each other, not a demonstration of the other's faithlessness. So I won't accuse you of sin by being in favour of Exclusive Psalmody, even though I think it is wrong. I think you are acting out of faith, to the best of your ability. That is not a sin. Nor do I sin in favouring the singing of hymns. I may be wrong, but I am not sinning in that sense. It would rather be a sin to go against my conscience here.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 20, 2004)

When in doubt, just do what the Bible says - 

*Ephesians 5*
18And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21submitting to one another in the fear of God.

*Colossians 3*
16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. 

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 20, 2004)

John, I definitely see your point, in that it is not confessed by many Reformed churches as, say, the doctrines of grace, or paedobaptism. But it is in the WCF. Even so, I think we basically agree.

Phillip, did you follow the former thread in its entirety? If so, it should at least be clear that the exegesis of those verses is one of the very main things being debated, and that, as Fred pointed out specifically to you in that thread, it is not just as simple as quoting those verses as our culture would read them today.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 20, 2004)

Ah yes, it never is as simple as reading the Bible is it. That is the problems with today's church - needing to read into, out of, and around the Word of God instead of just listening to what God has said!

A member here asked if singing hymns was a sin - instead of introducing a full blown theological debate why don't we just give the WORD? Too much theology and not enough practice makes plenty who hear and none who do.

Remember - God uses the foolish things to confound the wise.

*1 Corinthians 1*
20Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Yes, it really is that simple. If it isn't then we should throw away our Bibles and all learn to read Greek and Hebrew, because the translations are not thorough nor trustworthy, and certainly cannot be illuminated by the Holy Spirit to ease a conscience seeking truth and wisdom from God.

Better yet, let's make sure that only those who read and write the original languages tell us what the Bible says. 

Phillip (No, I am not being sarcastic, just reacting to the ridiculous idea that the Bible is not sufficient).

[Edited on 10-20-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 20, 2004)

Phillip, we all believe in Sola Scriptura here. But that does not mean that the the words of the Word meant the same thing when they were written as they do in modern English. If the issue of Exclusive Psalmody could be settled simply by noting that our English translations use the words "hymn" and "spiritual song," and automatically equating that with what we mean by those words today, then the issue of Limited Atonement could just as easily be won by the Arminians by simply citing a few "all" or "whole world" verses. As Gerstner put it, "Beware the theology of the first glance." If you still believe it really is that simple, why did you ever say that you understood and accepted what Fred pointed out to you in the former thread about how it is not that simple?


----------



## pastorway (Oct 20, 2004)

I understand that for some it is not this simple. Pity.

Three distinct words are used in these verses. One means "psalm", one means "hymn" or "song", and one means "sacred song." 

If they all mean the same thing then why didn't Paul just say so? Because I believe the Bible tells us to sing a variety of types of songs to God, including a "new song" one day!

The problem we have here is that people try to make things so complicated looking fortruth and it really never is that complicated. Don;t think the long answer is always the right answer......

I would also suggest that we go to the Word first and then other books if at all when asking questions. Why do we always read what others have written about what God said instead of just reading God's Word? Should it not settle the matter? We don't trust the Word and we don;t trust the Spirit, and we don't trust ourselves, even though we have been redeemed!

I think it is time we learned to doubt our doubts and stick to the Word. It is sufficient.

That is all I have to say on the matter and I probably should not have even said it.

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 20, 2004)

> Ah yes, it never is as simple as reading the Bible is it. That is the problems with today's church - needing to read into, out of, and around the Word of God instead of just listening to what God has said!



Philip, how do you know you are right? (Now I agree with non-EP, so that's not my point). How do you know you have read and interpreted the bible correctly? (Remember the guy on the desert island?)




> "and we don't trust ourselves, even though we have been redeemed!"



That is a total non-sequitir. Being redeemed does not make us correct. It makes us more repsonsible to be correct even though we are fallen.

[Edited on 10-21-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 20, 2004)

> If they all mean the same thing then why didn't Paul just say so?



Phillip, I'm not trying to be a jerk here - 

What if Paul was using a Hebraism? Thrice repeating the same information, even suing different terms, is a common Hebraic occurence for exclamation. 

Its not that we want to take the long answer, but we do want to take the right answer which means we have to be sure we are right on, and that we have no deviated from orthodoxy. (Which is dangerous for you and I since we reject the EP position.)




> I think it is time we learned to doubt our doubts and stick to the Word. It is sufficient.



How do we know we are trusting the Word and not our doubts or thoughts about it?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 20, 2004)

Phillip, what would you say to an Arminian arguing for Universal Atonement who told you that you were just looking for complicated, extra-biblical answers in your interpretation, whereas he was simply reading the Bible and believing what it says, which is that Christ died for "all" and the "world"?


----------



## pastorway (Oct 20, 2004)

Honestly, I would go verse by verse and read the text to him that shows he is wrong.

I did this with an Arminian friend on the topic of predestinationa nd election. I just read the text. And he freaked out and told me I was trying to make a Calvinist of him. Really. I sat down with him and asked if I could just read some verses, I did just that, and he SAW it in the text without any comment from me!

Phillip


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Keylife_fan_
> If so what should be done if any thing. Do I leave the church I am in to find one that has a more pure form of Worship and if so what if I can't find one, do I start a home church and forsake fellowshipping with other believers who may be in idolatry? Is there such a thing as a pure church that does everything right and if so how does one find such a church?


I think, with respect to this as John has indicated, there must be some degree of charity. I'm an EP advocate as you will see on the thread Chris referenced. But at the same time, I know that most reformed churches today no longer hold to EP, and in fact most have never even heard of it. So I must prioritze what's really important in selecting a church. The element of singing is important, as are prayer, the reading of Scripture, etc. But the most important element of worship which determines the decision for me is the faithful preaching of the Word. That is the primary reason we gather together in corporate worship, to hear from God through His minister. I had to make a choice when I moved here to Chicago between an EP church with lousy preaching, and an OPC church with good preaching yet not EP. As you can see from my sig, I chose the OPC. I will have to make the same decision when we move down to Jackson as well. There are no EP churches there. So I must prioritize what is most important, mainly the preaching. All other differences can be tolerated for the most part, as we respect each others liberty of conscience in these difficult areas of disagreement.

[Edited on 22-10-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## blhowes (Oct 22, 2004)

Since many of the hymns we commonly sing nowadays are of fairly recent origin, I was curious what hymns were available in the early church. I found a collection of hymns at http://www.reformedreader.org/history/ecfcollection.htm - its a zipped up help file called "Gregory the Great: Selected Epistles; Ephraim the Syrian: Hymns, Homilies; Aphrahat: Demonstrations"

I was just wondering if anybody could give some background about these hymns? Were these hymns used during corporate worship and, if so, how widespread was their use in the different churches (ie., did most churches use them or was it just a select few)? Are these hymns different from what's referred to in Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16?

[Edited on 22-10-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## JohnV (Oct 22, 2004)

Bob:
A long time ago I read a piece about old hymns. All I remember of it is that Be Thou My Vision and Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken were older than the Reormation, like dating back to aroung Augustine's time. I don't know how true it was, or even if these in particular dated back that far, but I was left with the definite impression that hymns were sung right back to the time of the Apostles. So I too would like to see some answers to your question.

[Edited on 22-10-2004 by JohnV]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Oct 22, 2004)

Ok, I am going to be the "dummy" here so bear with me.

Are some of you saying that we MUST only sings the Psalms as hymns? Anything else is sinful? If we are singing doctrinly correct hymns we are in sin as a body of believers?

If I am wrong please forgive me, if I am not, that seems like a bit much to me. The bible says HYMNS so I would assume we are not being sinful in singing HYMNS.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2004)

Adam and Bob,

Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 speak of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." Chris has posted a link in this thread to the rather extensive debate that has gone on in another thread on exclusive psalmody in general and the meaning of this phrase in particular. 

You may wish to review what has been said previously, but I can sum up my position fairly simply which is that the modern interpretation of "psalm, hymns and spiritual songs" has overlaid a meaning on that phrase which is foreign to what Paul had in mind. These terms do not denote uninspired, man-made compositions (as wonderful as many modern hymns may be) but only have reference to the compositions found in the Book of Psalms, which is God's provision for congregational singing in public worship. The Septuagint, which was used by Jewish and Gentile Christians in the early church, refers to compositions in the Book of Psalms by these three terms. This is the plain meaning intended by Paul. We know this in part because the context refers to the "word of Christ," ie., that which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Also, I believe that the phrase "spiritual" in particular may be properly placed in front of all three terms and has reference again to the word which proceeds from the Holy Spirit. Only the Psalms have such an inspired source (inspired, that is, by the Holy Spirit). God's Psalter is sufficient for use by His people and was used exclusively by His people in the most reformed eras and congregations in church history. So, it is not that Paul was saying "sing from the Psalter, and make up some hymns and gospel music" but rather "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you sing praise to God from the Psalter that He has provided you." (That's obviously my paraphrase, but I think it is consistent with the meaning.) As noble as many hymns are, they do not compare with the inspired Psalms indited by the hand of God. Augustine said "no one is able to sing things worthy of God unless he has received them from Him." He said this in praise of the Psalter. 

As to whether non-inspired hymns were used in the early church, I suspect some were, but I also have reason to believe that the early church predominately sang the psalms alone. 




> This same tradition was carried over to the post-apostolic period of the early church. Dr. Phillip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church,[9] makes the point that during this period there were no hymns in the church, only Psalms. Drawing from the excellent article on Psalmody from the McClintock and Strong Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Cyclopaedia, [10] we learn that Chrysostom, the church father of the fourth century, in his sixth homily on Repentance, extolled the Psalms above the rest of Scripture to be sung by all classes of men, at all places, and on all occasions. During this same period, the heretics introduced the singing of hymns into the churches. The Gnostics, the Arians, and the Donatists all began to introduce songs other than the Psalms. This led to the decision of the Council of Laodicea in A.D. 360 to make a decision forbidding the use of hymns in the churches. During the long period of the Dark Ages, from the fifth to the sixteenth century, Psalm singing was preserved in the monasteries, while chanting was introduced into the worship services. Wycliffe and Huss, the morning stars of the Reformation, re-introduced into the churches the singing of Psalms.



See http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_37.html for further information on the history and warrant for exclusive psalmody in congregational worship.


----------



## blhowes (Oct 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Andrew_
> Adam and Bob,
> 
> Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 speak of "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." Chris has posted a link in this thread to the rather extensive debate that has gone on in another thread on exclusive psalmody in general and the meaning of this phrase in particular.
> ...



Thanks for summarizing your position. I didn't follow that thread so (at my reading speed) it'll take some time to catch up. I'll read the thread and the link you provided.

I enjoy singing hymns during the worship service, but my question was more out of curiosity than in defense of a particular position. I'm looking forward to reading the threads and learning more about the topic. Like I said, I enjoy singing hymns, but I'm finding more and more that my enjoyment isn't of prime importance when it comes to determining what should and shouldn't be part of the worship service (I also "enjoy" singing Kum Ba Yah, but...).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2004)

Bob, 

I appreciate your thoughts and commend you for your interest and perspective on the worship of God. When I first encountered exclusive psalm-singers 13 years ago, I thought they were nuts. The Regulative Principle of Worship seemed so radical and limiting that it was painful to conceive of this being the right way to worship. I did not appreciate right away how precious is the privilege to sing God's word and how important it is to approach God through worship only in ways that He has authorized and ordained. I chaffed at giving up (for public worship) Keith Green songs, "A Mighty Fortress is our God," and Christmas carols among certain of my favorites. I chaffed at giving up (for public worship) musicial instruments (separate but related issue). God graciously revealed me to though that worship is not about what I can "get" out of one hour every Sunday morning but rather what I can offer to God in praise and adoration by faith in the manner which He has prescribed. I fall far short of worshipping God rightly but it has been such a blessing to me to sing God's word to Him and in doing so I find that the word of Christ dwells richly in me. Singing the psalms has been hugely important in transforming my theology. The Psalter covers every human emotion and need and I find myself now at perfect peace in praising God with it alone.


----------



## blhowes (Oct 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Bob,
> 
> I appreciate your thoughts and commend you for your interest and perspective on the worship of God. When I first encountered exclusive psalm-singers 13 years ago, I thought they were nuts. The Regulative Principle of Worship seemed so radical and limiting that it was painful to conceive of this being the right way to worship. I did not appreciate right away how precious is the privilege to sing God's word and how important it is to approach God through worship only in ways that He has authorized and ordained. I chaffed at giving up (for public worship) Keith Green songs, "A Mighty Fortress is our God," and Christmas carols among certain of my favorites. I chaffed at giving up (for public worship) musicial instruments (separate but related issue). God graciously revealed me to though that worship is not about what I can "get" out of one hour every Sunday morning but rather what I can offer to God in praise and adoration by faith in the manner which He has prescribed. I fall far short of worshipping God rightly but it has been such a blessing to me to sing God's word to Him and in doing so I find that the word of Christ dwells richly in me. Singing the psalms has been hugely important in transforming my theology. The Psalter covers every human emotion and need and I find myself now at perfect peace in praising God with it alone.



I too have found lately how much I enjoy singing psalms during the worship service. The congregational church I attend sings from the Trinity hymnal, but they also read a psalm responsively followed immediately by singing that same psalm from the psalter. I like that very much.

I have another question, which most likely is answered in the thread or the link you provided (which I have yet to read), but I'll ask anyway.

One interesting thing about the scriptures is how multidimensional they are, especially the psalms. On the one hand, they are inspired by God and communicate to us exactly what God wants us to know, as if he took a pen and physically wrote it Himself. At the same time, they reflect the variety of emotions, struggles, hopes, victories, defeats that David (and the other Psalmists) personally experienced and put to music. A part of me wonders about the second aspect of David putting to music those things that flowed from a heart in tune with God. Is this an example that we should follow, or are we to only express those things which David experienced and put to music?


----------



## Peter (Oct 22, 2004)

> At the same time, they reflect the variety of emotions, struggles, hopes, victories, defeats that David (and the other Psalmists) personally experienced and put to music. A part of me wonders about the second aspect of David putting to music those things that flowed from a heart in tune with God. Is this an example that we should follow, or are we to only express those things which David experienced and put to music?



I wonder if one can conceive an emotion or experience one cannot find expressed in a Psalm.


----------



## blhowes (Oct 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I wonder if one can conceive an emotion or experience one cannot find expressed in a Psalm.


That's a good question and its one that I was thinking about last night after reading Andrew's pamphlet about EP. Are there thoughts, experiences, etc. that are expressed in the hymns that aren't expressed in the Psalms? 

My first thought would be yes, there are things expressed in hymns that aren't expressed in the Psalms. For example, hymns that specifically mention the name of Jesus - "All hail the power of Jesus Name". I've never gone through a Psalter to check. I know there are many Psalms that speak of Jesus in the Psalms, but I don't know if any of the songs in the Psalter have Jesus' name inserted into the lyrics. Does anybody who's more familiar with the Psalter know if Jesus is ever mentioned by name in those songs?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...



Jesus is just one of His many names. He is also called Lord, LORD, God, Redeemer, Holy One, Glorious One, Anointed One (from which we derive the name of Christ), Son, etc. 
We are called to praise the Person of Christ, which his names represent. The Psalms praise that person. Just because they use His other names in no way diminishes those praises, especially when many of these names are used in reference to Christ in the NT.


----------



## blhowes (Oct 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Jesus is just one of His many names. He is also called Lord, LORD, God, Redeemer, Holy One, Glorious One, Anointed One (from which we derive the name of Christ), Son, etc.
> We are called to praise the Person of Christ, which his names represent. The Psalms praise that person. Just because they use His other names in no way diminishes those praises, especially when many of these names are used in reference to Christ in the NT.


This is a challenging thread to find the right words to say. You may have to read between the lines a little.

Like you said, Psalms praise the person of Christ, and nothing can take away from their value. They're scripture, so nothing negative can be said about their use in worship. They're value isn't diminished because the name 'Jesus" isn't used in the Psalter. 

At the same time, I don't want to take away from the value of hymns that use and exalt the name of Jesus. Or hymns that speak of events in Jesus' life that (to my knowledge) aren't mentioned in Psalms. One that comes to mind is a hymn called "Master, the tempest is raging", which offers praise to Jesus for when he was asleep in the boat and then calmed the sea when he said, "Peace, be still". I'm sure there are others.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 23, 2004)

Bob, read Psalms 22 and 40


----------



## blhowes (Oct 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Bob, read Psalms 22 and 40


I've never sung these Psalms during a worship service, but it'd be a blessing. Not only can we rejoice, worship, and praise God for the truths about Jesus that they tell, but we can add to that praise to God for the details that He gives "before-the-fact".


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 24, 2004)

Andrew,
I have a couple of questions. For the record, I'm fairly settled regarding RP. You stated,


> I chaffed at giving up (for public worship) Keith Green songs, "A Mighty Fortress is our God," and Christmas carols among certain of my favorites. I chaffed at giving up (for public worship) musicial instruments (separate but related issue).



Is it possible to divide public and private worship? I do not see that distinction. Worship is an interwoven instrinisic part of the life of the elect. I Cor. 10:31. If it is improper and/or sinful to use anyother form of singing than exclusive psalmody in publie worship it would be the same in private worship. Singing praise to God's name is the same regardless of where it takes place. The same would apply to instrumental music. I was raised in an acapella setting. The duplicity of the position is sad. There is in it an erection of an artificial boundry between the sacred and secular. All we do is to the glory of God and should be done in a manner approved of and pleasing to him. The say that only acapella music brings him glory on the gathered Lord's day and then suddenly it is okay for one to bring out the guitar on Monday is inconsistent. Acapella RPW, when consistent, would rule out any used of instrumental music in the life of the Chrisitian. After all, is not the song written and sung on Monday done corum Deo? 

jAnd, a hearty AMEN!! to the following:


> God graciously revealed me to though that worship is not about what I can "get" out of one hour every Sunday morning but rather what I can offer to God in praise and adoration by faith in the manner which He has prescribed.


 Would that more would yield to the truth that our corporate worship is to be God focussed. The rub is what has he prescribed and what has he proscribed.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 24, 2004)

Lawrence,

I think it is proper to make a distinction between public and private worship; however, I apply the RPW to both. For instance, in our family, we do not sing hymns in family or private worship. We sing the psalms only accapella in public, family and private worship. But on another point (which would require a separate thread to address), we believe that head coverings are required in public worship -- but not for family or private worship. So, there is a difference between public and other occasions for worship, but I do believe the RPW applies to all. 

Does this mean I can't sing hymns on other occasions? On the contrary, I too feel that the dividing line between sacred and secular in life and art is a false dichotomy. I believe very much in music appreciation. In the proper context, with discernment, I can sing or listen to the words of Martin Luther or John Denver all to the glory of God. I believe there is a place for hymns or other wonderful but non-inspired songs - just not in the public, family or private worship of God. But all that we do in life and art should be done to God's glory. 

P.S. I noticed your Confederate heritage -- cool! One of my ancestors was Matthew Fontaine Maury, who served as Commander of the Confederate Navy, among other notable positions in his life.


----------



## blhowes (Oct 24, 2004)

Andrew,
I'm following most of what you say and I can appreciate your consistency. I was wondering, though, if you could just clarify this statement for me:


> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> In the proper context, with discernment, I can sing or listen to the words of Martin Luther or John Denver all to the glory of God. I believe there is a place for hymns or other wonderful but non-inspired songs - just not in the public, family or private worship of God. But all that we do in life and art should be done to God's glory.


Where does the use of hymns fit in if you don't use them during public, family, or private worship, which seems to cover all the bases? I would assume that if you listened to one of the "great hymns of the faith" that speaks of God's grandeur or of the works of Christ, that you would offer up praise to God for who He is or what He's done. How is this worship different from what you'd do in private, family, or public worship?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 24, 2004)

Bob, 

I am to glorify God in all that I do, whether reading a book by the Puritans or the newspaper, whether singing a psalm in public worship or singing along with the radio when a John Denver tune comes on. The RPW limits how we may worship God but it does not apply outside of formal worship. The RPW does not require that I only sing psalms in all places and in all times. It relates to a specific type of occasion. By way of analogy, many things that are lawful for me to do six days of the week are not lawful on the Lord's Day. Likewise, it is lawful to sing a hymn, but not in the RPW context. A hymn is merely a poem set to music. I can read poems, I can sing hymns -- all to God's glory. I can also sing psalms outside of formal worship to God's glory. But when God prescribes a certain way of worshipping Him then I must approach Him with a psalm of praise as He has commanded and not in any other way. The false sacred/secular dichotomy of which I spoke earlier has reference to all of life in that one can serve God in one's work for example as well as in the church, but it does not mean that there are no distinctions between set times of worship and the general duty to glorify God in all that we do. Does that clarify?


----------



## blhowes (Oct 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Does that clarify?


Yes, thanks.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_Is it possible to divide public and private worship? I do not see that distinction.



I do not see how we can possibly _not_ divide the two. If I'm misunderstanding the distinction you're trying to make, please say so, but at the moment I must say I was shocked by it. We are commanded to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), and thus all we do should be worship in a sense. However, under the RPW, we are forbidden from using anything in public worship that is not expressly laid out in Scripture for such use. Were we to interpret the RPW as equally applying to all private worship, the Christian would have to view all drama as an evil, which of course would include movies. Furthermore, other than the Lord's Supper, the RPW does not allow us to feast or have meals in the worship service. Examples such as that should make obvious the necessary biblical distinction between public and private worship - otherwise we would have to limit all the activities of our life to what is basically set forth in WCF.21.


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 24, 2004)

Chris, 
You may have misunderstood my point, but you argument seemingly is based upon the WCF, not Scripture.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Chris,
> You may have misunderstood my point, but you argument seemingly is based upon the WCF, not Scripture.



You said earlier:



> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> For the record, I'm fairly settled regarding RP.



I guess I took that to mean that you basically accepted it - is that what you meant? If not, I think one of the most basic examples of the RPW being illustrated in Scripture is Cain's offering. It was an offering to the LORD, which Cain intended to be pleasing to God. However, God rejected it even though Cain had a good intent. He was trying to be creative and innovative by offering what he thought would be admirable and pleasing to God, when God had simply commanded something else already. And because Cain went beyond God's specific instructions on how to worship, and added his own element in attempt to please God, God rebuked and rejected his attempted worship.

This principle is paralleled numerous times throughout the Bible, clearly showing that God considers it sinful for us to "worship" Him in any way not expressly commanded by Him. However, we cannot take that "worship" to mean all of the God-glorifying events included in every minute of our lives, for that would unbiblically reduce our lives to only that which God has specifically commanded in Scripture to be used for worshipping Him, and would exclude eating, drama and the like. That is how we know that there is a special sense of "worship" to which examples such as Cain's point, and a look at those examples will easily show that it is the public worship of God where the Word and sacraments are present, rather than the minute-to-minute worship of Him that should be constantly present in our daily lives.


----------



## Authorised (Nov 8, 2004)

Exclusive Psalmody:Calvinists::KJV-only:Fundamentalists


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> Exclusive Psalmody:Calvinists::KJV-only:Fundamentalists



Except for this one little minor difference: When the Psalter is put next to hymns, the former is divinely inspired, whereas the latter is not. The KJV, on the other hand, when put next to other translations, is no more divinely inspired than any of them.


----------



## Authorised (Nov 8, 2004)

Looks like I just provoked the most self-contradicting argument ever. 


The translations are not inspired, except when we set them to metre and music and call it a Psalter? Come on, do people really believe this because they think it's right, or is it because we wish to imitate in every way Puritans who were overreacting to abuses by the RCC.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 8, 2004)

Take it easy, Aaron. There are quite a number of ways to say things. This discussion was conducted in seemly manner.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> Looks like I just provoked the most self-contradicting argument ever.
> 
> 
> The translations are not inspired, except when we set them to metre and music and call it a Psalter? Come on, do people really believe this because they think it's right, or is it because we wish to imitate in every way Puritans who were overreacting to abuses by the RCC.



It's not that the translations of the Psalms are themselves inspired. It's an issue of what we're comparing. In the EP debate, in the comparison of Psalms to hymns, what's being compared is the _content_ of what is being said by each song, and the recognition that the content of the Psalms is inspired, while that of the hymns is not, even if it may be doctrinally accurate. In the KJV debate, on the other hand, in the comparison of translations, what's being compared is the _very words_ chosen to translate each Hebrew and Greek word, and so neither version has divine inspiration in that sense.

[Edited on 12-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Nov 12, 2004)

What about worshipping God in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus_
> What about worshipping God in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?



The debate starts again! That was actually discussed at _enormous_ length and depth in this thread.


----------

